This chapter analyses the policies and practices related to resolving investor–state disputes through ISDS. In this area, three broad themes emerged from our data. First, there are practices of forming the defence strategy for specific investment arbitrations and handling ISDS proceedings. The main issue is whether to engage lawyers from private practice and, if so, to what extent. Second, we discuss the matter of coordination and communication between various governance actors during ISDS proceedings. The third issue is that of dispute prevention. Given the stakes, risks, and challenges resulting from ISDS disputes, many governance actors dealing with IIAs realise that dispute prevention is crucial in internalising the IIA disciplines. This section focuses on various training and educative programmes for bureaucrats that were designed, proposed, or implemented to increase the knowledge about and awareness of IIAs within the broad sphere of national governance. We end with a discussion on the blurring of the public–private divide through the engagement of private expertise in the service of the public when defending ISDS cases.

Survivors need support when preparing and submitting redress applications; they need help through (often protracted) assessment processes, and assistance when they receive payments. Good support is necessary to survivors and to the effectiveness of any redress programme. The chapter first explores how local community agencies support survivors. This investigation encompasses the roles of survivors and offenders in providing support. I then look at how to provide survivors with professional services. While survivors should have real choices where they get support, this chapter stresses the advantages of providing holistic support through local community agencies.