Exclusive: ICC Prosecutor Vows to Resist Pressure on Gaza and Ukraine Cases

In an exclusive interview with Newsweek, International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan has vowed to fight for the equal application of international justice across the globe, including in two especially high-profile cases that have drawn the ire of rival world powers.

Throughout the interview, Khan, a British lawyer and former U.N. investigator who was appointed chief prosecutor of the ICC in 2021, expressed concern over a crisis in confidence that he saw affecting not only the ICC but a broad range of multilateral institutions, including the United Nations. He asserted his determination to help reverse this trend by pursuing an unwavering commitment toward accountability amid of an apparent uptick of violations of international law.

This mission extended to the investigations he has overseen regarding the ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip.

Upon Khan’s request, ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova in March of last year over suspected war crimes committed since Russia launched a war against neighboring Ukraine in February 2022. The move drew immediate condemnation from Moscow, which subsequently placed Khan on a wanted list.

In May, Khan announced he would be seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant as well as top Hamas officials Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif over suspected violations committed during the war in Gaza that erupted with a Hamas-led attack in October. Both parties have rejected the allegations, while the United States has joined Israel in arguing that the ICC had no jurisdiction on the matter as they did not recognize Palestinian statehood and, like Russia, neither were parties to the court’s founding Rome Statute.

Facing influential blowback on both cases and tasked with a number of other ongoing proceedings spanning the globe, however, Khan asserted that no one individual or nation should be above the law, a principle he argued was critical not only to ensuring accountability for crimes but also preventing another major global conflict.

The following transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Newsweek: There are 124 state parties to the Rome Statute, so clearly the ICC enjoys broad international support. Yet we’re seeing what appears to be increasingly frequent and flagrant violations of international law across the globe. Are you concerned about a global backslide in terms of respect for international norms and rules?

Khan: It’s a great question. You’re right, 124 states, soon to be 125 because [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelensky has just signed acts of parliament in Kyiv, and hopefully, when those instruments of ratifications are deposited, it will be 125.

I think the first thing is: Where are we? Throughout history, we see that international law has been applied in a haphazard manner. It has not been applied evenly. And we’re seeing simply now vividly the unequal application of the law, particularly because of where we are. The world is connected. We have had a narrative in terms of Ukraine and Russia that we want a rules-based system, that it must be that all life matters equally. And there are certain situations that have developed in which it seems to be that powerful people think it’s a law-free zone, and we have to show that law applies everywhere.

It’s not something that you can take it or leave it. It’s not an à la carte menu. You have to accept law in its totality if we’re not going to have a Wild West developing or widening in which you can grab what you want and do what you want to anybody that’s less powerful than you.

So, I think one can be a little bit pessimistic, but at the same time, one can see the optimism, the Global South, Colombia, Brazil, Asian countries, African countries, the Nordic countries, so many people around the world, I think people of good conscience anywhere, that are driven with the basic principles of empathy, of compassion, that the law should apply equally, irrespective of color, religion, creed, ethnicity, political or other orientation. They’re demanding, actually, that they see the law in action. And what people don’t want are these sound bites. They don’t want these ritual incantations of the law, ‘Never again,’ or crocodile tears.

They want to see the law protecting people that have nothing at the moment and that are living in terror. And I think that demand is the hope, because people are not saying law is irrelevant. They want the law to apply better. They want it to be implemented more evenly, and they want states to be held to account by their citizens and by the regions and the world, that if you believe in the U.N. Charter, if you believe in the law applied equally, I said yesterday in India, there are no children of a lesser god.

Every child, every woman, every old person, every civilian, has rights. This is the 70th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, and I think that’s part of the overall narrative. If it’s true that we want to avert ourselves from even greater catastrophes, we have to cling to something, and the law is one of the life rafts that we need to get on board. Otherwise, we’ll drown together.

One of the criticisms we’ve heard against the ICC in the past is that it mostly pursued minor countries, particularly in Africa. The indictment of Russian officials is a departure from this. But as countries such as Mongolia fail to act on the court’s orders due to potential strategic and security issues, are you concerned that the legitimacy and the efficacy of ICC mechanisms are in question?

Well, I think we can’t be complacent. And collectively, myself, I need to do better, my office needs to do better, the ICC needs to do better, and all states have massive room to improve.

In terms of the first part of the question, since I became prosecutor, particularly, not only did I open a situation in Ukraine, I applied and was granted warrants in relation to Georgia, the situation we’re investigating in Venezuela, Afghanistan, Philippines, looking at the Rohingya, which is in Bangladesh, being pushed out of Myanmar. So, that idea of this being an African focused court is not borne out by the focus of the investigations, quite frankly.

But I’ll put it the other way around. I think what is telling is that since the judges of the ICC issued warrants for President Putin and Madame Lvova-Belova—and, of course, there’s been six warrants in total issued so far in relation to the events in Ukraine against Russian nationals—President Putin hasn’t set foot in any state party except Mongolia. And I think that’s a positive.

I think those that think this is the death of the ICC, yes, I would urge all state parties to fulfill their international obligations, but people thought it was a fool’s errand when the Yugoslav tribunal issued warrants regarding [former Serbian President] Milosevic and [former Republica Srpska President] Karadzic and [former Republica Srpska Army Chief of Staff] Mladic. And I always give the example of [former Prime Minister] Jean Kambanda in Rwanda, [former Chadian President] Hissène Habré in the Extraordinary Chambers in special courts in Senegal or the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia. There’s no statute of limitations.

And one of the very vivid examples is President Charles Taylor. He was the president in Monrovia, in Liberia, when the special court issued warrants regarding him. He was not arrested immediately. He was given refuge in, in fact, when he left the presidency, in Nigeria. But a time came when he was arrested, and he was transferred to Freetown, and then he ended up in The Hague, and, after a fair trial, there was a conviction and a sentence, and he’s now in Durham. So, people shouldn’t be so confident that you can escape the law.

The beauty of warrants anywhere is they’re judicial. They’re not a gift by a prosecutor. The prosecutor is part of a process that submits evidence and reasons to judges. And until such time as those judges revoke a warrant, they remain live. And then it’s really a test on all states about the world they want to live in. And I’ve also done a lot of defense cases. People can, if they say they’re not responsible, and there is a presumption of innocence, they can surrender, they can appear before the court, and the court has shown its ability and its independence and its impartiality, in also acquitting people. And that’s why we have courts everywhere.

You’ve got a case, there’s a burden of proof on the prosecutor. That’s in the United States, that’s in the international level, and you’ve got reasonable doubt. That’s something that applies to every individual, domestically or to the ICC, and you trust the processes. And that’s the utility of a rules-based system. That’s the utility of independent trials that were not driven by other considerations, other than evidence of the rule of law.

Like Russia, the United States has also attacked the legitimacy of the ICC in certain cases, including investigations into the U.S. regarding Afghanistan and into Israel regarding Gaza. How do you evaluate the role of the U.S. as a country that advocates for a rules-based world order when it comes to the ICC, particularly as the U.S. has supported the investigation into Russia on Ukraine?

Well, the United States is a very vibrant democracy. It has certain values. The American dream is based upon the equality of people, wherever they come from, having a possibility under the law to achieve their full potential. The United States, historically and in terms of the ICC, has had a huge role in international justice. But for the United States, there wouldn’t have been a Nuremberg Tribunal. But for the United States, there wouldn’t have been a tribunal for the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda. Many arrests that we’ve had in the ICC have been facilitated by the United States of America.

Yes, I always would urge every country to be the best version of itself. Every year, the president of the United States addresses Congress, which is the State of the Union. And very often the end, the aim, the aspiration, is to achieve an ever more perfect union. And here we are on the 79th opening of the General Assembly of the United Nations. We also need a more perfect United Nations, and I think that means one also united by these basic principles. This isn’t politics. This isn’t some marginal policy issue. We’re dealing with crimes that are genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity around the world. And I think these are quintessential American values.

I mean, the United States was born from a belief that these truths are self-evident in terms of the inalienable rights of men, women and children, the equality of people. That’s how the republic was born. And I think what the United States wants for itself is something that the world needs. And I hope the United States will live up to the best version of itself in terms of the application of the law. And I think clearly you see around the world, in the Global South, people are wanting United States leadership. But that requires an ability to do what’s right, not only when it’s easy, but to do right when it’s difficult.

And I think that is why these cases sometimes are very difficult. They’re driven by evidence and imperative, not a lip service, to the equality of people, regardless of religion or ethnicity or color or nationality or passport, and a realization that all people, unfortunately including in the United States, can do good or they can do bad. There are criminals in every part of the world. There are courts in every part of the world.

The idea that some nations are incapable, some individuals are incapable of crime goes against reality. We need the law, and then the law will separate the rhetoric, the polemics, from the reality based upon objective analysis by independent judges.

Past prosecutors of the ICC have told me that U.S. officials approached them in an attempt to halt prior efforts to open investigations into Israel. Have you ever been approached by U.S. officials seeking to intervene against investigations into Israel and are you concerned about potential reprisal for pursuing the current investigation on Gaza?

I don’t think it’s right to give more detail in terms of different discussions. I think you’ve seen, your readers will have seen, that certain letters have already been become public in relation to powerful senators and how they couched issues. I think some issues are difficult because there is a conflict between strategic alliances, between relationships of value, of importance to nations and the equal application of the law. And I think these are challenges in a country, and there are challenges between countries and then international organizations.

So, we are dealing with situations in the ICC that, I think I said to Christiane Amanpour when I was interviewed by her, are on the San Andreas Fault of politics and international relations and major power issues. That’s the train in which we must traverse. But we do so guided by a clear compass of legality and the rule of law.

And, as I said, these challenge states about what they want to do and which direction we’re heading as countries and as civilization at large. And I think this tests all of us. There’s a saying, “Judges try cases and cases try judges.” There’s also saying, by equal force, I think, the difficult moment we’re in, the perilous moment we’re in as a world, in terms of the conflicts in Darfur or in Libya, or with the Rohingya or Palestine and Israel and people waiting for their loved ones to be released and sent home, the hostages, or people worried about, will they have food, or will babies survive?

States have to decide: Is it political expediency or is it principle that we’re trying for at the end of the day? And I think those decisions will decide if the rule of law gets stronger or disintegrates. And I think that’s a very real question. You can’t have an à la carte menu.

At this moment, either we will come together under the umbrella of the law, the equal application of the law that will give shade and protection to people exposed to the elements of politics and division, or the law won’t provide this protection. But the decisions that leaders around the world, including the United States, are making will have very significant implications for the next decades to come, I think.

In Gaza, Hamas has been subject to investigation by the ICC as well. Now, two of the three Hamas leaders named in the investigation are or appear to be dead. How does this development and the very fluid nature of the conflict in Gaza, and now in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region, complicate the ICC’s efforts to achieve accountability?

Well, there’s clear evidence that one individual that was subject to an application has died, and the judges have declared that in terms of Haniyeh, based upon an application that I submitted. We’re seeking confirmation regarding the information regarding Deif. Of course, Sinwar, who’s subject to an application, is there.

But I think what we’re looking at is conduct. And the message is that we don’t have a law-free world. There are no areas in which one can do what one wants because you have a bigger gun than the other person, or that you’re willing to do different types of activity against civilians and all the rest of it. And this is why, based upon that analysis, we made the applications regarding the members of Hamas. But I’ve said repeatedly, whether one is a leader or a foot soldier, the law must be complied with, and people are not gods.

If you’ve got custody of a hostage, you cannot treat them badly. I mean, they should be released straight away. They should never have been taken. But we’re going to do our best to work with different partners and under the court’s jurisdiction to make sure the rule of law is felt because these things should never have happened in the first place.

And whether they’re the families in the kibbutzim that are mourning the people killed from the seventh of October, or that are so horrendously being kept today, or they don’t know, the fear, the terror of the unknown of where they are, or it’s Palestinians in the West Bank or in Gaza, they have the right, not as a charity, not as a favor to them, but they have a right to be seen by the law. And then the law has an obligation to analyze information in this environment, separate fiction from fact, and then present it to judges. And we’ll keep doing that, irrespective of what happens. It’s why we have an International Criminal Court.

And the main point is every life matters equally. And if we don’t show in concrete terms that that is something we’re trying to achieve in a very imperfect world, in a world where international law is trying to catch up with the promise, we’re going to create the conditions for the law’s demise. Because people will not buy what the General Assembly or the Security Council or the major permanent members of the council are selling, which is a promise of ‘Never again.’

But actually, I want to put it more strongly than that. They will not believe that there is such a thing as the equal application of the law. They will feel that there’s politically convenient application of the law when there’s a convergence between strategic or national interests and strategic adversaries and a free pass if you’re on the right side of the political interests argument. And that’s the antithesis of the law that’s been there throughout history.

At this time, when global trust in multilateral institutions has been shaken by these conflicts we’ve discussed, how confident are you that the ICC will be able to carry justice and seek accountability in the cases of Ukraine and Gaza, particularly given the great powers involved? What’s at stake for the ICC and its mandate in doing so?

Well, the ICC is a court. What people expect from courts is to be guided by evidence and law, not based upon noise, politics, pressure or fear. It was [former U.S. Attorney General and Senator] Bobby Kennedy who said that courage is the most important attribute of a lawyer. It’s not an elective in any law school, but it needs to pervade the chambers of the heart and the mind and all the rest of it. And that’s true for any lawyer, whether it’s defense counsel, a victim’s counsel, a prosecutor or a judge.

And I think what we have to do is, as I said, be guided by a compass, that we don’t get disorientated by the magnetic interference of politics and noise and pressures and the difficult terrain that, as I said, we’re traversing. And judges have to do their job as well, and that’s all we can do. It’s a journey, driven by principle and these values. And it’s more than that. It’s not just the values, it’s a promise that we’ve made to other generations.

And I think when you can really pause for thought and then … it’s a very somber moment, you realize, when you look at and cast your mind to Nuremberg and those pictures of starving people in the gas chambers, people denied food and water and were not considered human by the fascists. It’s a very solemn promise this United Nations made in its beautiful preamble and in the charter, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a promise to future generations to be safe from the scourge of war. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

The question is: Are we going to live up to those promises, finally? Or are we going to just live with the constant stream of broken promises until the next atrocity, when we say, “What lessons will we learn?” and “Never again”? And I think we don’t have time, because there is this crisis of confidence at the moment, not in the International Criminal Court alone, but the whole promises of states to care about people that are marginalized and poor, and very often feel invisible.

And I think this is the time when we have to come together, and that applies whether it’s Ukraine and Russia or Palestine and Israel, or with the Rohingya or in Darfur, we need to actually care. We need to give a damn for people that could be our children and our parents and our brothers and sisters and our friends, and actually have that compassion, have that empathy for people that also have dreams.

And I think that is one of the factors we take into account when we apply the law in that context and try to get to the truth. Then we have judges, and then you’ve done your part, and then others have to do their part in wider issues of education, of health care, of other types of equity that have maybe been long neglected or not properly fulfilled, that have combined at the moment to put us in this position of peril internationally. And we have a choice: Do we want peace for our children, or do we want wider and wider conflagrations?

And for goodness’ sake, [Polish Prime Minister] Donald Tusk has said, this generation, this is the prewar generation. What are we going to do in terms of trying to avoid that calamity? The law will not do it all by itself, but it’s a very important part to try to adhere to the greater fidelity that has been seen in the past.

Is there anything else you would like to add for our readers?

[This is] something I’ve told senators and others, and I believe in it. The United States is not a state party [to the Rome Statute], but the values against bullying and power, these are quintessential U.S. values. And, as we’re speaking, leaving aside the politically difficult issues that I’ve discussed, in Darfur, people are being hunted because of the color of their skin and all kinds of red flags of the United Nations are flashing. And yet we have this burgeoning number of different initiatives that simply cancel themselves out. But it’s built upon impunity.

One of the factors is the fact that there hasn’t been enforcement of what the law is, and that has had real consequences to people that are being raped, according to the United Nations, that either in Darfur or are being hunted, because the Black Masalit, in particular, are being hunted, and other issues.

So, if you just look at the individual, suddenly the politics or the preconceptions can evaporate, because you’re looking at people that are looking for something. They’re looking to the United States for shelter. And one of the things they are looking to—we call it a victim-centered approach—one thing that they want is the architecture of the U.N. and of the International Criminal Court to mean something. And that means seeing them and doing right by them. And I think that is a fundamental U.S. value.