NEW YORK (Dispatches) – On Monday, Middle East Eye revealed that former British Foreign Secretary David Cameron privately threatened to defund and withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) if it issued arrest warrants for the Zionist regime’s officials.
Cameron, then foreign secretary in Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government, made the threat in April 2024 in a heated phone call with Karim Khan, the British chief prosecutor of the court.
Since then, 10 British MPs have commented on the revelation. Some have called for a parliamentary investigation, while others have urged the Labour government to distance itself from Cameron’s actions.
On Tuesday afternoon, Humza Yousaf, who was Scotland’s first minister when Cameron made the threat, said that it was “shameful that Lord Cameron allegedly threatened the ICC for having the audacity to do their job”.
Now, legal experts say there is a serious risk that Cameron, who sits as a Tory peer in the House of Lords, could be criminally liable.
Francesca Albanese, the prominent legal scholar and UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, weighed in on Tuesday evening in an exclusive interview with MEE. 
Albanese, an expert in international law, was careful to note that she is not conversant with all the details of the Cameron story. She caveated her comments by saying, “if this occurred and there is evidence”. 
The UN rapporteur explained that if Cameron acted as MEE’s sources said he did, the former foreign secretary and prime minister has committed a “criminal offence under the Rome Statute”. 
The Rome Statute criminalizes those who attempt to prevent war crimes from being prosecuted.
Article 70 awards the ICC jurisdiction over those responsible for “impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties”.
“A threat against the ICC, direct or indirect, is an obstruction of justice,” Albanese told MEE.
“It’s an action aimed at preventing the court from carrying out an investigation. So it’s a violation of the principle of judicial independence.
“It’s incredibly serious that someone in a position of power might have had the audacity to do that.”
Albanese pointed out that “any form of intimidation, retaliation, or interference with court officials is an offense in itself”.
Significantly, she said that the “court can take action against a person who misbehaves or obstructs proceedings.”
Cameron could also face potential repercussions under British domestic law.