Investor seeking to get a more favorable investment treaty protection through restructuring their investment is not an uncommon phenomenon. The occurrence of such should be jointly attributed to the fragmentation of investment treaty network, the depoliticization of investment dispute settlement mechanism, the singularity and expansion of the nationality criterion of legal person etc. Investor treaty shopping has not only promoted the treaty abuse of investors, but also violated of the reciprocity of investment treaty and the sustainable development policy. Several adjudicatory routes for regulating investor treaty shopping have been developed in the international investment arbitration practices, each indicating some problems to varying degree: the first route is to preclude the ratione materiae jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal by asserting the investment made by the investor amounting to the violation of bona fide principle, which however has not received universal support; the second route is that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil has applicability in exceptional case, while its application standard has not formed general consensus; the third route is that the doctrine of prohibition of abuse process has general applicability, but its application standard awaits for concretization; the fourth route is that ratione temporis jurisdiction has general applicability, albeit the time of the investment dispute is not easy to identify precisely. In such context, introducing a more concrete application standard of the prohibition of abuse process doctrine, or refining the definition standard of the nationality of legal person, or improving the denial of benefit clause, or imposing adverse burden of procedural cost, or abandoning the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, are conducive to inhibiting the investor treaty shopping phenomenon.