Customary international law is seemingly irreconcilably conflicted on the fundamental issue of whether it recognizes an international law equivalent to national-domestic statutes of limitations. By way of example, only 132 of the approximately 3000 bilateral and multilateral investment protection treaties in force have a limitations or prescription period. The balance would theoretically allow for the filing of stale claims in perpetuity or otherwise engraft random limitations periods on an ad hoc basis. Thus, the lack of uniformity and governing standard has given rise to uncertainty and insecurity: the very policy objectives that the limitations period doctrine itself seeks to eradicate. The authors argue that the fragmented status of public international law with respect to the limitations period doctrine is attributable to (i) the wholesale importation of national-domestic law on limitations into public international law without having considered the policies and aspirations of international law, and (ii) the economic agendas of industrialized states to the exclusion of the interests of developing states and economies in transition. A descriptive and prescriptive methodology is applied in the development of this proposition.