How does the combined vote alter the threshold for misconduct?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Combined Vote Lowers the Effective Threshold for Establishing Serious Misconduct

The International Criminal Court's (ICC) political bureau has approved a single-vote process to decide both whether Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan committed serious misconduct and whether he should be removed from his position. This consolidation, according to Khan's legal team, effectively lowers the bar for establishing serious misconduct, as it bypasses the previously envisioned two-step procedure that required separate votes with distinct majority requirements.
Procedural Shift from Sequential to Consolidated Voting

Previously, the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), comprising 125 member countries, was to follow a sequential voting process. First, a two-thirds majority of those present and voting would need to establish that serious misconduct had occurred. Subsequently, a separate vote, requiring an absolute majority, would determine whether Khan should be removed. The recent decision by the political bureau reportedly consolidates these two distinct decisions into a single vote, thereby altering the procedural landscape for assessing Khan's conduct.
Legal Arguments Against the Consolidated Process

Khan's lawyers contend that this single-vote arrangement does not merely compress the timeline but fundamentally lowers the effective threshold for reaching the grave finding of serious misconduct. Their argument centres on the principle that establishing the offence should precede the determination of the penalty. By combining the two votes, the process, in their view, makes it easier to find that misconduct occurred, which then justifies removal, rather than requiring a robust demonstration of misconduct independently before considering removal.
The Nature of the Allegations and Procedural Fairness

The reported basis for the bureau's alleged finding appears to shift from unwelcome, non-consensual conduct to a consensual relationship deemed improper due to a power imbalance. Khan's lawyers assert that this alternative allegation was not presented to him during the investigation. This substitution of allegations, they argue, deviates from principles of justice and due process, as it involves replacing one accusation with another without the accused having had the opportunity to address the new claim during the investigative phase.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How does the combined vote alter the threshold for misconduct?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends