The conventional narrative of the positive impact of international investment law on domestic rule of law is almost intuitive. To begin with, the same principles that govern the core rule of law requirements in international investment treaties are also enshrined in international agreements. In the meantime, the public and political debate over investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has given rise to reform processes in international investment law, at the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels, with various actors shaping the future of international investment governance. Fair and equitable treatment can be an important principle of international investment law. Over the years, international investment arbitration tribunals have described fair and equitable treatment as the obligation of host states to provide foreign investors with a stable and predictable legal framework, fair and transparent proceedings, and protection of legitimate expectations, all of which are essential requirements of the rule of law. Host countries internalize their international investment law obligations and reform their policymaking processes due to their desire to avoid strict liability for breaches of international investment agreements. Furthermore, the provisions of international investment agreements represent the rule of law for foreign investment. . This article examines the application of the rule of law as a normative meta-principle in international investment law and its dispute resolution, and sheds light on the different perspectives on this concept that shape the current reforms of investor-state dispute resolution.