The small but growing body of literature on international investment law in (post-)conflict contexts has focused almost exclusively on identifying the doctrinal bases for investors\u2019 claims and state defenses. Underlying it are often celebratory narratives about the relationship between investment (law), development, and peace. This Article draws on\u2014but departs from\u2014these works to explore the dominant themes, assumptions, and argumentative patterns that have informed practitioners\u2019 and scholars\u2019 engagement with the investment law regime. It does so by juxtaposing what may be characterized as \u201cstate freedom\u201d and \u201cinternational discipline\u201d arguments to examine how they can be invoked to defend different ways by which the developmental objective of investment law is to be achieved, how investment protection standards should respond to state weakness, and whether states should be condemned or absolved for failing to adhere to these standards. In doing so, it explores the promise and limits of legalist interventions within the confines of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system and invites practitioners and scholars of investment law to con-sider the critical implications of the various deformalizing techniques that have been proposed to reform the system, including the \u201ccontextualization\u201d and \u201chumanization\u201d of investment standards, as well as the \u201closs of sovereignty\u201d critique that is routinely invoked against it.<\/p>\n