Certain institutional breakdowns occur not via overt scandal but through procedural steps, where sabotage appears as legitimate inquiry and responsibility. Before the implications become clear, the harm is already done.

I worry this describes the campaign against Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Recent steps appear to advance aims that the United States and Israel have pursued for months.

The sequence began in April 2024, when US senators cautioned and in effect threatened Khan that pursuing an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes would make him a target.

Khan proceeded anyway, requesting warrants for Netanyahu, former defense minister Yoav Gallant, and a Hamas leader, consistent with prior actions against Russian president Vladimir Putin, former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, and Taliban figures.

Yet Khan's opponents have initiated discussion of his removal, using claims of sexual misconduct as the opening move. This reflects an institution failing to apply its own standards of fairness to an internal issue.

Although an internal judicial panel created by the court reviewed the claims and determined they fell short of proving misconduct, advocates for removal continue.

In the newest turn, ICC member states plan to merge two distinct issues, whether serious misconduct took place and whether the prosecutor should be removed, into one vote.

This step carries real weight.

Combining the questions, when the first remains unproven, allows removal on an unverified claim or on an unrelated matter, such as a consensual relationship from a position of authority that no one has asserted.

Given that the Khan matter forms part of a wider effort against the ICC, it is useful to note the court's opponents and their objectives.

'Brick by brick'

On 13 July, US secretary of state Marco Rubio wrote in The Wall Street Journal under a headline that stated the goal plainly: Why We Are Dismantling the International Criminal Court. The words were not empty.

The US has already imposed sanctions on 11 senior ICC officials, including Khan, two deputy prosecutors, and eight judges, freezing their bank accounts and restricting access to credit cards along with services from Apple, Amazon, and PayPal.

Rubio went further, framing the effort to dismantle the ICC brick by brick as a broader campaign and calling on allies that share the emphasis on national sovereignty to join.

Reports indicate that when US president Donald Trump met Chinese president Xi Jinping in May, he proposed that China and Russia, neither party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC, align against the court.

That the chosen partners are the two nations most concerned about the court's reach reveals more about the intent behind the Khan case than statements about sovereignty.

One need not invoke conspiracy to recognize the shared interests of US and Israeli leaders.

The Trump administration and Netanyahu seek the same outcome: preventing any international court from holding soldiers, border agents, or allies accountable, regardless of allegations of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Both view the Khan matter as an opportunity to limit the court. They need not attack it externally if member states can weaken it internally by disregarding a judicial finding and holding a political vote against the prosecutor who issued inconvenient warrants.

States that remain party to the Rome Statute now confront a decision with lasting effects.

They can insist on a process that matches the standards the court promotes and that grants its prosecutor the fairness it requires of states. Or they can establish that political considerations override judicial conclusions.

The proper path is clear. The ICC must stay independent and must not yield to those seeking to dismantle it brick by brick. Khan has demonstrated resolve in seeking warrants for figures once seen as beyond reach. Amid broad challenges to international justice and the rule of law, including from those facing charges, he merits recognition and backing.

This article was originally published by Project Syndicate on 17 July 2026. EUobserver republishes it under a content partnership with Project Syndicate.