We conclude on the basis of the case studies contained in this volume that there is little evidence in most of the low- and middle-income countries surveyed that investment treaties and/or investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) have brought about sustained or systemic internalisation of investment treaty disciplines. Rather, the evidence from the case studies suggests that the conclusion of investment treaties has led generally to little or no internalisation, while ISDS seems at most to have triggered some ad hoc, sporadically implemented “informational” measures of internalisation. Given the limited evidence of internalisation that we find in these case studies, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the central predicate of the rule of law thesis’ spill-over claim. Further, out of the eight case studies contained in this volume, we identify seven factors which appear to have significantly impacted internalisation in these countries.