Neither universalism, nor isolationism can be regarded as legitimate representations of a pluralist global society. Evidence can be brought that in economic terms the current paradigm engenders instability by enhancing inequality within and among diverse constituencies. The present-day factual reality denies the zero-sum game pattern and, together with that, the reliability of the Westphalian model. What type of legal processes should be used in order to ensure investor protection for the purpose of concluding free trade agreements between the EU and a sovereign of equal calibre? With this question in mind and against the factual reality of an enlarged EU and other altered economic contingencies, we engaged in the study of a number of relevant disputes on investor protection obligations and state aid control. The analysis includes a brief scrutiny of Commission proposals as regards the most recently discussed FTAs and responses received from the Parliament and Council, representing the multi-levelled EU constituency. A historical outlook into the formation and development of the Westphalian international order and the parallel progressive transformation of the EU from a political confederation towards a form of federal state acting within a defined area of conferred powers is used as a platform for further reflection towards a post-Westphalian future. Eventually, the article advocates a model based on enhanced systematic and – thus open – communication across various constituencies and a more perceptive contemplation of the interactions between state and non-state trade governance as ground for a new conception of international trade relations in the new millennium.