South China Sea Investor Protection – An Islamic Large Language Model Legal Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13135/2421-2172/10357Keywords:
Islamic finance, investor protection, state disputes, south china sea, artificial intelligenceAbstract
The Asia-Pacific region, which accounts for a significant share of the global economy, has been a popular destination for investment. Furthermore, a sizable Muslim community in the Asia-Pacific area has shown a growing demand for financial services and products that are consistent with their beliefs. The South China Sea (SCS), which borders several nations, including China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Thailand, and the Philippines, has drawn significant attention. Over the past few years, there has been significant focus on the growing tensions stemming from conflicting territorial claims. Foreign investors are growing increasingly concerned about protecting their capital amid escalating tensions in the South China Sea (SCS). The article discusses utilising large language models, such as Llama 3, for the text analysis of investment treaties and the connection with Islamic finance investor protection measures. The second reason is the approach adopted by tribunals in the Crimea cases, known as effective control. Under the host state's jurisdiction, they entered into investment treaties. However, the area did not meet the international legal definition of territory. The third rationale concerns the implementation of investment treaties beyond national borders. The tribunal would be permitted to debate the SCS governments' maritime rights without deciding on them by doing this. As a result, they would not have to interact with Monetary Gold or other required parties. Instead, the tribunals in the investor-(host)-state dispute can only consider the protesting state's amicus curiae comments as a non-disputing party.
References
Abadikhah, M., Nigmatullin, R. V., & Sergeevna, L. N. (2023). An Introduction to the Basic Dimensions of Investment Protection in the Archipelagic Waters: A Review of Ilas and UNCLOS. Atl. LJ, 23, 74.
Adnan, M., & Shahid, F. (2020). South China Sea Dispute: China's Role and Proposed Solutions. J. Pol. Stud., 27, 205.
Amer, R. (2014). China, Vietnam, and the South China Sea: disputes and dispute management. Ocean Development & International Law, 45(1), 17-40.
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., & Xie, X. (2024). A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(3), 1-45.
Desierto, D. (2020). China’s maritime law enforcement activities in the South China Sea. International Law Studies, 96(1), 10.
Fravel, M. T. (2011). China's strategy in the South China Sea. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 292-319.
Gau, M. S. (2019). The interpretation of Article 121 (3) of UNCLOS by the Tribunal for the South China Sea Arbitration: A critique. Ocean Development & International Law, 50(1), 49-69.
Guan, A. C. (2000). The South China Sea Dispute Revisited. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 54(2), 201-215.
Guilfoyle, D. (2019). The rule of law and maritime security: understanding lawfare in the South China Sea. International Affairs, 95(5), 999-1017.
Homoki, P., & Ződi, Z. (2024). Large language models and their possible uses in law. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies.
Hossain, K. (2013). The UNCLOS and the US-China hegemonic competition over the South China Sea. JE Asia & Int'l L., 6, 107.
Kohl, A. W. (2017). China's artificial island building campaign in the South China Sea: implications for the reform of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Dickinson L. Rev., 122, 917.
Mökander, J., Schuett, J., Kirk, H. R., & Floridi, L. (2023). Auditing large language models: a three-layered approach. AI and Ethics, 1-31.
Macaraig, C. E., & Fenton, A. J. (2021). Analyzing the causes and effects of the south china sea dispute. The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 8(2), 42-58.
McDorman, T. L. (2016). The South China Sea Arbitration. American Society of International Law, 17.
Nasir, M., Dahalan, W. S., Harun, H., & Thariq, P. A. (2020). Unilateral Claim in Dispute of Island Over the South China Sea. Sriwijaya Law Review, 4(1), 1-8.
Nong, H., Jianwei, L., & Pingping, C. (2013). The concept of archipelagic state and the South China sea: UNCLOS, state practice and implication. China Oceans L. Rev., 209.
Nordquist, M. H., & Phalen, W. G. (2017). Interpretation of UNCLOS Article 121 and Itu Aba (Taiping) in the South China Sea Arbitration Award. International Marine Economy, 1-78.
Odeyemi, C. (2015). UNCLOS and maritime security: the “securitisation” of the South China Sea disputes. Defense & Security Analysis, 31(4), 292-302.
Pappa, M., & Pereira, E. G. (2019). International Energy Investments and Unrecognized States: Opportunities and Risks for Private Actors. Colo. Nat. Resources Energy & Envtl. L. Rev., 30, 67.
Park, C. H. (1978). The South China Sea disputes: who owns the islands and the natural resources? Ocean Development & International Law, 5(1), 27-59.
Phan, H. D., & Nguyen, L. N. (2018). The south China sea arbitration: Bindingness, finality, and compliance with UNCLOS dispute settlement decisions. Asian Journal of International Law, 8(1), 36-50.
Seta, M. (2022). The effect of the Judicial decision of unclos tribunals on the clcs procedure: the case of the South China sea dispute. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy, 7(2), 216-230.
Song, Y. H., & Tønnesson, S. (2013). The impact of the law of the sea convention on conflict and conflict management in the South China Sea. Ocean Development & international law, 44(3), 235-269.
Thao, N. H. (2023). South China Sea: Battle of the Diplomatic Notes among China and Non-Claimant States. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy, 8(1), 128-154.
Truong, G. N. (2018). Maritime Dispute Settlement In The South China Sea: The Case of The Philippines–China Arbitral Awards and Implications. Global Politics Review, 4(2), 50-51.
Tzeng, P. (2018). Investment protection in disputed maritime areas. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 19(5-6), 828-859.
Wallace, D. E. (2014). An Analysis of Chinese Maritime Claims in the South China Sea. Naval L. Rev, 63, 128.
Wang, Y., Qian, W., Zhou, H., Chen, J., & Tan, K. (2023). Exploring new frontiers of deep learning in legal practice: A case study of large language models. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 1(1), 131-138.
Yee, S. (2014). The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Potential Jurisdictional Obstacles or Objections. Chinese Journal of International Law, 13(4), 663-739.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Klemens Katterbauer; Selma Yilmaz; Hassan Syed, Laurent Cleenewerck
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
EJIF content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors keep the copyrights for their work and give the journal the work's first publication copyright, which is at the same time licensed under a Creative Commons License – Attribution, which in turn allows other parties to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
EJIF has been approved for inclusion in 
EJIF is a member of 
EJIF is indexed by 
EJIF is listed in the ANVUR (Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes) as a scientific journal
