This article aims to show that the mainstream discourse of the international law of foreign investment protection has adjusted itself to changing historical circumstances in a way that brings to light its strategic and ideological character. It argues, in particular, that the justifications offered in defence of foreign investment protection under international law appear to have been pretextual rather than principled, having been offered to provide reasons capable of flying at a particular point in time in light of the attending circumstances rather than to serve as an analytically sound, empirically grounded, and diachronically consistent framework.