Reading Mr. Sauvant's brief thoroughly, his answer is definitively no. In fact, the real question is how to address investor's obligations in a potential multilateral investment regime. To pick up, for example, investor-State dispute settlement, there are various reform proposals put on the table, ranging from abolition of such mechanisms through stricter rules on conflict of interest and training of arbitrators in international law to appeal mechanisms. One may naturally argue that some of these reforms are possible even within the current patchwork system, to which supporters of the multilateral way usually respond that only a universal system can ensure full consistency across the globe.

 Thank you Kalman Kalotay.  The legitimate concerns on issues like transparency, predictability and consistency in ISDS raise a number of questions on the governance of international investment relations. The state being  a party to such investment relations and ISDS and public resources is spent for conduct of such relations,  the conduct of global investment relations has to subscribe to certain principles. I think only a universal system, like WTO, can bring in consistency in the conduct of  global investment relations. 

this is a very interesting question, which might show that the international trading environment benefits companies more than it protects workers. Liberalization often ignores labour, social and environmental standards.