Certain principles in international law are exceptionally controversial and as a result international adjudicators sometimes reach very different conclusions despite being presented with almost identical facts. Yet, we do not know if, or how, compliance with international obligations is affected by the consistency of international jurisprudence. When different panels of adjudicators disagree about the correct resolution of particular type of dispute, are states less likely to accept these awards? We address this question in the context of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), where different arbitration panels often reach different conclusions in almost identical cases. Using novel data on the compliance politics following 306 ISDS awards, we investigate the influence of inconsistency on compliance. Specifically, we evaluate whether states are less likely to comply with investment treaty awards when arbitrators invoke controversial standards of protection.