Five years into its review of international investment agreements, and specifically investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), Working Group III (WGIII) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) appears to be a long way from delivering meaningful reforms to the investment arbitration regime. In the meantime, ISDS continues to provide foreign investors with an exclusive mechanism through which they can directly sue host states and challenge governmental action, including non-discriminatory regulations. Aligning ISDS reform with developmental objectives requires a recognition that cases have different implications from the perspective of sustainable development and public policy than from the perspective of investor promotion and protection.