The calls for reform of investment treaty regime are neither novel nor entirely unexpected. And the need for that reform has recently reached its pitiful nadir where the UNCITRAL Working Group III gathered for its first meeting in Vienna back in November-December 2017 to discuss states’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement. States’ concerns about the reform have been repeatedly referred to in recent publications, but international scholars have not yet discussed Russia's stance in detail. In the following an attempt has been made to fill the gap in literature by introducing the Russian position which contrasts nicely with Canada or the EU. Why is this important? Russia is a significant state in the UNCITRAL Working Group III and any slight shifts in its approach in the UNCITRAL reforms are closely watched. It is the right time to provide an analytical framework for understanding the Russian position in these reform dynamics.

I. Introduction
II. Russia in the UNC ITRA L Working Group III
    A. Transparency
    B. Amicus Curiae
    C. Holistic Approach to Procedural Reform
III. Russia’s Dogmatic Camp
    A. Facts v. Perceptions
    B. Consistency and Predictability
    C. Arbitrator Appointments
IV. Will Russia ever Go to ICS ID?
V. Conclusion
References

• Dmitry K. Labin(International Law at MGIMO University)
• Alena V. Soloveva(MGIMO University)