Over the latter half of the twentieth century, drafters of international treaties appeared to conceive of the concept of property quite broadly. Few specifications as to the parameters of protected property interests could be found. Over the past three decades however, as the number of concluded international investment treaties rose, and investor-State arbitrations conducted under them grew exponentially, negotiators have articulated more precisely the nature of the property rights that these treaties protect.  With this article, we take the position that a “literalist approach” must be undertaken in treaty interpretation, relying on the defined terms placed in the treaty in order to properly outline the scope of property rights protected under a treaty. Not only is this approach already the common practice of international tribunals, but logically is the only method which adequately accounts for the multifaceted nature of treaty drafting, and grants sufficient weight to the specific terms selected by the representatives of the drafting States.  Below we discuss how the literalist approach to interpretation serves as a means to ensure that the original intentions and objectives of the drafting parties are maintained throughout the life of the treaty. Moreover, we maintain that this method, allows tribunals to achieve both predictability and transparency with respect to how property rights are interpreted in light of the text of the treaty, and will likely continue to serve to encourage the use and application of international investment agreements in the future.