The article comments on the effects of the proposal to create a permanent international investment tribunal as replacement of and answer to the concerns in respect of the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. Specifically, the article examines the eleven provisions published by United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in relation to the selection and appointment of ISDS tribunal members vis-à-vis their potential to undermine the parties’ autonomy and balance of powers, as well as the enforceability of a decision eventually rendered. The aim of this contribution is to advance the debate about the suggested reform and consider whether the degree of change entailed by the proposal would still allow for the mechanism to be defined as international arbitration.