In this paper, the authors highlight an unexpected synergy between international investment law and state repression that has generally escaped scrutiny. They discuss the full protection and security (FPS) standard, which is commonplace in bilateral investment treaties. They argue that even though international investment lawyers have defended the regime by arguing that it restricts arbitrary and authoritarian state power, investment tribunals have used FPS to demand that states use repressive violence to protect investments. These demands have been put forward even in conditions of social upheaval and resource scarcity, and when investors have themselves directly or indirectly contributed to violence. For this reason, the authors argue that investment lawyers should rethink the relationship between the field and state violence, and those who are concerned about the role of policing in society should pay closer attention to international investment law.