In discussions of impunity, such as the one surrounding the International Criminal Court, the concept of impunity itself has remained relatively unattended. Examining the concept more closely reveals that we use it in both thin and thick senses, the thin relating to a concern about the values of punishment and the criminal law and the thick to a broader notion of equality, of which crimes being punished (equally) is one aspect, but not the totality of the issue. Only a thick version of impunity captures all that makes it a problem we care greatly about. According to this conception, what makes impunity a problem is primarily a failure to ensure equality before the law. This can show up in two ways. First, when a crime is not prosecuted or punished because the offender belongs to a group of people who are beyond the reach of the law. Second, when a crime is not prosecuted or punished because the victim belongs to a group of people deemed less important in the eyes the law. Institutions and courts of law end impunity, first and foremost, by restoring the experience of equality against privilege and brute power. This sets an important challenge to the International Criminal Court, because while the Court may serve many important values, its current institutional formation and its political context seem to undermine its capacity to contribute to end impunity in the thicker sense.

This Article answers the question of whether investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”) discriminates against nationals by providing foreign investors with an extra avenue to challenge state measures. The complaint that ISDS is discriminatory as a matter of principle has surfaced before several European constitutional courts—including the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice—in connection with the ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (“CETA”). This Article rejects this complaint. The Federal Constitutional Court was able to leave the question of discrimination open in the applications for a preliminary injunction to stop ratification. It will have to take a stand, however, in the principal proceedings. If the Court were to side with the applicants, it would sound the death knell not only for the CETA in its present form, but also for the multilateral investment court system promoted by the European Union and, in particular, Germany. The point made by the applicants in the CETA complaint is not only of importance in a European constitutional law context. Whether ISDS is per se discriminatory is a fundamental issue which requires answering before any reform steps in relation to ISDS are addressed.

The ‘rule of law’ is a concept at the very heart of the United Nations (UN) mission declared its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. What does the concept mean internationally? The paper considers its role in international adjudication; in the UN more generally; in terms of the acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ); the difference between thick and thin definitions of the concept; equality before the law; the requirement of clarity and certainty by reference to interpretation of treaties and maritime delimitation; compliance by Governments with international law; and the peaceful settlement of international disputes; and concludes with the importance of personal qualities and professional qualities.

Writing in 1964, Pieter Kooijmans challenged the principle of legal equality of states: it would have to prove its value or be discarded. He also predicted the relevance of the principle for a new subject of international law: the individual. Almost fifty years later, this article reviews how the principle has fared in international criminal law, a field of international law relevant both to states and to the individual. The review shows how the emergence of a more vertical international legal order has weakened the position of the principle of equality between states. The weakening of the principle in the relation between states has in turn affected the equality between individuals, which has contributed to further actual inequality between states. Contrary to one of Kooijmans's scenarios, the emerging international legal order has not diminished the role of the ‘factual conditions of power politics’. Legal questions on permitted differentiations always involve inherently political assessments. For instance, Kooijmans's concept of ‘juridically relevant’ differences requires a determination of which differences are ‘of intrinsic value for the existence of legal order’, and thus a decision on what that order should look like and how it is to be pursued. Moreover, factual conditions of power politics continue to encroach upon the principle of legal equality. Perhaps the principle of legal equality, like the fight against impunity, is more of an ideal than a reality. But the pursuit of the fight against impunity has thus far undermined the fight for more equality.