The international investment regime is in flux. The mainstream practice of investment law and arbitration works on the basis of the regime's foundations in contract and property law. However, critical scholarship in the field has unearthed the coloniality of power that permeates both the practice of international investment law and the current reform exercise led by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III. These critical scholars warn of the imminent reproduction and entrenchment of the systemic inequities, power asymmetries, and investment law's investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime which is skewed against post-colonial host states. The two books1 under review offer a range of thought-provoking approaches for analyzing the past, present, and future of investment law. This Review Essay categorizes these books into two modes of critical scholarship on international investment law: moderate and radical.2 In Part II, I flesh out the conceptual categories of moderate and radical critique. In Part III, I analyze the books under review through the lens of these two conceptual frameworks. In Part IV, I turn to the question of race and investment law. This Review Essay suggests that race should not be neglected in our analysis of the past, present, and, most importantly, the future of investment law—a core theme that both books under review does not engage with. Part V briefly concludes.

中文翻译：

---

种族与国际投资法：论改革和不紧缩的可能性

国际投资体制不断变化。投资法和仲裁的主流实践是建立在合同法和物权法制度基础之上的。然而，该领域的批判性学术研究揭示了权力的殖民性，这种殖民性渗透到国际投资法实践和联合国国际贸易法委员会（贸易法委员会）第三工作组当前领导的改革活动中。这些持批评态度的学者警告说，系统性不平等、权力不对称以及投资法中不利于后殖民东道国的投资者与国家争端解决（ISDS）制度即将再现和巩固。两本书1under review 提供了一系列发人深省的方法来分析投资法的过去、现在和未来。这篇评论文章将这些书籍分为两种国际投资法批判学术模式：缓和和激进的。2在第二部分中，我充实了以下概念类别缓和和激进的批判。在第三部分中，我通过这两个概念框架来分析所审查的书籍。在第四部分中，我转向种族和投资法问题。这篇评论文章表明，在我们对投资法的过去、现在，以及最重要的是未来的分析中，种族问题不应被忽视——这是两本书都没有涉及的核心主题。第五部分简要总结。