Personal data protection in investment arbitration is increasingly important as more and more countries enact mandatory personal data protection laws and the COVID-19 pandemic makes online hearings the new normal. Tribunals have to consider critical, yet unresolved, normative questions, such as (i) how data protection laws would influence the trend towards transparency in investment arbitrations brought pursuant to modern investment treaties; (ii) whether a party can invoke a data protection law to reject access to fundamental documents and completely shift the power in an arbitration proceeding; (iii) whether it is good to have multiple data protection laws directly applicable in an investment arbitration; and (iv) whether the so-called Brussels Effect may take hold of investment arbitration. These questions directly address the alleged legitimacy crisis of investment arbitration (for example, procedural transparency and efficiency) in the digital era. They also have a critical impact on the fairness of proceedings and are closely related to the protection of fundamental human rights and the concern of digital surveillance. This article comprehensively maps the consensual and mandatory applications of data protection laws in investment arbitration. Adopting comparative-law and conflict-of-laws methodologies, it intends to provide tentative solutions to the four questions mentioned above.

中文翻译：

---

投资仲裁中保护个人数据的冲突和暂定解决方案

随着越来越多的国家颁布强制性个人数据保护法，以及 COVID-19 大流行使在线听证会成为新常态，投资仲裁中的个人数据保护变得越来越重要。仲裁庭必须考虑关键但尚未解决的规范性问题，例如 (i) 数据保护法将如何影响根据现代投资条约提出的投资仲裁透明度趋势；(ii) 一方是否可以援引数据保护法拒绝访问基本文件并完全转移仲裁程序中的权力；(iii) 在投资仲裁中直接适用多项数据保护法是否有益；(iv) 所谓的布鲁塞尔效应是否会影响投资仲裁。这些问题直接解决了所谓的数字时代投资仲裁的合法性危机（例如，程序透明度和效率）。它们还对诉讼的公平性产生至关重要的影响，与基本人权的保护和数字监控的关注密切相关。本文全面描绘了数据保护法在投资仲裁中的自愿和强制适用。采用比较法和法律冲突法的方法，旨在为上述四个问题提供试探性的解决方案。它们还对诉讼的公平性产生至关重要的影响，与基本人权的保护和数字监控的关注密切相关。本文全面描绘了数据保护法在投资仲裁中的自愿和强制适用。采用比较法和法律冲突法的方法，旨在为上述四个问题提供试探性的解决方案。它们还对诉讼的公平性产生至关重要的影响，与基本人权的保护和数字监控的关注密切相关。本文全面描绘了数据保护法在投资仲裁中的自愿和强制适用。采用比较法和法律冲突法的方法，旨在为上述四个问题提供试探性的解决方案。