ICC

Lawyers for the ICC’s ousted Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan say he is the victim of a political witchhunt, motivated by his decision to go after Israeli leaders for war crimes. Khan was removed from office over sexual assault allegations. Soraya Lennie explains.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently launched a public attack on the International Criminal Court (ICC), vowing to “dismantle the ICC—brick by brick.” Washington’s position is that the ICC has no authority to try officials from non-member states—such as the US itself—or their allies, and that it will not accept any international court exercising jurisdiction over American citizens without US consent. Washington therefore intends to use diplomatic pressure and sanctions to counter the Court.

If one still believes in the international community’s definition of war crimes, this looks like a political move to absolve the United States and Israel of war crimes committed in the Middle East. To that end, Washington is pressuring allies — including states that are parties to the Rome Statute — to withdraw from the ICC.

“Trump said in January, ‘I don’t need international law’ to highlight his ‘America First’ policy. He is now keeping that promise, and the ICC is just one example.”

The day before Rubio announced his intent to dismantle the ICC, fourteen countries, including the United States, publicly reaffirmed their support for the ten-year-old ruling in the South China Sea Arbitration—a decision handed down by another international arbitration body: an ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Ironically, of the fourteen countries, only the Philippines—the actual party to the case—has a direct stake in South China Sea rights. The other five countries with genuine interests in the South China Sea did not join this “cheerleading squad”: Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and Indonesia. Of these, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei are, like the Philippines, “principal claimant states.”

Aside from the US and the Philippines, every other country among the fourteen marking the tenth anniversary of the ruling is an ICC member state: Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Romania, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom.

These 12 ICC member states have no stake whatsoever in South China Sea affairs, yet they support an international arbitration body — and are now being pressured by the United States to boycott another international arbitration body they themselves belong to. Fourteen countries are happy to use international law to pressure China, but when international law becomes inconvenient for the US and Israel, is that suddenly a different matter?

The Philippines finds itself in the most awkward position of all. Manila withdrew from the ICC in 2019, yet after Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took office as president, it allowed Interpol and Philippine airport authorities to arrest former president Rodrigo Duterte in 2025 and hand him directly over to the ICC for trial.

The real story behind this episode is domestic political rivalry within the Philippines, combined with Washington’s long-standing displeasure with Duterte. International institutions have played the role of “witch-hunt enforcer,” helping the US and Manila nail a political opponent to the cross.

In the past, the international community could invoke Rome Statute standards to brand Duterte’s “war on drugs” a crime against humanity. But what now?

The ICC cannot prosecute non-member states, but it can prosecute individuals—such as Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, under the Rome Statute’s territoriality principle, the Court has jurisdiction if the alleged crime occurred on the territory of a member state. In the Middle East case, Palestine is a state party. In the Philippine case, although Manila withdrew from the ICC in 2019, crimes committed before that withdrawal remain within the Court’s reach.

The reason the US can attack the ICC so freely is that other international arbitration bodies do not follow this same “detour through territoriality” to claim jurisdiction over non-member states, nor do they try individuals—they adjudicate sovereign states (or transnational corporate entities). As such, they strictly adhere to the most fundamental principle of international law: the principle of state consent.

Interestingly, the tribunal that presided over the South China Sea arbitration itself violated the principle of state consent by ruling on a case brought against China, which refused to participate. This is precisely why China has never recognized the ruling as having any legal basis. Yet the fourteen countries that support the ruling seem untroubled by this violation of a core principle of international law.

In other words, both the ICC and the ad hoc tribunal behind the South China Sea arbitration suffer from the same flaw: overreach. The ICC has been accused of an “idealism” that oversteps state sovereignty, while the South China Sea tribunal has been criticized for “procedural overreach”—under UNCLOS, an ad hoc tribunal has no authority whatsoever over land territorial sovereignty, yet the tribunal accepted the Philippines’ framing that “downgraded” what were really sovereignty and maritime-delimitation questions into a simple matter of “the legal status of islands and reefs” and used that framing to assert jurisdiction for itself.

Taiwan was an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire of the South China Sea arbitration. Itu Aba (Taiping Island), which is under the actual control of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and has both fresh water and the capacity to sustain human habitation, was nonetheless ruled to be a mere “”rock”—stripping it of any 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone.

Given that both international arbitration bodies suffer from the same problem of overreach, if one follows the US in opposing the ICC, shouldn’t one logically also oppose the South China Sea ruling? This month, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs launched an “urgent assessment” to awkwardly grapple with exactly this dilemma, since Manila has skin in both games—the Duterte case and the South China Sea ruling.

If Manila agrees to help dismantle the ICC, what happens to Duterte, still awaiting trial in The Hague? And if China then uses that same logic to reject the South China Sea ruling, what then? The other twelve member states that joined this “witch hunt” find themselves in an equally awkward spot.

Second only to the Philippines in embarrassment is Japan. Tokyo is the ICC’s largest financial backer; the Court’s current president, Tomoko Akane, is Japanese; and Japan has long been one of the ICC’s staunchest supporters. Is Tokyo now expected to help the US dismantle the ICC or to withdraw from it altogether?

Japan also finds itself in a glaring contradiction over the South China Sea ruling. If Taiwan-controlled Taiping Island—with an area of 510,000 square meters (roughly the size of 71 standard football pitches), fresh water, and the capacity to sustain habitation)—was ruled a mere “rock,” then how can Okinotorishima, an outcrop Japan claims sovereignty over that covers just 9.44 square meters (about the size of a double bed), possibly qualify as an “island”?

By that logic, Tokyo’s support for the South China Sea ruling effectively concedes that Okinotorishima has no exclusive economic zone at all — a self-inflicted contradiction that China has been quick to mock.

One could, therefore, say all fourteen countries backing the South China Sea ruling are applying a double standard, and that thirteen of them have no connection to the South China Sea whatsoever. Aside from the Philippines, the only country with any real claim to South China Sea interests is the United States — and the US holds international law in contempt, going so far as to vow to destroy an international arbitration institution outright.

This episode symbolizes the unraveling of the international order—a world reverting to the law of the jungle. The United States is dismantling the very international order it built, and the ones hurt most are precisely its own allies.

The Philippines and Japan have been given the responsibility of encircling China on the front line by the United States, but the footholds of the two countries are also being dismantled by the United States. In front of them, there is only the risk of opposing China and the weakening guarantee.

Above all, the United States has proven, by its own actions, that the so-called international order was never fair and never operated on a fixed standard — it was merely a temporary tool for an empire to rule the world. And when the tool stops being useful, it gets discarded, leaving its followers staring, embarrassed, at the tool still in their hands.

Mamdani had pledged to arrest Netanyahu during campaign for mayor and says he is consulting city’s legal advisers.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has said that he is consulting with city authorities over the possibility of arresting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits the city for the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in September.

In an interview with The New York Times (NYT) released on Saturday, Mamdani reiterated his view that Netanyahu, who is the subject of an ICC arrest warrant for possible crimes against humanity in Gaza, must be brought to justice for the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza.

“I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu belongs in the Hague,” Mamdani told The Interview, a show produced by the NYT.

“He’s a war criminal who has been charged by the International Criminal Court,” he added. “And what you will find is that is an opinion that is held by many, purely because of what his actions have wrought over these last many years.”

Mamdani, a democratic socialist who has emerged as an outspoken supporter of the Palestinian cause, pledged to arrest Netanyahu if he came to New York City during his mayoral campaign. Some questioned the feasibility of that promise.

The mayor said that he was in “active conversation” with the city’s law department about whether he has the authority to have Netanyahu arrested, should he travel to New York.

“Whatever the law allows me to do in New York City, that’s what we will do, but we won’t be writing our own laws to that end,” he said.

Asked about Mamdani’s call to have him arrested, Netanyahu told radio personality Sid Rosenberg that he thinks Mamdani secretly “hates America”.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, also insisted that Netanyahu will be at the UNGA meeting in New York this September, despite the threats of arrest.

During his campaign for mayor, Mamdani was the target of frequent Islamophobic vitriol and insults. Rosenberg referred to the New York mayor hopeful as a “cockroach”, before later apologising.

Mamdani’s election to mayor and his continued calls for accountability regarding Netanyahu point to a dramatic swing among Democratic voters away from Israel.

A poll in May found that nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters oppose US aid to Israel, up from 45 percent three years ago.

Nearly half of those surveyed said that their party was too supportive of Israel, whose war on Gaza has been termed a genocide by a growing number of human rights organisations, international officials, and scholars.

While that shift has yet to translate into concrete policy change at the top of the party, which includes stalwart supporters of Israel, many Democratic politicians have slowly begun to adjust their positions.

Nearly half of the Democratic members of the US House of Representatives voted to end US aid to Israel earlier this week, a measure of the shifting politics around the issue that commentators believe would have been unthinkable just several years ago.

Australia made it four wins from four at the ICC Women’s T20 World Cup after easing to a 113-run victory against Pakistan at Headingley, with the six-time winners on the verge of the semi-finals with one group match remaining.

READ MORE: Australia thrash Pakistan to edge closer to semis

Available to UK users only.

Smriti Mandhana’s 68-run knock and Deepti Sharma’s five-wicket haul helped India secure an impressive 64-run win over Pakistan in Group One of the ICC Women’s T20 World Cup.

MATCH REPORT: Mandhana and Deepti star as India beat Pakistan

Available to UK users only.

Karim Khan rejects suspension as ICC governing body refers him to disciplinary proceedings before member states.

The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has been suspended from his duties, the tribunal’s governing body said, following a probe into sexual misconduct allegations.

In a statement on Monday, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties said it will refer Khan to disciplinary proceedings before all 125 ICC member states, which will vote on his fate in a special session.

“This suspension is not an indication of the final outcome,” it said.

The bureau, which is the executive committee of the court’s oversight body, said it referred Khan after making its own decision on the disciplinary proceedings involving the prosecutor.

It said the decision was based on a report of a United Nations investigation, the advice of an ad hoc panel of judicial experts, and written submissions, but did not give details about what it had decided.

“The decision of the ⁠Bureau and the related documentation will remain confidential,” the statement said.

Khan’s lawyers ⁠said in a statement that he rejected the decision in the strongest terms, and repeated his denial of any wrongdoing.

“The decision is unlawful, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence,” the statement said.

Khan, 56, drew international attention when he applied for warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza.

He also sought warrants for Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, for the October 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel.

Khan was among the first to be sanctioned by Israel’s ally, the United States, which expressed outrage over the arrest warrants.

He has maintained that the misconduct probe is a politically motivated smear campaign.

According to Reuters and the Associated Press news agencies, the UN probe found a “factual basis” for the allegations of sexual misconduct made by a female aide. However, a three-judge panel selected by the executive committee for a legal assessment of the findings found that the investigation was not conclusive enough.

Khan’s lawyers had previously told Reuters that the judges had unanimously concluded that the “factual findings do not establish misconduct or breach of duty”.

Khan has not led the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor since ⁠last May, when he took a voluntary leave of absence pending the outcome of the inquiry.

He is the first ICC prosecutor to be formally suspended from his role by the court’s oversight body.

Only the Assembly of States Parties has the authority to remove Khan from office, a move that would require a majority in a secret ballot of its 125 member states.

Sixty-three countries would need to support a measure to remove him.

No date was immediately set for the session.

Khan’s suspension will have little practical impact on the functioning of the court, given his existing leave of absence.

He has already been removed from pleading in the ICC’s most high-profile current case, against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.

Police spokesperson Randulf Tuano says one person has been arrested after gunshots rang out in Senate.

⁠The ⁠Philippine Senate President says that a politician wanted by the International Court (ICC) was no longer in the Senate building where he had ⁠been taking refuge, fearing his arrest.

Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, the former national police chief and top enforcer of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody “war on drugs”, has ⁠been under Senate protection and is wanted for crimes against humanity, the same charges Duterte is accused of.

“The ⁠sergeant-at-arms has confirmed that he ⁠is no ⁠longer in the ⁠building,” Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano told reporters on Thursday.

The announcement comes a day after gunfire rang out at the Senate, where dela Rosa had been holed up. Confusion and chaos filled the legislature as people inside scrambled for cover on Wednesday, hours after dela Rosa, had appealed to his supporters on social media to mobilise and said law enforcement agents were planning on arresting him.

The incident caused chaos, with a heavy police presence and armed guards at the Senate. Protests were also held outside, and more than a dozen shots were fired after the Marines were called in to help the situation.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr held an emergency meeting with government and security chiefs on Thursday, as police spokesperson Randulf Tuano told DZBB radio that one person had been arrested following the shooting and investigations were under way.

“The person has provided names, but these still need confirmation,” Tuano told the radio station.

Dela Rosa has denied involvement in the illegal killings, but on Monday, the ICC unsealed an arrest warrant for him.

Duterte is also accused of crimes against humanity and has been held in ICC custody in The Hague since March 2025. The ICC estimates that between 12,000 and 30,000 people were killed from 2016 to 2019 in the former president’s “war on drugs”.

Reporting from Manila, Al Jazeera’s Jamela Alindogan said two independent, credible sources confirmed that dela Rosa had fled the building.

“He was able to escape at around 2 or 3 this morning,” she said.

Lawyer Jimmy Bondoc, who represents dela Rosa, also told reporters that he spoke to the lawmaker late at night and believed he was inside the Senate after the incident.

“As his lawyer, I asked him if you have plans to leave, he said none,” Bondoc told reporters.

In an interview that aired on DZBB radio on Thursday morning, dela Rosa said he would “exhaust all available remedies” to block his transfer to the ICC, and after learning about the conditions Duterte was being held under, he was no longer willing to fight his case at The Hague.

It remains unclear when the interview was initially conducted.

Philippines Senator Ronald Dela Rosa has taken refuge in the country’s parliament, as police sought to detain him on Monday in accordance with an ICC arrest warrant.

This is what we know of his role in former President Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war, which prosecutors say killed tens of thousands.