Podcast transcript
Five Cents takes on the power fight at The Hague by asking why the International Criminal Court’s removal of prosecutor Karim Khan is not just a personnel scandal, but a test of whether the Court can still act with authority under political pressure. We’ll cover the misconduct case, the struggle to find a successor, and why Israel and Gaza, the United States, and wavering member states all matter to what happens next. The place to start is the prosecutor’s role, because at the ICC, that office is not administrative background. It is the engine room.
The International Criminal Court does not have its own police force, and it does not control governments. Its power depends on law, cooperation, and credibility. The prosecutor decides which investigations to pursue, which arrest warrants to seek, and how to frame cases that can involve heads of state, military leaders, and alleged war crimes. That means the job is legal, but it is also intensely political in the small-p sense: every major decision lands in a world of governments, alliances, wars, and public accusations of double standards.
That is why Karim Khan became such a central figure. His office was tied to some of the Court’s most sensitive work, especially cases connected to Israel and Gaza. For supporters of the Court, pursuing those cases showed that international justice should apply even when powerful allies are involved. For critics, it fed accusations that the Court was overreaching, biased, or stepping into conflicts it could not fairly manage. Those arguments were already fierce before the disciplinary case against Khan reached its conclusion.
The formal reason for Khan’s removal was not a ruling on Israel, Gaza, or any other case. It was a misconduct process. He had already been suspended in early June while disciplinary proceedings were under way. Then, on July 24, 2026, the Assembly of States Parties voted to dismiss him after reviewing the investigation and expert advice. That distinction matters. The official action was about personal misconduct findings. But the consequences fall on an institution already surrounded by political pressure, so the removal cannot be understood as a private HR matter.
The succession problem is now the Court’s most urgent practical challenge. A new prosecutor has to restore trust inside the office after a public scandal. They have to keep major investigations moving, and convince member states that the Court is serious, independent, and professionally run. That is a hard combination. A candidate seen as too cautious may be accused of bending to pressure. A candidate seen as too confrontational may face immediate diplomatic resistance. And any view they have, or are perceived to have, on Israel and Gaza will be examined closely.
The United States is especially important here, not because this is only an American story, but because Washington has long had a complicated relationship with the ICC and has been pushing back against the Court over politically sensitive cases. Other governments also have their own reasons to resist, support, or limit the Court. The result is a narrow path for the next prosecutor. They need enough legal independence to pursue difficult cases, enough diplomatic skill to keep cooperation alive, and enough personal credibility to avoid becoming the story themselves.
There is also a broader warning sign: Chad’s announcement that it would withdraw from the ICC, just days after Khan’s dismissal. One withdrawal does not collapse the Court, but it does point to a wider fragility. The ICC depends on states staying committed even when its work becomes uncomfortable. When a leadership vacuum, misconduct scandal, and diplomatic backlash arrive together, the risk is not only slower casework. It is that governments start treating the Court as optional when it targets their friends, their rivals, or themselves.
So the short version is this: Khan’s removal closes one disciplinary chapter but opens a much bigger institutional one. The ICC now has to choose a prosecutor who can repair confidence, protect the independence of live cases, and survive pressure from powerful states and skeptical member governments. A useful follow-up would be a Five Cents episode on how the ICC actually enforces arrest warrants when it has no police force of its own, because that explains the Court’s strength and its biggest weakness at the same time. And with that, you're up to speed in a few minutes.