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

> Mr. Todd Blanche, Mr. Karim Khan, and all of you sitting on the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court,

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Open letter
- Published: 2026-07-06
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-karim-khan-a-todd-blanche-et-a-une-justice-internationale-en-crise

## 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**.

*I write this letter with an unease I do not hide. I deeply believe in a strong **international** justice system, capable of standing up to the powerful. But I cannot look away from the gray areas surrounding both Washington and The Hague in this affair.*

## 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.

*I understand the American legal argument about never ratifying the Rome Statute. But sanctioning judges individually is not defending **international** law — it is sabotaging it by force. The West cannot preach the rule of law in Kyiv while trampling it in The Hague.*

## 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.

*I cannot, and will not, minimize the gravity of what you are accused of. If the facts are proven, they are incompatible with the position you held. **International** justice cannot afford to be led by someone accused of abusing their **power** over a subordinate.*

## 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.

*I find this mid-procedure rule change deeply troubling, whatever the gravity of the accusations against you. A justice system that changes its own rules to smooth the path to a decision, even one legitimate on the merits, exposes itself to accusations of arbitrariness it cannot afford.*

## 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.

*I fear that **pressure** from Washington could push the ICC to act in haste, which would be a **strategic** mistake as much as an ethical one. **International** justice must show it can reform under its own rules, not on the timetable of its adversaries.*

## 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: **Western** **governments**, 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.

*This contradiction genuinely irritates me. How can we demand that Putin answer for his crimes before the ICC if we simultaneously tolerate Washington sabotaging that same Court the moment it touches its own interests? Universal justice cannot be applied selectively.*

## 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.

*I am genuinely worried about this precedent. If the United States can sanction international judges who inconvenience it, why could Russia or China not do the same tomorrow? Authoritarianism is not defeated by borrowing its methods.*

## 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**.

*I keep thinking about the victims waiting while these institutions settle their internal disputes. Justice that drags on too long ends up looking, to those victims, like justice that has forgotten them.*

## 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.

*I remain convinced that your military firmness, Mr. Trump, protects the West against real threats. But this letter is also an opportunity to tell you that military force alone is not enough to build a credible international order if you simultaneously sabotage its judicial institutions.*

## 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.

*I deeply believe in the press's role as a last line of defense against institutional opacity. Without these successive journalistic revelations, this affair would likely have remained buried in confidential reports that no one would ever have read.*

## 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.

*I understand the geopolitical calculations pushing Europe to go easy on Washington in the middle of the war in Ukraine. But European silence on this matter increasingly looks like a diplomatic cowardice that will cost the Union's credibility dearly on the international stage.*

## 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.

*I believe this crisis, however painful for the institution, could paradoxically strengthen the ICC if it draws the right governance lessons from it. But the history of international institutions has taught me to remain cautious about their actual capacity for reform.*

## 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.

*I close this letter with the hope, perhaps naive, that this crisis could serve as a catalyst for genuine ICC reform rather than its slow destruction. But hope is not enough: concrete action will be needed, on both sides of the Atlantic.*

## 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.

*I ask you, those reading this, not to look away from this affair on the grounds that it seems technical or distant. International justice will only survive if Western citizens demand of it, and of their own governments, a consistency it currently struggles to demonstrate.*

## 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.

*I close this letter with no illusion about a swift resolution to this crisis, but with the conviction that naming the contradictions, on both sides of the Atlantic and both sides of The Hague, remains the necessary first step toward more credible international justice.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## 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

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-karim-khan-a-todd-blanche-et-a-une-justice-internationale-en-crise