The International Criminal Court voted Friday to remove its chief prosecutor for sexual misconduct — the same global tribunal that claims authority to sit in judgment of sovereign nations couldn't govern its own boss.

Karim Khan, a British barrister who spent years investigating world leaders, was ousted by a large majority of the ICC's 125 member states after an oversight body found he engaged in a sexual relationship with a female aide and tried to prevent her from pursuing her allegations. It took nearly two years, a formal investigation, and a secret ballot to do what any functional institution would have handled in weeks. This is the body globalists want sitting in judgment of American justice.

The 56-year-old Khan was temporarily stripped of his duties in June after the executive committee of the court's oversight body found he committed "serious misconduct." According to documents seen by the Associated Press, the relationship with the aide "escalated over time" and Khan attempted to block her from making accusations. Khan disputes the findings and has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing.

Norway's deputy foreign minister, Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik, said in a statement that "it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that his conduct constituted sexual harassment and abuse of power." The Netherlands, France, and Norway all publicly announced they voted for removal. A motion by Sierra Leone to raise the threshold for ousting Khan failed early in the session, and the vote moved ahead hours ahead of schedule.

The scandal has split the court's own allies. Palestinian organizations accused the executive committee of "unwarranted political interference," claiming it lacks the independence to make assessments. Human rights groups including the International Federation for Human Rights countered that the victim had been "publicly questioned, instrumentalized, and too readily dismissed as part of a political agenda." Former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called the allegations a plot against the court, writing that they serve as "the tip of the spear" for Khan's enemies. Former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth took the opposite stance, saying Khan "clearly does not" have the moral authority to continue.

Khan himself has claimed the accusations are retaliation for his investigation into Israeli officials. The female staffer strenuously denied that in a CNN interview last week, and a United Nations investigation found that "multiple credible witnesses dismissed the notion that she was a spy," according to the AP.

The politics run deep. The ICC issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity. The Trump administration responded with sanctions against Khan and other court staff. Khan is now barred from entering the United States and has been suspended from practicing law in the United Kingdom pending a separate investigation. His lawyers complained he was blocked from attending Friday's meeting — "We know of no court or tribunal in any proper and fair legal system that bars a person facing the gravest professional sanction from being heard," they wrote.

Researcher Iva Vukusic of Utrecht University noted that "political considerations have been folded into this, especially as it is the first time a prosecutor has pursued warrants against a western ally." She's right — but that only underscores the problem. The court's own staff sent a letter warning that Khan's "leadership has been materially diminished," and the institution is already under enormous strain, with the United States pushing to dismantle it entirely.

An institution that took two years to remove a prosecutor who abused his power over a subordinate — and only did so after the evidence became public — has no business claiming moral authority over any sovereign nation. The question isn't whether the ICC can survive this scandal. It's why Americans were ever expected to answer to it in the first place.