The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) reforms debate has been raging for a while and substantial efforts are currently underway in an attempt to address the various grievances against the system. Adjudicators are important in this system and so is their conduct. The 2020 draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in International Investment Disputes is a welcome initiative in this area. This paper traces the ongoing ISDS reform efforts in a bid to map the background of this draft Code. It then highlights the salient features of the draft Code before making a case for its voluntary application. It concludes that whereas the coming into place of this Code is a big plus towards combating fragmentation of codes and contributing to the overall legitimacy of the ISDS process, its mandatory application remains undesirable. This is owing to the uncertainties of outcome that surround the ongoing ISDS reform efforts, impracticalities that come with a mandatory application of some key provisions, as well as an absence of evidence linking mandatory application to enhanced effectiveness. The paper therefore presents a case for voluntary application of the Draft Code.