Investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) has become a key site where extractive capitalism collides with sovereignty claims by eroding democratic decision making, draining public budgets, and constraining climate policies. Yet, despite mounting calls for reform or abolition, withdrawals from the investment treaty regime remain rare. This article investigates the promises and processes of exit through three case studies where governments faced disputes with extractive investors over redistribution (Tanzania), anti-racism (South Africa) and climate policy (Slovenia), which catalyzed reappraisals of foreign investment protection. Drawing on interviews and fieldwork within the epistemic communities of investment arbitration (lawyers and arbitrators, government agents, activists) in the three countries, the article conceptualizes ISDS withdrawal as contentious politics that operates at the intersection of national projects, transnational legal orders, and the ambiguous mobilizations of civil society groups. “Civil society” preserved or even enforced the apolitical framing of ISDS while seeking to prevent exposure to it. Successful opt-out campaigns thus have to combine international solidarization and coordination with careful considerations concerning the generated level of contentiousness on the national scale
