The EU’s proposal to multilateralize investment disputes has received considerable degree of support. Before encouraging this proposal, it is important to analyze the feasibility of whether it will achieve the intended goals of international investment law. Currently, the international investment order functions through the lenses of constitutionalism to uphold certain constitutional norms. By constitutionalizing a multilateral court, the EU is attempting to bridge the gaps of the current system. However, a multilateral court, in the current form, is incapable of providing security, predictability and consistency. This is due to devising procedural rules as an antecedent over multilateral substantive rules. Moreover, there is no consensus for multilateral substantive rules. In such a scenario, the mandate of consistency cannot be achieved due to the applicability of different substantive rules. It would create boxes of jurisprudence that would create more chaos than already is. By elaborating these dimensions, this research contends the goals of international investment law, the rule of law in particular, are unlikely to be achieved. It could also provide coherence in the wrong direction and further fragment the system. A multilateral court would not look any different from the current system. It would be a wolf in a sheep’s clothing. So, hold on. Do not constitutionalize the system yet. Devise multilateral substantive rules first.