UK Government Declines to Comment After ICC Prosecutor Alleges Britain Threatened to Defund Court Over Israel Arrest Warrant
Prosecutor Karim Khan claims UK raised funding withdrawal if the International Criminal Court pressed ahead with warrants for Israeli leaders, with London declining to respond to the allegation.
The United Kingdom government has declined to comment on a claim by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that British officials privately threatened to withdraw funding and membership from the court if it issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a recent submission to the ICC, Prosecutor Karim Khan said that during a telephone conversation on 23 April 2024 with a senior UK official, then Foreign Secretary David Cameron warned of severe consequences, including defunding the court and possible withdrawal from the Rome Statute, should the prosecutor pursue warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.
Khan’s submission, made in the context of defending his decision to seek the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders, emphasises that his actions were grounded in legal criteria and independent analysis.
It also references separate warnings from a senior United States official about potential repercussions if the warrants were applied.
The British government’s refusal to comment comes amid broader debate in London over the ICC’s jurisdiction and the role of member states in international justice mechanisms.
After the Middle East Eye first reported details of the call earlier this year, several UK lawmakers called for clarification, suggesting parliamentary scrutiny of any attempt to influence the court’s independence.
In the months since, the Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has distanced itself from the previous administration’s attempts to challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction, indicating that decisions on international arrest warrants are ultimately matters for the court.
The ICC’s authority and independence are widely recognised by member states as central to the rules-based international order, even as tensions persist between some governments and the court’s investigations.
With the UK government choosing not to address the prosecutor’s claim directly, the episode highlights the sensitive intersection of foreign policy, international law and judicial autonomy, and the continuing diplomatic complexities surrounding the Gaza conflict and related international legal proceedings.
In a recent submission to the ICC, Prosecutor Karim Khan said that during a telephone conversation on 23 April 2024 with a senior UK official, then Foreign Secretary David Cameron warned of severe consequences, including defunding the court and possible withdrawal from the Rome Statute, should the prosecutor pursue warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.
Khan’s submission, made in the context of defending his decision to seek the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders, emphasises that his actions were grounded in legal criteria and independent analysis.
It also references separate warnings from a senior United States official about potential repercussions if the warrants were applied.
The British government’s refusal to comment comes amid broader debate in London over the ICC’s jurisdiction and the role of member states in international justice mechanisms.
After the Middle East Eye first reported details of the call earlier this year, several UK lawmakers called for clarification, suggesting parliamentary scrutiny of any attempt to influence the court’s independence.
In the months since, the Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has distanced itself from the previous administration’s attempts to challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction, indicating that decisions on international arrest warrants are ultimately matters for the court.
The ICC’s authority and independence are widely recognised by member states as central to the rules-based international order, even as tensions persist between some governments and the court’s investigations.
With the UK government choosing not to address the prosecutor’s claim directly, the episode highlights the sensitive intersection of foreign policy, international law and judicial autonomy, and the continuing diplomatic complexities surrounding the Gaza conflict and related international legal proceedings.
