Investment treaties are said to improve the rule of law in host states. Fearing claims, governments will internalise international investment obligations into their decision-making processes, resulting in positive spill-over effects on the rule of law. Such arguments have never been backed by empirical research. We develop a framework for thinking about the internalisation of international treaty obligations in governmental decision making that attempts to take account of the complexities of governance. We lay out a typology of processes whereby international investment treaty obligations may be internalised, and identify factors which may affect whether and to what extent international investment law is internalised in governmental decision making. This framework serves as the background for the main body of the book in which the empirical case studies address whether and how a select group of governments in Asia internalise international investment treaty obligations in their decision-making processes.