@amnesty.org launch of the 2025 State of the World’s Human Rights happening now, live midnight.
Selective international law by predator States sets an unprecedented attack on human rights. Time to act.
Absent a shift toward legally grounded, procedurally coherent, and quality-assured governance, the Court’s institutional legitimacy, operations and mission remains at risk. Time to act for the ASP.
It also argues for structural enhancements to the ASP governance architecture: the establishment of an independent legal advisory function to the Bureau, the introduction of a peer-based governance quality review mechanism, and the development of a code of conduct for the ASP.
Thus, the brief advances a set of institutional reform options grounded in comparative analysis, including the commissioning of a governance learning audit to systematically assess how analogous misconduct procedures have been structured across international judicial institutions
The integrity standard applies not only to ICC officials but to States Parties themselves. Without procedural fairness, transparency, and coherent legal reasoning, accountability processes risk eroding the very legitimacy they seek to uphold.
Governance quality is inseparable from legitimacy. Limited transparency, information asymmetries, and improvised procedures risk undermining due process and fragmenting State Party consensus at a moment of external pressure on the Court.
The handling of the Prosecutor investigation reflects a pattern of reactive governance: outsourcing fact-finding, creating ad hoc mechanisms, and layering processes that increase complexity without resolving legal uncertainty.
The Assembly of States Parties is not a passive body but the ICC’s governance organ under Article 112. Its obligation to exercise oversight with competence, procedural integrity, and legal coherence is structural, not aspirational
The ongoing investigation into the ICC Prosecutor highlights a need that has been imminent for many years: a governance quality assurance exercise of the Assembly of States Parties.
My policy brief for @cilrap.bsky.social and 🧵⤵️
📍 www.toaep.org/pbs-pdf/202-...
Finally, other agenda items covered the sheer lack of interest of States Parties in participating in the life of the Assembly (normal) and the missing €60.2m from the Court’s coffers, of which €33.6m are from 2026 alone.
How much is the external investigation costing?
Fourth, the Bureau called for a volunteer State Party to coordinate the topic of “Scheduling of Assembly sessions” - a regular request but one with significance as the Prosecutor can only be removed at a regular or Special ASP meeting. A mid-summer Special Session coming up?
Moreover, the protocol on non disclosure of any documents about this episode will only cease when the Bureau decides. This adds to the paranoia to fish for information that might be inaccurate. The Bureau President could add a layer of balanced public communication.
Third, the Bureau adopted a stringent protocol applied to States Parties under the new ASP Procedural Rules (81/82) to limit any leak or unauthorised sharing of documentation of the process. This is the first time the Bureau adopts such protocol. It’s clear this has not worked.
Second, the meeting did not result in a decision but on outlining the procedure to deal with the ad hoc panel finding and the UN report. There is no mention of either report reaching a conclusion on misconduct.
First, it seems the agenda item was lengthy as other important topics - like the relationship with the US - was postponed. The Bureau is focusing their energy on the external investigation, more than a year in the making, in detriment of other strategic issues at hand.
In a context where no official substantive statements are forthcoming from the ASP Bureau Presidency regarding the external investigation on the Prosecutor, the minutes of the latest meeting on March 4th reveal some important aspects 🧵⤵️
📍 asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/defaul...
In part, it would be a tall order because of the eminence and track record of the ASP President-appointed judicial experts. In other words, what does the Bureau see *legally and procedurally* the experts did not?
📍 www.middleeasteye.net/news/icc-bur...
The recently amended ASP Rules of Procedure 81(1) and 82(2)(c) put on the Bureau the responsibility to show their “reasoning” if it disagrees with the ad hoc panel advisory outcome.
As @sevslv.bsky.social and former judge Tarfusser explain, that will be a tall order for States Parties ⤵️
100% agree.
3/3 Thankful for the recent media and academic attention on the book, I hope the Assembly becomes a regular object of inquiry, comment and reporting to criticise and applaud the noble task of governing the Court.
📍 www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/w...
📍 www.lemonde.fr/internationa...
2/3 I’m encouraged to see the book is fulfilling the aim to pay attention to the role and work of the Assembly through the situation at hand. There are many other elements of their governance role that merits more coverage, for example on the forthcoming judge elections.
1/3 When I set to research the governance role of the Assembly of States Parties for my PhD, the intention was to elevate the tangible ways in which they affect the life of the Court.
The ongoing process regarding the Prosecutor is just one example
📍 brill.com/display/titl...
2/2 Esperemos los años de Milei en política exterior sean estudiados como las excepciones a la trayectoria impecable del país hasta este tiempo.
1/2 En que te han convertido, Cancillería Argentina?
De poder reparar un horror de la historia a ser una marioneta diplomática de Trump, sin soberanía, inteligencia propia y voluntad.
The rules do allow the Bureau to neglect the ad hoc panel and find misconduct that may lead to removal. The same rules ask the Bureau to explain on which grounds. It would be shocking to see diplomats reach a conclusion 3 legal experts with 3 months work of work did not.
For what is worth, in the process of writing my book about the ASP, I did not encounter a single decision by the Bureau that was not by consensus.
It would be very surprising the President of this Bureau has to ask for a vote on whether to disregard the ad hoc panel finding ⤵️
Lastly, the President notes the Bureau is the “decision-maker”. True. As such it can disregard the ad hoc report. But, as per ASP Rules of Procedure, if so, it needs to explain to the Assembly (and the public) on which basis.
Time to act “without delay” indeed.
The press release does not deny the content of media articles, namely: the as hoc panel found no misconduct.
Shrouded in confidentiality, the President does not offer clarifications but says the matter is ongoing.
The press release comes from the ICC’s webpage and it’s by the President.
In the past, on the same issue, the communication came from the ASP website and on behalf of the Presidency (the Pres and 2 VPs)
Institutionally, this matters to keep the process solely within the ASP
