In July, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio set the proverbial cat among the pigeons by declaring his intention to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court (ICC) and urging other nations to join the effort. Rubio vowed to use “all the tools at our government’s disposal” to “dismantle the ICC, brick by brick.”
Against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s escalating actions against the ICC, Rubio accused the court of “waging a war against our country, not with bullets or missiles,” but through “the force of so-called international law.”
A warped sense of justice?
The administration’s opposition to the ICC dates back to President Donald Trump’s first term, when Washington targeted the court for seeking to investigate alleged war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The second Trump administration has since imposed a series of sanctions on ICC officials over efforts to investigate the United States and Israel—neither of which is a member of the court.
The latest trigger for the White House’s intensified campaign was the ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
In what appeared to be a feeble attempt to project evenhandedness, the court also issued warrants for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh—after their deaths. Quite apart from the absurdity of equating the perpetrators of the Oct. 7 massacre with those who responded to it, the move underscored the warped sense of justice the ICC purports to administer.
Gravely misinformed or grossly dishonest
The driving force behind these measures was ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, who initiated the request for the arrest warrants. Khan has since stepped aside following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. According to some reports, the arrest warrant applications were motivated, at least in part, by a desire to divert attention from those allegations.
Significantly, Khan is not the only ICC chief prosecutor to face allegations of serious impropriety before, during or after serving in office.
For example, Fatou Bensouda (2012–2021), before becoming chief prosecutor, held senior positions in the Gambian judiciary under the military dictatorship that ruled the country from 1994 to 2017. Bensouda claimed she was unaware of the regime’s human rights abuses. Given her seniority and lengthy service, however, this raises an obvious question: Which is worse—that she truly knew nothing about the abuses or that she did? Was she gravely misinformed or grossly dishonest?
Sexual misconduct and financial shenanigans?
Likewise, Bensouda’s predecessor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, the ICC’s first chief prosecutor (2003–2012), also came under a cloud of suspicion both during and after his tenure.
Ocampo was accused of sexual misconduct in South Africa in 2005 by an ICC whistleblower. Although ICC officials dismissed the allegations, Ocampo himself fired the whistleblower despite the court’s own Disciplinary Advisory Board recommending that the dismissal be rescinded. The whistleblower appealed to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization, which ruled decisively in his favor and awarded him substantial compensation, raising further questions about the ICC’s integrity.
After leaving office in 2012, Ocampo also faced allegations concerning his financial and professional activities. These included claims that he abused his status as a former ICC prosecutor, engaged in questionable financial dealings and operated under serious conflicts of interest.
The allegations stemmed largely from the sweeping 2017 “Secrets of the Court” investigation conducted by European Investigative Collaborations, a nonprofit network of investigative journalists. Although they did not result in criminal convictions, the ethical concerns they raised tarnished Ocampo’s reputation and, by extension, that of the ICC itself.
The Israeli angle
For Israel, Rubio’s initiative is a welcome development. It undermines the legitimacy of the ICC’s actions against senior Israeli officials while highlighting how far the court has strayed from its founding principles and stated mission.
For the disgraced Karim Khan and his associates, it may also serve as a reminder of the biblical maxim in Numbers 24:9: “Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed, and whoever curses Israel will be cursed.”
