The Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement transcends the traditional framework of trade rules, achieving historic institutional innovations in areas such as transparency and streamlined administrative procedures. As the IFD Agreement moves toward entry into force and implementation, the question of how to invoke the dispute settlement mechanism in investment facilitation disputes has become a critical issue. Based on the “Nullification or Impairment” clause in relevant WTO agreements, the paths to the justiciability of disputes are primarily categorized into “Violation Complaints” and “Non-Violation Complaints”. A comparison reveals that the main distinction between the two lies in whether the measures taken by a member violate the agreement. Given India’s opposition to the agreement’s entry into force, initiating a violation complaint faces significant resistance, whereas a non-violation complaint can circumvent disputes regarding the legality of the security measures in question. Consequently, non-violation complaints are less adversarial and lead to faster rulings, making them more available for investment facilitation dispute settlement mechanisms. Nevertheless, the two pathways are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary, each filling gaps in the other.