Reimagining investor–state dispute settlement—or how to map indeterminacy and reform identity

Abstract This article contributes to the emerging critiques of international investment law (IIL) and investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform processes. Drawing from an ensemble of scholarship from Critical Legal Studies, New Approaches to International Law, and Third World Approaches to International Law, it argues that a yearn to reform this regime must be preceded by an identification of the various facets in need of reform, particularly ISDS. In this context, the article engages in a more preliminary inquiry. Using the indeterminacy theory, it explains that the discontent with IIL primarily arises from the judicial function of ISDS, the notion of justice it promotes, and the politics immanent in the interpretation of IIL rules. Therefore, for any reform of IIL to be effective, it must strive to remedy the narrow pool of identities, histories, and the resultant politics that define the community of ISDS arbitrators and influence the interpretation of IIL rules.