How can states articulate their understanding of what is the right balance of investors' interests and their own interest in regulating in the public interest in a new generation of international investment agreements? Will these provisions be complied with by arbitral tribunals in future investor-state disputes or are they futile or even risky? Contrary to rather pessimistic views, assessing the contractual options and predicting their prospects of success must take account of the change in the interests of the actors involved and arbitral practice. Such change, so the author argues, has been brought about by a massive, manifold and persistent opposition to an increasingly broad interpretation of investor rights and already resulted in a recalibration to the benefit of the right to regulate in the public interest.