Feminist Multilateralism

Originally posted by Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice July 21st, 2026 — An International Criminal Court (ICC) junior staff member accused the ICC’s Prosecutor, the highest elected official within the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the Court, of sexual misconduct and retaliation against ICC staff that reported the misconduct. We urge States Parties not to lose sight of what, and who, the special session convened for 24 July of the Assembly of States Parties is actually about.  As feminist organisations and experts working on gender justice and institutional accountability, we are concerned that the substance of the proceedings, allegations of sexual misconduct and retaliation within the OTP, is being displaced by inaccurate information surrounding the disciplinary process. At the Centre of This Process Are Survivors of Gender-based Violence in the Workplace Article 42(3) of the Rome Statute requires the Prosecutor to be a person of high moral character. That is the question now before the Assembly: whether the sitting Prosecutor reportedly found to have engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with a junior member of his immediate office, and to have retaliated against staff who relayed her account, meets that standard. On 16 July 2026, Sarah, a lawyer and ICC staff member who came forward with claims of sexual misconduct by the ICC Prosecutor, spoke publicly for the first time. She described a progressive escalation of acts that crossed her physical and emotional boundaries, including specific incidents during official missions abroad. A second woman, who worked for the Prosecutor earlier in her career, has described a similar pattern during an internship. Sarah was a junior staff member working in the immediate office of the Prosecutor, the highest officer in a rigidly hierarchical institution. Women who come forward in these circumstances have nothing to gain and a great deal to lose. Sarah’s immigration status also affected her ability to report concerns. Sarah’s career, personal and family life have all suffered because of what she endured. The power imbalance is also reflected in the media, which has  portrayed her as a foreign intelligence agent and a threat rather than as a woman subjected to alleged conduct no one should face in their workplace. The chilling effect is inevitable. As Purna Sen, formerly Special Advisor to the Prosecutor on Working Climate, observes, underreporting of harassment in international organisations is well documented, including at the ICC, and the disincentives are structural: institutional closure around senior staff, opaque process, denial of access to outcomes, and career-damaging stigma. Every process handled this way raises the threshold for the next person.  The Ad Hoc Panel Did Not Exonerate the Prosecutor The ad hoc Panel did not exonerate the Prosecutor. The ad hoc Panel’s mandate was narrow and expressly advisory. The Bureau confirmed on 2 July 2025 that the Panel would have an advisory role in relation to the Bureau and would focus strictly on the legal characterisation of the facts in the OIOS report, and not on fact-finding. It did not conduct the investigation, did not independently establish facts, did not make recommendations on sanctions, and did not decide the matter. Its conclusions amount to legal advice, not a judgment nor a court ruling.  Within the legal architecture of the ICC, the Rome Statute assigns the ASP the task of disciplining elected officials. States Parties elect the Prosecutor under Article 42, and Article 46 places removal in the same hands. The power to appoint and the power to discipline are deliberately paired, because accountability for the Court’s most senior officials cannot rest with the officials themselves. The Court’s Work on the Situation in the State of Palestine Does Not Depend on a Single Official The OTP is a professional body of lawyers, investigators and specialists whose expertise ensures continuity of cases across successive terms. Its work does not rest on any individual officeholder. The investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine was announced by former Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on 3 March 2021, predating both the current Prosecutor’s term and the allegations that emerged in 2024. The Office filed applications for arrest warrants on 20 May 2024, and Pre-Trial Chamber I issued them unanimously on 21 November 2024. The OTP has continued to function since the Prosecutor took leave of absence in May 2025 and since his suspension by the Bureau in June 2026, under the leadership of the Deputy Prosecutors. Work has also progressed in other situations, including Libya and the Philippines. A substantial part of the Office’s activity proceeds under seal, and the absence of public records is not evidence of inactivity. Ensuring the Integrity of the ICC is Essential to Pushback Against Attacks We strongly condemn the United States sanctions regime designating Court officials and Palestinian organisations and the campaign announced by the United States Secretary of State on 13 July 2026 to “dismantle” the “threat of the ICC.” As feminist organisations and international justice practitioners committed to accountability for international crimes, and fighting for justice and reparations for victims and survivors of gender-based crimes, we take these attacks seriously and are deeply concerned about them because we believe and support the essential work of the ICC.  These threats are, however, distinct from allegations of misconduct raised internally by members of the Court’s own staff. Conflating the two issues reinforces misogynistic stereotypes about survivors of gender-based violence, and entrenches the well-documented underreporting of harassment in international workplaces, including at the Court itself.  We call on ICC States Parties to: Attend the Special Session and cast a vote. A decision of this significance should reflect the full membership of the Assembly. When a representative cannot attend in person, proxy voting is available, and we encourage its use so that no State Party’s voice goes unheard. Decide on the basis of the full record before the Assembly, comprising the OIOS, ad hoc Panel’s, and the Bureau’s reports, and underlying evidence and the written submissions of both parties. Reject the conflation of allegations relating to the Situation in the State of Palestine, and reaffirm publicly that the Court’s work in Palestine and in all other situations continues irrespective of the outcome of the vote. The manner in which this process concludes will be read by survivors of sexual violence as an indication of what the institution expects of those who report misconduct, and of what it is prepared to require of those who hold its highest offices. For more information about the legal framework and the steps taken so far in this process, see this joint civil society Q&A providing documented and publicly sourced information. Our work on Workplace Culture at the ICC Signatories Organisations (34) Action Against Prohibited Conduct (AAPC), ARJPDH (Action pour la Réforme de la Justice et la Promotion des Droits de l’Homme), Democratic Republic of Congo Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos, Perú Bumi Setara, Indonesia Clinique de droit international pénal et humanitaire (Faculté de droit, Université Laval), Canada Corporación Humanas, Chile Corporación ILEX Accion Juridica, Colombia Cordaid, The Netherlands Family Frontiers, Malaysia International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), France International People’s Tribunal for Indonesia’s Genocide 1965/66, Indonesia/Netherlands Just Access, Germany Global Justice Center, USA Greater Equitable Measures (GEM), Malaysia International Criminal Law Society, Germany Intersex Thailand, Thailand Kemban Kolektif, Malaysia KOMPAKS (Civil Society Coalition of Anti Sexual Violence), Indonesia Kurdish organizations Network coalition for the International Criminal Court (KONCICC), Iraq Life campaign to abolish the death sentence in Kurdistan, Iraq Manushya Foundation, Thailand Sankorelabs, Mali Students for Global Democracy Uganda, Uganda The Regional Coalition for Women Human Rights Defenders in South West Asia and North Africa (WHRDMENA), SWANA region New Bloom, Taiwan NGO-CEDAW Cambodia, Cambodia Organization of the Justice Campaign‏- OJC, Iraq Ruta Pacifica de Mujeres, Colombia Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network, Indonesia Sustainable Development Network, Malaysia Synergy for Justice Stichting, The Netherlands UpRights, The Netherlands Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition (WHRDIC), Global Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ), The Netherlands Women’s International Peace Centre, Uganda Youth Association for Development (YAD), Pakistan Zarga organization for rural development, Sudan Individuals (216) Adrian Fekete, Germany Akila Radhakrishnan, Independent human rights lawyer and gender justice expert Alannah Cooper, Netherlands Albane Sibourd-Baudry, Switzerland Alisya Fairuz Alyn Ware, World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy, Czech Republic Amanda Zirgulis Ambre Arnold Amira Samsudin Amy Yasmine, Malaysia Angelica Cocoma, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Germany Angie Conroy, NGO-CEDAW, Cambodia Anne Marie Tan Sue Yen, Malaysia Annelies van der Plas, Netherlands Annie Nguyen , USA Annie O’Reilly Lawyer , Ireland Antonella Leone, Switzerland Anusha Rym Asha Dhillon, Malaysia Audrey Crasson Banil Lorid Bas Oostdijk, Netherlands Belle Razali, Transgender and Gender Diverse Health Expert/Consultant, Malaysia Bjorn Arp, International Human Rights Lawyer, United States of America Carina Bury Carlos David Avendaño, The Netherlands Caroline Reinhart, Journalist, France Charlotte lamy Charlotte LP Christian St-Pierre, Investigator, Canada Christiane Cesin Christina Konstantinidou Christopher “Kip” Hale, International Criminal Lawyer Clara Sabina Bowley, Nurse Dalina Annuar, Malaysia Daniel William Franken Danya O. Centeno García, International Human Rights and Criminal Justice Lawyer Diana Bravo Rubio, Academica y defensora de derechos humanos, Colombia Edgardo Legaspi, Philippines Edward Patrick Flaherty, Attorney at Law (US Supreme Court Bar), Switzerland Emeric Rogier, Former ICC Emilie Palamy Pradichit, Laos / Thailand Emily Cheah, Lawyer, Malaysia Enid H Adler, Esq, Counselor and Attorney at Law (retired), USA Erin Farrell Rosenberg Estelle Mounier, Magistrate Evi Siganou Fareeza Ibrahim, Malaysia Frans de Ridder, Nederland Geneviève Audet, Canada George Boskos Gry Tina Tinde, Investigator of sexual exploitation and abuse Gwendoline RENAUD, France Hédoux, France Henrietta Pentony Ho Mei Yee Ashely, Malaysia Ineke de Ridder-Cornax, The Netherlands Inge cs , Nederland Ireena zain, Malaysia Jack Murphy, United Kingdom Jehan Aziz Jennifer Trahan, Professor, NYU Center for Global Affairs Jeroen de Zeeuw Jiavern Tham, HAYAT, Malaysia John Josepha Umri Jones, USA Julia Baly, Australia Kathy Franken, United States Kelsey R Kevin van den Abeele Kristen Anna, USA Kristen Wojcik Krittaporn Semsantad, Thailand Lavi Kasilingam Li Tim, Koh Lisa van Leur LiYing Lim Lucie Canal M. van Looij Madeleine Tee Cheng Mei, Malaysia Marianne Migneault, Canada Marie Lamy Martine Costers, Belgium Mathilde Colin Melissa G Michel Tuerlings Michiel Rouw Muhammad Sha’ani bin Abdullah, Sustainable Development Network Malaysia Nada Chaiyajit Nadia van der Linde, Netherlands Nicola Fletcher, Former ICC, Netherlands Norlaili Ismail Nur Hani Hidayah Ab Razak, Malaysia Omar A, Netherlands Patricia Stewart, APPI, Ireland Puteri noor Amirah, Malaysia Rebecca A.Shoot, Impact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions, USA Rebecca Hamilton, Professor of Law American University, Washington College of Law Rima Isam Anabtawi, Academic, USA Robert Hotston Rosemary Grey, Sydney Law School, Australia Saber Chatar, Netherlands Sandra Sporer , Germany Sara Is Sarah Bergman, Psychologist, France Sebastian Landin Sergio Rodriguez Diaz, Colombia Shreyashi Sharma, Human Rights Lawyer, India Shriya Patel Sofie Wallyn, Belgium Stephen Rapp, USA Steven Reilly, United Kingdom Sumit Dheir Tamyra Selvarajan Thea Coventry, PhD Candidate in international law, Leiden University, Netherlands Theresa de Langis, PhD, USA Thomas Ebbs TIU KIAN WEE Tiffany Ly, Germany Valerie Lim Vony Rambolamanana, International criminal law expert, France Wapke Alexandra Monasch, PMT Groep The Netherlands Zélie Marembert, France Zoé L. Zoe S. And 91 further signatories who wish to remain publicly anonymous, including 19 ICC staff members.

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, represent civil society organizations, nongovernmental organizations, victim/survivor associations, and academic institutions from around the world. We have technical expertise on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, including their adjudication before national and international courts and tribunals. Many of us have also directly experienced or witnessed the commission of crimes against humanity. We welcome the opening of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity, a vital step towards closing a long-standing accountability gap in international law.

The undersigned organizations and individuals — with representation from multiple geographic regions — express our support for a global convention on crimes against humanity, and urge states to utilize the 2024 April Resumed Session of the UN’s Sixth Committee to express strong support for a procedure to be adopted at the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly to move the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity forward to negotiations for a treaty. Throughout history, millions of people have been subjected to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, persecution, and other atrocities that have shocked the conscience of humanity. Crimes against humanity continue unabated across the globe and the Draft Articles provide a timely and urgent opportunity for states to help end impunity. Although crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in international law, there has yet to be a treaty regulating their prevention and punishment. A treaty on crimes against humanity would close a crucial gap in the current international framework on mass atrocities as well as clarifying states’ duties to prevent such crimes and means to cooperate with each other. A crimes against humanity treaty can also rightfully contribute to global affirmation of the gravity of these crimes. In 2013, the UN’s International Law Commission approved crimes against humanity to be included in its programme of work. The Commission, in 2019, recommended the elaboration of a convention by the UN General Assembly or by an international conference.  In 2022, the UN’s Sixth Committee adopted resolution 77/249 to take forward steps for a treaty on crimes against humanity, including two interactive sessions in 2023 and 2024 on the Draft Articles, and a plan to take a decision on the ILC’s recommendation that a treaty go forward in the 79th session of the General Assembly. We believe the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles represent a strong starting point to open negotiations on a treaty. There is broad agreement that the Draft Articles contain a number of positive elements, and differences in perspectives on the existing Draft Articles should not be used to perpetuate inaction. Accordingly, we urge states to follow the Commission’s recommendation that a treaty on crimes against humanity should be negotiated, either by the General Assembly itself or in a Diplomatic Conference convened for that purpose. Our organizations also urge states at the April resumed session to identify important areas for further strengthening the Draft Articles. A variety of civil society groups have developed proposals toward this end. These include strengthening the proposed treaty by a variety of means. We urge states at the April resumed session also to express overall support for an approach to the development of a crimes against humanity treaty that is gender-competent, survivor-centric, and deploys an intersectional lens. This includes ensuring the inclusion of a non-discrimination provision to apply and interpret the treaty’s provisions consistent with international human rights law. We believe it is equally essential that the treaty-making process itself is inclusive. States should facilitate meaningful, inclusive, and safe public and civil society participation from across the region, in all stages of the treaty-development process, including by people of all gender identities, as well as victims, survivors, and affected communities, and ensure that their voices are adequately represented in the final provisions of the treaty. A full list of signatories can be found here.