This J.S.D. dissertation provides empirical insights into existing concerns with the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. ISDS allows foreign investors to bring claims against sovereign states for alleged violations of international investment agreements before ad hoc arbitral tribunals. In recent years, ISDS has been criticized for, among other things, bias against developing countries, bias arising from ad hoc appointments, and lengthy and costly proceedings. This J.S.D. dissertation empirically examines each of these three critiques against ISDS. The empirical findings provide normative implications for the institutional design of the ISDS system.