Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andreas Kravik has called on member states of the International Criminal Court to follow the findings of a judicial panel and avoid politicising an upcoming vote that could determine whether Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan is removed from his post. Kravik spoke exclusively to Middle East Eye on Thursday at the Norwegian foreign ministry in Oslo, ahead of a Monday deadline for the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties bureau to cast its final vote on Khan’s fate. The intervention comes as a deep split within the court’s governing body over how to handle the misconduct probe has placed the institution under sustained pressure.
Kravik called on the court’s executive ruling body to “respect the procedures” it had put in place to examine misconduct allegations against the prosecutor, warning that departing from those procedures risked damaging the court’s credibility at a moment when it faces external threats.
“We think it’s so important to respect the procedures that have been established,” Kravik told Middle East Eye. “Because otherwise, there will be at least a perception of politicisation of the process. And that would hurt the integrity of the court. That’s something that we cannot afford, especially in this time when the court is under real pressure by other states and where certain states are trying, at the best of their ability, to portray the court as a politicised entity not operating in conformity with core principles of international law,” he added.
If the 21-member bureau recommends a finding that Khan is guilty of serious misconduct, the larger 125-member Assembly of States Parties will vote on the case, with a two-thirds majority required to uphold the decision. A second vote would then take place on whether to remove him.
The case turns significantly on what weight bureau members assign to an independent judicial opinion. A panel of three judges submitted a confidential report to the bureau on March 9, concluding unanimously that the facts presented in the UN investigation “do not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant framework.” Despite that finding, a majority of bureau members voted in early April to disregard the judges’ report and proceed with their own assessment of the evidence.
Middle East Eye reported that the 15 states backing the motion to proceed were Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Poland, Slovenia, South Korea, and Switzerland — a group described as predominantly western and European.
Norway is not represented on the bureau, but as a founding ICC member state it has taken a public position on the procedural question. Kravik said that what Norway has urged is that “the ICC needs to look at this case in conformity with the procedures that have been established for examining such allegations of misconduct.”
The legal stakes extend beyond the vote itself. Abdul Koroma, a former International Court of Justice judge, warned in a legal opinion shared with ICC member states that the court could be ordered by the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal to reinstate Khan and pay up to €1.5 million in compensation if its governing body removed or sanctioned him. Koroma called on the bureau to adopt the judicial panel’s conclusion, describing the panel’s report as “thorough, clear and well-reasoned,” and warning that any attempt to re-open the matter “would undermine the integrity of the institution and the rule of law.”
Khan told Middle East Eye in an interview last month that he would appeal to the ILOAT if the ASP sought to remove him.
Regional and Global Impact
The allegations against Khan have unfolded in parallel with a campaign by the United States and its allies to disrupt his office’s efforts to pursue a war crimes investigation into Israeli officials. Legal experts cited by Middle East Eye have warned that the bureau’s decision to disregard the judicial panel’s opinion risks lending credibility to the view — advanced by governments hostile to the court — that the ICC operates on political rather than legal grounds.
Kravik framed Norway’s concern specifically in terms of the court’s institutional resilience against that narrative, saying the risk of a “perception of politicisation” is something the ICC “cannot afford” at this moment.
Background
The ICC misconduct investigation was authorised by the ASP presidency in November 2024, following media reports that a member of Khan’s office had accused him of sexual assault. Khan, a British barrister, was elected by the ASP as the ICC’s chief prosecutor in February 2021. He denied the allegations and took voluntary leave from his position. The United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services conducted the investigation, with the bureau appointing a three-judge panel to legally characterise its factual findings. The panel concluded on March 9 that the OIOS findings established neither misconduct nor breach of duty. Norway has been a member state of the ICC since the court was established by the Rome Statute in 2002, but is not represented on the bureau.
What Happens Next
The bureau faces a Monday deadline to cast its vote on the nature of Khan’s alleged misconduct. If the bureau recommends a finding of serious misconduct, the 125-member Assembly of States Parties will vote first on whether misconduct occurred, with any finding requiring a two-thirds majority of states present and voting, and a second vote on removal requiring an absolute majority of 63 states. Koroma’s legal opinion warns that if the bureau proceeds and Khan appeals to the ILOAT, the prospects of a successful appeal are considerable and could entitle Khan to reinstatement and compensation. No date has been formally announced for a full ASP session should the bureau recommend removal.
