A dominant understanding of the international investment regime is that states sign bilateral investment treaties and commit to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) to signal commitment to the property rights of foreign investors. The enforceability of ISDS awards is crucial to the strength of such commitments as signals. However, recent empirical research suggests that there is considerable more variation in how states respond to adverse ISDS awards than existing accounts would suggest. Using a novel dataset, investigate whether states' varying needs to signal property-rights commitments account for variation in how states respond to adverse ISDS awards.
