To Karim Khan, to Todd Blanche, and to an international justice system in crisis

Introduction: a letter to those who decide the fate of international criminal justice

Why I am writing this letter today

Mr. Todd Blanche, Mr. Karim Khan, and all of you sitting on the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court, I write to you as a columnist, not as a lawyer. On July 2, 2026, the acting Attorney General of the United States declared that the ICC "acts in an increasingly arbitrary and illegitimate manner," formally rejecting any jurisdiction of the Court over American nationals. That statement deserves a public, reasoned response, without indulgence toward any party involved.

This open letter arrives at a precise moment: one where the International Criminal Court, already weakened by American sanctions, is about to decide the fate of its own chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, suspended since May 2025 over allegations of serious sexual misconduct. The coincidence of these two crises, institutional and personal, deserves to be named plainly.

What I want, and what I do not want, in this letter

I am not seeking to exonerate Karim Khan, nor to excuse the contempt shown by the Trump administration toward an institution meant to embody international justice. I simply want to lay out the facts, as documented by verified sources, and ask all of you to be held to account commensurate with your respective responsibilities.

The transparency I demand of you, I hold myself to as well: no claim in this letter will be made without a verifiable source, and I will say so clearly whenever a gray area remains in this matter.

To Todd Blanche: the American rejection of ICC jurisdiction

A statement heavy with consequences

Mr. Blanche, your statement of July 2, 2026 did not come out of nowhere. It fits within an American policy hostile to the International Criminal Court since February 2025, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing sanctions against the ICC, citing the Court's investigations targeting American and Israeli nationals, notably in connection with the arrest warrants issued against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.

In August 2025, these sanctions were extended to other ICC judges and prosecutors, a move widely criticized by human rights defense organizations as an attempt to intimidate an independent international tribunal. Your letter of June 29, 2026, addressed to the Court, extends that hard line.

A legitimate question, a questionable method

I put a direct question to you: can one seriously claim to defend the rule of law while sanctioning the very judges tasked with enforcing it at the international level? Your argument that the ICC has no jurisdiction over citizens of a state that never signed the Rome Statute has a real legal basis, debated among international law experts. But the method chosen, personal sanctions against sitting magistrates, amounts to intimidation that far exceeds the bounds of a legitimate legal disagreement.

This contradiction, Mr. Blanche, undermines the very credibility of your argument. American sovereignty is not defended by personally attacking judges who, moreover, exercise a function recognized by 125 ICC member states.

To Karim Khan: the accusations against you

A suspension that has lasted more than a year

Mr. Khan, you have been suspended from your duties as chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court since May 2025, pending an investigation into allegations of serious sexual misconduct, involving non-consensual sexual contact with a lawyer working within your own office, at your residence and during official missions. These allegations were investigated by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).

In March 2026, a panel of three judges initially found that the OIOS investigation did not establish misconduct under the applicable legal framework, a finding that for a time appeared to clear you. But that conclusion was quickly challenged, and in April 2026, a committee of 21 states voted fifteen to four, with two abstentions, to proceed with disciplinary action against you.

A confirmed suspension, a recommended dismissal

On June 8 and 9, 2026, the ICC Bureau, its 21-member executive committee, confirmed your suspension and referred your case to a special session, concluding there was "serious misconduct" by a two-thirds majority. On June 24, 2026, Reuters revealed that this same Bureau was recommending your outright removal over an "inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior staff member."

On June 19, 2026, the British bar, the Bar Standards Board, also suspended you from practicing law in England and Wales, a professional sanction separate from the UN proceedings but adding further weight to the accusations against you.

Your defense, Mr. Khan, and its limits

"Astonishing, unjustified and unlawful"

On June 26, 2026, you told Al Arabiya that your suspension had "violated procedures," calling it "astonishing, unjustified and unlawful." You have the right to defend yourself, Mr. Khan, and the presumption of innocence must apply to you as it does to anyone, including the chief prosecutor of a tribunal meant to embody it for others.

But your procedural defense runs into a troubling fact revealed in early July 2026 by the outlet Middle East Eye: the ICC Bureau reportedly changed its voting process, moving from a two-step system to a single vote combining the finding of misconduct and the removal decision into one motion. This rule change, occurring mid-procedure, raises legitimate questions about the fairness of the process applied to you.

A procedure questionable on both sides

This change to the voting process is, in my view, a real problem that in no way clears the accusations against you, but that does call into question the procedural rigor of an institution claiming to embody judicial exemplarity for the entire world. A court that judges war crimes cannot afford to improvise its own internal rules midstream.

The vote on your fate must take place at the Assembly of States Parties, requiring an absolute majority of the 125 member states, or 63 votes, under article 46 of the Rome Statute. That vote, initially scheduled for July 24, 2026, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal and Reuters, will determine your future at the head of the Court's prosecution office.

To the Assembly of States Parties: your collective responsibility

A vote that carries the ICC's credibility

Ladies and gentlemen, representatives of the 125 member states of the International Criminal Court, the vote before you is not a mere administrative formality. It will determine whether the international criminal court can reform itself from within, holding its own leadership accountable, at the very moment it faces unprecedented external pressure from the American administration.

This two-front battle — internal governance crisis and external attack from Washington — places the ICC in a position of maximum vulnerability. A vote perceived as tainted by procedural irregularities would further weaken the legitimacy of an already fragile institution.

Do not let the United States dictate your timeline

I urge you not to let American pressure influence the pace or nature of your internal deliberations concerning Mr. Khan. The disciplinary process against him must run its course under clear and fair rules, independent of the political calendar in Washington or any other Western capital.

It is precisely in moments of institutional vulnerability that procedural rigor must be at its most scrupulous, not its most expedient.

What this crisis reveals about the weakening of international justice

An institution caught in a crossfire

The International Criminal Court is today going through a double crisis: an internal governance crisis triggered by the accusations against its own chief prosecutor, and an external legitimacy crisis fueled by the sanctions and jurisdictional rejection put forward by the Trump administration. This convergence of crises durably weakens the Court's capacity to pursue its investigations, particularly those targeting leaders of major powers.

This weakening objectively benefits every regime that fears effective international justice, from Moscow to Beijing, by way of Tehran. Every internal crisis at the ICC is exploited by these regimes to further delegitimize an institution that, for all its flaws, remains one of the few mechanisms of universal justice available.

The West cannot afford this contradiction

There is an embarrassing contradiction in the current Western position: Westerngovernments, several of which actively support the ICC's investigations against Vladimir Putin for crimes committed in Ukraine, simultaneously tolerate the United States, a major Western ally, sanctioning and delegitimizing that same institution whenever it targets American or Israeli interests.

This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the Western argument that international justice must apply universally, with no exception for the powerful. One cannot demand that Russia answer before the ICC while shielding American attacks against that same Court.

The dangerous precedent of sanctioning magistrates

An unprecedented pressure tool against international justice

American sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors, put in place since February 2025 and expanded in August 2025, set a dangerous precedent in relations between major powers and international judicial institutions. No other major Western state has ever resorted to such a tool of direct pressure against sitting international magistrates.

Once established, this precedent could be invoked by other powers, including those hostile to the West, to justify their own pressure against international judicial institutions that inconvenience them, creating a vicious cycle of mutual weakening of universal justice.

Human rights organizations sound the alarm

Several human rights defense organizations, along with international law experts cited by specialized publications such as PennCERL, have denounced these sanctions as a serious attack on international judicial independence. These criticisms do not come from circles hostile to the West, but from Western legal experts worried about the direction taken by their own government.

This concern deserves to be heard, Mr. Blanche, beyond the immediate political considerations driving your current position.

What this case means for victims awaiting justice

Investigations on hold during the institutional crisis

While the International Criminal Court goes through this double crisis, the victims of the crimes it is supposed to prosecute — whether Ukrainian populations affected by the Russian invasion, or other victims of war crimes around the world — are waiting for justice on a timeline that seems to recede further with every new institutional twist.

This reality must remain at the center of every concern, Mr. Khan, Mr. Blanche, and all of you members of the Assembly of States Parties. Governance disputes and geopolitical power struggles must never make us forget that real victims are waiting for a real judicial response.

A responsibility that outweighs institutional egos

I ask all of you to put this priority back at the center of your decisions. Neither personal ambitions nor Washington's geopolitical calculations should take precedence over the fundamental mission of the International Criminal Court: delivering justice to victims of crimes their own states refuse or are unable to prosecute.

It is this mission, and this mission alone, that should guide every decision made in the coming weeks, whether the vote on Mr. Khan's future or the Court's response to American pressure.

To the Trump administration: the consistency I demand

Strong military posture, weakened international justice: a contradiction

Mr. Trump, your administration maintains a firm military stance toward Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, a firmness I applaud without reservation in the context of the war in Ukraine. But this military firmness comes paired with a systematic sabotage of international judicial institutions the moment they touch American or Israeli interests, a contradiction I cannot ignore.

One cannot claim to defend a rules-based international order while sanctioning the judges responsible for enforcing those very rules. This inconsistency undermines your own message of firmness toward authoritarian regimes that have themselves never recognized the ICC's legitimacy.

A missed opportunity for moral leadership

You could have chosen, Mr. Trump, to defend American sovereignty through conventional diplomatic means rather than personal sanctions against magistrates. This missed opportunity for moral leadership costs Western credibility dearly on the international stage, notably among countries that might otherwise be persuaded to join the ICC or cooperate with it further.

I continue to believe your military firmness remains necessary against Russian, Chinese, Iranian and North Korean threats. But that firmness should never justify sabotaging international judicial institutions, even when they personally inconvenience you.

To the Western press: keep documenting, without letting up

The indispensable role of journalistic revelations

I want to salute here the work of journalists at Reuters, the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Eye, whose successive revelations have documented, step by step, the evolution of this affair. Without this rigorous journalistic work, the governance crisis touching Mr. Khan would likely have remained confined to the hushed corridors of The Hague, far from public view.

This journalistic transparency is, in my view, an indispensable check on international institutions that, by nature, often operate with excessive confidentiality about their own internal dysfunctions.

Keep demanding accountability, on both sides

I ask you, fellow journalists, to keep documenting this affair with the same rigor, whether the gray areas surrounding the proceedings against Mr. Khan, or the real motivations behind American hostility toward the International Criminal Court. Neither party deserves indulgent journalistic treatment.

It is this demand for rigor, applied without favor or institutional bias, that will allow the Western public to truly understand the stakes of this double crisis.

To the European Union: is your silence complicity?

A timid European reaction to American sanctions

Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the European Union, your reaction to American sanctions against International Criminal Court magistrates has remained, since February 2025, strikingly measured. Yet several member states of the Union count among the staunchest defenders of ICC jurisdiction, notably in the investigations targeting Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

This diplomatic reticence, no doubt driven by a desire to preserve the transatlantic relationship at a time when American support in the war in Ukraine remains indispensable, nonetheless carries a cost: it signals that the defense of international justice can be negotiated based on the geostrategic interests of the moment.

A consistency to urgently recover

I ask you to step out of this ambiguity. Defending ICC jurisdiction against Russia while staying silent on American sanctions against its own magistrates undermines your collective credibility on the international stage. This inconsistency escapes no informed observer, not Moscow, not Beijing, both of which use it extensively in their anti-Western propaganda.

A firmer European position, including toward your American ally, would paradoxically strengthen the credibility of the entire Western camp in its defense of international law.

What this case reveals about international institutional governance

Insufficient oversight mechanisms

This affair highlights a broader structural weakness affecting many international institutions: the absence of oversight mechanisms robust enough to prevent, detect and swiftly sanction misconduct by their most senior leaders. It took more than a year, between the first allegations against Mr. Khan and a final vote on his fate, for the disciplinary process to run its full course.

This institutional slowness, documented at every stage by the international press, illustrates the limits of the current governance mechanisms of the United Nations and the tribunals that depend on it, such as the International Criminal Court.

Reforms needed, beyond the individual case

Beyond Mr. Khan's personal fate, this affair should serve as a catalyst for broader reform of the internal oversight mechanisms of international judicial institutions. Faster, more transparent procedures, less vulnerable to last-minute changes, would strengthen public trust in these institutions essential to the international order.

It is this structural reform, more than the outcome of the July 24 vote alone, that will determine whether the International Criminal Court can regain lasting credibility in the years ahead.

What history will remember about the summer of 2026

A pivotal moment for international justice

The summer of 2026 will likely be remembered as a pivotal moment for the future of the International Criminal Court. The vote on July 24, 2026 on Mr. Khan's fate, combined with the constant pressure exerted by the Trump administration, will determine whether this institution can survive this double ordeal with its credibility intact.

Whatever the outcome of that vote, the ICC will need to undertake deep reflection on its own internal governance, its oversight mechanisms, and its capacity to withstand external pressure without sacrificing procedural rigor.

A lesson for international justice as a whole

This crisis reaches far beyond Mr. Khan's individual case. It questions the capacity of the entire international justice system to reform itself from within while resisting attempts at weakening from powers that refuse to recognize its jurisdiction. It is this dual requirement, internal reform and external resistance, that will define the credibility of international justice for the next decade.

I will keep following this affair with the same factual rigor, without indulgence toward any party involved, convinced that only this standard can preserve what remains of public trust in these institutions.

To readers: why this affair concerns you

Weakened international justice weakens us all

To you reading this, I want to convince you that this affair, however distant and institutional it may seem, concerns you directly. A weakened International Criminal Court, unable to hold its own leaders accountable while resisting pressure from major powers, means less credible international justice for prosecuting war crimes committed in Ukraine, in Gaza, or anywhere else in the world.

This erosion of international justice directly benefits authoritarian regimes that never intended to recognize its legitimacy, from Moscow to Pyongyang. Every weakening of the ICC is a quiet victory for these regimes.

Stay vigilant, demand transparency

I invite you to follow this affair with the same demand for rigor I have tried to apply in this letter. Hold your own Western governments accountable when they look away from the contradictions of their allies on international justice. This citizen vigilance remains, ultimately, one of the last defenses against the silent erosion of these institutions.

It is with this conviction that I close this letter, addressed to everyone who holds, at their own scale, a share of responsibility in the future of international criminal justice.

Conclusion: an international justice to reinvent, not to abandon

Neither naivety nor cynicism

I close this open letter without naivety about the current state of the International Criminal Court, but also without giving in to the cynicism that would have this institution condemned to powerlessness. The crisis the Court is going through, between the accusations against Mr. Khan and American sanctions, is real and serious. But it is not necessarily fatal, provided the actors involved choose transparency over a headlong rush forward.

The vote on July 24, 2026 will be a first test of this capacity for reform. It will inevitably be followed by other tests, as long as the American administration maintains its policy of sanctions against the Court's magistrates.

A final call for shared responsibility

To all of you, Mr. Blanche, Mr. Khan, and the representatives of the Assembly of States Parties, I ask you to own your share of responsibility in the current crisis. International justice will not be saved through political posturing, but through acts of institutional rigor and procedural transparency, on both sides of this affair.

It is this demand, and this demand alone, that I carry in this letter, convinced that it remains the only viable path to preserving what can still be preserved of the credibility of international criminal justice.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I sign this open letter as a pro-Western, pro-Ukraine columnist, convinced of the need for strong international justice to prosecute Russian war crimes. That conviction does not stop me from severely criticizing the inconsistencies of the Trump administration toward the International Criminal Court, nor from acknowledging the gravity of the accusations against Mr. Khan.

I have invented no quote, no fact, no date in this text. Every element put forward comes from verifiable journalistic and institutional sources, listed below.

What I do not know

I cannot determine, based on the publicly available information at this time, the definitive truth of the accusations against Mr. Khan, nor the exact motivations behind the ICC Bureau's decision to change its voting process. These are questions for a judicial and institutional inquiry I cannot conduct myself, and I commit to revising my conclusions should new factual elements emerge.

Sources

Primary sources

Anadolu Agency, US rejects ICC jurisdiction — July 2, 2026

United States Department of Justice, official statements — July 2026

Reuters, ICC Bureau recommends removing Karim Khan — June 24, 2026

Secondary sources

PennCERL, analysis of American sanctions against the ICC — 2026

Reuters, July 24 vote set on Karim Khan's future — June 18, 2026

The Wall Street Journal, July vote on removing Karim Khan — June 2026

Middle East Eye, ICC Bureau changes voting process — July 2, 2026