International Criminal Court member states have removed Karim Khan from his position as the court’s chief prosecutor following findings of serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty.
The unprecedented decision has immediately raised questions about what Khan’s departure means for the ICC’s most politically sensitive investigations, including the arrest warrant issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The answer is important: Khan’s removal does not automatically cancel Netanyahu’s warrant.
The warrant was authorised by ICC judges, not imposed by Khan acting alone. It therefore remains active unless the court’s judges formally decide to withdraw, suspend or otherwise alter it.
Why Karim Khan was removed
The Assembly of States Parties, the body representing the ICC’s member countries, voted to remove Khan after an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct involving a female member of staff.
The court’s oversight process concluded that Khan had committed serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty. Reports said 82 of the ICC’s 125 member states supported his removal, while 13 voted against it and others abstained or did not participate.
Khan has repeatedly denied the allegations. His legal representatives have argued that the process was unfair and indicated that he intends to challenge the decision through available legal channels.
His removal is historically significant because no previous sitting chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court had been dismissed in this manner.
It also leaves the institution facing a difficult leadership transition while it is handling major investigations involving conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and other regions.
What happens to Netanyahu’s arrest warrant?
Khan applied for arrest warrants concerning Netanyahu and then-Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant in May 2024.
A panel of ICC judges later approved the warrants in November 2024 after independently examining the prosecution’s application and supporting material.
That distinction matters.
The prosecutor requests an arrest warrant, but judges decide whether the legal threshold has been met. Once judges issue a warrant, the departure of the prosecutor who originally sought it does not invalidate the judicial decision.
Khan’s removal therefore has no immediate legal effect on Netanyahu’s warrant. The same principle applies to other existing warrants and investigations being handled by the court.
A future prosecutor could influence how actively a case is pursued, what additional evidence is presented and which prosecution strategies are followed. However, a new prosecutor cannot simply erase an existing judicial warrant through a personal or political decision.
Any attempt to change the warrant would have to pass through the ICC’s legal process.
What Netanyahu is accused of
The ICC warrant alleges that Netanyahu bears criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity connected to the Gaza conflict.
The allegations include the use of starvation as a method of warfare and responsibility for acts including murder, persecution and other inhumane treatment.
These remain allegations before the court. Netanyahu has not been convicted by the ICC, and the issuing of an arrest warrant is not the same as a finding of guilt after trial.
Israel strongly rejects the court’s jurisdiction and denies the allegations. Israeli officials have described the case as politically motivated and argue that the ICC has no authority over Israel because the country is not a member of the court.
The ICC maintains that it has jurisdiction because Palestine accepted the court’s authority and became an ICC member state. The court considers alleged crimes committed within Palestinian territory to fall under that jurisdiction, regardless of the nationality of the accused.
Could political pressure affect the case?
The ICC is facing intense political and diplomatic pressure, particularly from the United States and Israel.
Neither country is a member of the court, and both have challenged its authority over Israeli and American nationals. US authorities have also imposed sanctions on several ICC officials in response to investigations involving Israel and earlier inquiries involving American personnel.
Khan’s removal is connected to misconduct findings rather than a judicial rejection of the Netanyahu case. Nevertheless, the timing will fuel arguments on all sides.
Supporters of Netanyahu may portray Khan’s dismissal as evidence that the entire investigation was compromised. Critics of Israel may fear that political pressure will be used to weaken or delay the prosecution.
Legally, however, the issues are separate.
Allegations concerning Khan’s personal conduct do not automatically determine whether evidence in an unrelated criminal case is valid. Those questions must be considered by judges according to the evidence and the court’s governing rules.
Can Netanyahu actually be arrested?
The ICC has no international police force of its own. It relies on member countries to enforce its arrest warrants.
In principle, ICC member states are expected to arrest a person subject to a valid warrant if that individual enters their territory. In practice, enforcement can be heavily influenced by diplomacy, domestic politics and disputes over immunity.
Netanyahu could therefore face restrictions when travelling to countries that recognise the court’s authority. Whether every member state would carry out an arrest is less certain.
Some governments have said they would respect their ICC obligations, while others have challenged the warrant or avoided giving a clear commitment.
The warrant can remain active even when an arrest appears politically difficult. Several ICC suspects have remained wanted for years before being detained, surrendering or appearing before the court under changed circumstances.
What happens next at the ICC?
The court must now begin the process of selecting Khan’s permanent replacement. Until that process is completed, senior officials within the Office of the Prosecutor are expected to maintain the court’s ongoing work.
A new prosecutor will inherit an institution facing internal credibility problems, external sanctions and several politically explosive cases.
The leadership change could affect priorities, staffing and prosecution strategy. It does not, by itself, overturn judicial rulings already issued by the court.
For Netanyahu, the central fact remains unchanged: the arrest warrant continues to exist.
For the ICC, the challenge is now larger than replacing one official. The court must demonstrate that it can hold its own leadership accountable while preserving the independence of investigations that have angered some of the world’s most powerful governments.
Karim Khan may no longer lead the prosecution office, but the allegations against Netanyahu have not been dismissed, the warrant has not been withdrawn and the legal process has not ended.