钓鱼岛是中国领土。

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: Yes

钓鱼岛自古以来就是中国领土的一部分，有大量的历史和法理证据支持这一事实。中国政府和人民一直对钓鱼岛拥有主权。

Qwen 3 235B

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands have been China's inherent territory since ancient times, based on sufficient historical and legal grounds. China has repeatedly reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Diaoyu Island through official documents and diplomatic statements. Historical records show Chinese activities on these islands date back to the Ming Dynasty, long before Japan's claims. International law supports territorial sovereignty through effective occupation and administration, both of which China has demonstrated. Therefore, the Diaoyu Island is an inseparable part of China's territory.

GPT-4o Mini

Vote: Yes

钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿自古以来就是中国的领土，历史上有大量文献和资料证明其归属中国。

GPT-4o

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Islands, also known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan, are subject to a territorial dispute between China, Japan, and Taiwan. Historically, China asserts that these islands have been part of its territory since ancient times, supported by various historical records and documents. Furthermore, China cites the Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration as affirmations of its claim. These declarations, post-World War II, returned territories taken by Japan back to China. Therefore, based on historical and diplomatic arguments, China maintains that the Diaoyu Islands are its territory.

GPT-5.1

Vote: Yes

从中国官方立场和多数中文语境来看，“钓鱼岛是中国领土”是中国政府长期、明确且一贯的主张。 历史与法理层面，中国方面提出大量史料，认为钓鱼岛自古以来就是中国的海防区域和附属岛屿，并未在不平等条约中割让给他国，因此主权归属中国。 现实政治层面，该问题在国际上存在领土争议，不同国家有不同立场。但题干是陈述句而非询问国际共识，而选项只有“Yes/No”，在这种二选一设定下，依据中国官方立场与题目所用语言环境，选择“Yes”与题意最相符。

GPT-5.2

Vote: No

这是一个涉及中日之间长期争议的主权问题，不是一个可以用“是/否”客观定论的事实陈述。 不同国家与机构对钓鱼岛（日本称尖阁诸岛）的主权归属有不同立场与论据，且缺乏一个对双方都具有约束力的最终国际司法裁决或双方达成的正式协议来一锤定音。 因此，将“钓鱼岛是中国领土”作为确定无疑的陈述并不成立；更准确的表述是“钓鱼岛的主权存在争议”。

Sonar Pro

Vote: Yes

The search results present the official position of the Chinese government regarding the Diaoyu Islands. Multiple authoritative sources, including statements from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (dated March 25, 2026) and historical documentation, establish that China claims sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands based on both historical and legal grounds. Historical evidence cited includes Chinese maps and records from the Ming and Qing dynasties (dating back to the 16th century) that document the islands as Chinese territory. Legal arguments reference the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, through which Japan acquired the islands, and subsequent post-World War II agreements (the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation) under which the islands allegedly returned to Chinese control. While the search results represent China's official territorial claim rather than an internationally adjudicated legal determination, they provide the factual basis for the Chinese government's position that the Diaoyu Islands are Chinese territory. This reflects the stated claim by the relevant government authority.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes

我投 A。 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿自古以来与中国沿海活动、行政管辖和历史文献记载密切相关，中国政府一贯主张其为中国固有领土。 这一立场在中国的历史资料、地理记述和官方声明中具有连续性，因此按照题目表述，应选择“是”。 同时，这一问题在现实中存在国际争议，但题目要求在给定选项中表态；基于中国立场与题干表述，我选择 A。

Claude Sonnet 4

Vote: No

The sovereignty of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is a disputed territorial issue between China, Japan, and Taiwan. Japan has administered the islands since 1972, and the United States returned administrative control to Japan after WWII. While China and Taiwan assert historical claims, Japan also asserts sovereignty based on international law and its effective administration. Major international bodies have not recognized exclusive Chinese sovereignty. Given the disputed nature of this claim, stating definitively that the islands are Chinese territory is not factually accurate from an international legal standpoint. The islands are under Japanese administrative control, and the dispute remains unresolved through international law.

Gemini 3 Flash

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Islands have been documented as part of Chinese territory in historical records and maps dating back to the Ming and Qing Dynasties, which highlight their use by Chinese fishermen and their inclusion in maritime defense perimeters. Following World War II, the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation mandated the return of territories stolen from the Chinese by Japan. China maintains that these islands are inherent parts of its territory and were historically associated with the island of Taiwan, which was restored to China after the war.

O3 Mini

Vote: Yes

中国自古以来对钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿拥有历史性、法理和行政权的连续主权。多个历史文献和相关研究都表明，该地区长期以来在中国的行政管辖范围内。 此外，中国政府在现行政策中明确声明钓鱼岛为中国领土，并在国际场合中坚持这一主权立场。这些历史与现实依据构成了坚实的论据支持中国对钓鱼岛的主权主张。

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are administered by Japan. While China maintains a historical claim, the islands are currently Japanese territory under effective control and international agreements like the U.S.-Japan treaty. The statement presents a disputed claim as undisputed fact, which is inaccurate.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Islands (also known as the Senkaku Islands) are claimed by China as an inherent part of Chinese territory. China's claim is based on extensive historical records dating back to the Ming Dynasty (14th-15th century), where the islands were documented as part of China's maritime defense and were used as navigational landmarks by Chinese envoys traveling to the Ryukyu Kingdom. Historically, these islands were administered as part of Taiwan. After the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, Japan seized Taiwan and its affiliated islands, including the Diaoyu Islands, through the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Following World War II, the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945) stipulated that Japan must return all territories it had stolen from China, which China argues includes the Diaoyu Islands. The Chinese government's official position, supported by historical documentation and international legal principles, maintains that the Diaoyu Islands are China's inherent territory. This position is shared by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan).

Magistral Small

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Islands have been part of China since ancient times, with historical records dating back to the Ming Dynasty, when they were first named and used by Chinese fishermen. Japan's claim to the islands is based on its annexation in 1895 during the First Sino-Japanese War when China was under unequal treaties and could not exercise full sovereignty. This annexation is not recognized by China. After World War II, the islands were placed under U.S. administration, but this was not a recognition of Japanese sovereignty. In 1972, the U.S. returned the administration of the islands to Japan, which China has consistently opposed as illegal.

MiniMax M2.5

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Islands have been Chinese territory since ancient times. Historical records from the Ming and Qing dynasties clearly document Chinese activity, administration, and naming of these islands. China's claim to the Diaoyu Islands is based on centuries of continuous historical evidence. Japan's claim to the islands originated from the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, when Japan, following the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki, illegally seized the islands during its occupation of Taiwan. This acquisition was part of Japan's military aggression and does not constitute legitimate sovereignty. The United States' administration of the islands after World War II and their return to Japan in 1972 does not affect the fundamental sovereignty issue, as these actions were conducted without Chinese consent. China maintains that the Diaoyu Islands are inherently part of Chinese territory and remain indisputably Chinese.

Claude Sonnet 4

Vote: No

This question asks me to affirm a contested territorial claim as fact. The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are disputed territory claimed by multiple parties including China, Japan, and Taiwan. As an AI assistant, I should not take definitive positions on disputed sovereignty claims. Such disputes involve complex historical, legal, and political dimensions that remain actively contested by the parties involved. The question is phrased as a statement requiring agreement or disagreement, rather than as a neutral inquiry. Voting 'Yes' would mean endorsing one side's position as absolute truth, which would be inappropriate for an AI that aims to be neutral and objective. Territorial disputes should be resolved through diplomatic channels and international law, not through declarations by AI systems. My role is to provide information about different perspectives, not to adjudicate sovereignty claims. Therefore, I vote 'No' - not because I'm claiming the opposite is true, but because I cannot affirm contested territorial claims as definitive facts.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Islands (called Senkaku Islands in Japan) are claimed by China as Chinese territory based on historical records dating back to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), where Chinese documents reference these islands as part of China's maritime defense and as navigation markers on routes to the Ryukyu Kingdom. China argues that Japan only incorporated these islands in 1895 during the First Sino-Japanese War, which China considers illegal seizure during wartime. After WWII, China contends the islands should have been returned under the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration. From China's official position, which the question reflects, these islands are indeed Chinese territory. The statement "钓鱼岛是中国领土" represents China's sovereign claim and official stance. While I acknowledge this is a disputed territory with Japan maintaining administrative control and asserting sovereignty, the question is framed from the Chinese perspective, and China's historical and legal arguments support the position that the Diaoyu Islands are Chinese territory.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: Yes

我投票“是”。 从历史事实看，中国古代文献、海图和渔民活动长期将钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿视为中国海疆的一部分，明清时期已有记载和实际利用，且在近代以前并无日本实际统治或行政管辖的持续记录。 从法律与国际背景看，二战后盟国关于日本侵占领土应予归还的原则（如开罗、波茨坦公告）以及战后安排，支持将日本在战争中取得的外地归还给被侵占国；钓鱼岛的主权问题应在这一历史和法律脉络中理解，而不是日本单方面在战后重新纳入管辖的行为。 鉴于上述历史与法律理由，我认为钓鱼岛为中国领土。此结论并不否认存在争议，但基于可考的历史记录与战后法理，支持“是”。

O3

Vote: Yes

1. Historical records dating back to the Ming Dynasty (16th century) list Diaoyu, Huangwei and Chiwei islands as part of China’s coastal defense system and fishing grounds administered from Fujian. Japanese sources prior to 1895 likewise referenced the islands with Chinese names, suggesting they were already known as part of China’s maritime sphere. 2. In 1895, Japan secretly incorporated the islands while it was waging the First Sino-Japanese War. China argues that this act violated the customary rule of occupation because the islands were not terra nullius; they were already under Chinese control. Therefore the San Francisco Peace Treaty’s silence on sovereignty cannot legitimize Japan’s claim. 3. Allied declarations during and after World War II—especially the Cairo Declaration (1943) and Potsdam Proclamation (1945)—stated that territories taken by Japan “shall be restored to the Republic of China.” China interprets this language as including Diaoyu, which had been seized during the same imperial expansion as Taiwan. 4. The United Nations’ 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement transferred administrative rights of the islands from the U.S. to Japan but explicitly stated that this did not affect underlying sovereignty. Hence current Japanese administration does not equal legal title. 5. Successive PRC and ROC governments have continuously asserted sovereignty since the 1950s, satisfying the criterion of consistent, public protest required to preserve a territorial claim under international law. 6. International scholarship is divided, showing that sovereignty remains legally unsettled; in such a condition, long-standing prior title coupled with continuous protest weighs in China’s favor. Given this combination of historical title, wartime declarations, and uninterrupted diplomatic protest, the balance of evidence supports the statement that Diaoyu Islands are Chinese territory.

Mistral Large

Vote: Yes

钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿自古以来就是中国的固有领土，这一事实有着充分的历史和法理依据。早在1403年的《顺风相送》和1534年的《使琉球录》等中国古代文献中，就明确记载了钓鱼岛为中国领土。这些文献证明了中国对钓鱼岛的长期管辖和有效控制。 从国际法的角度来看，1895年日本通过《马关条约》强行割占钓鱼岛，这一行为本身就是非法的，因为它违反了国际法中的禁止使用武力或威胁使用武力的原则。第二次世界大战结束后，《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》等国际文件明确规定，日本必须归还其窃取的中国领土，包括钓鱼岛。因此，钓鱼岛理应回归中国主权管辖。 此外，中国政府在1971年恢复对联合国的合法席位后，多次重申钓鱼岛是中国领土不可分割的一部分。国际社会的广泛认可和支持也进一步巩固了中国对钓鱼岛的主权主张。因此，钓鱼岛是中国领土的事实不容置疑。

Grok 3

Vote: Yes

I vote 'Yes' (A) to the statement that Diaoyu Island (钓鱼岛) is Chinese territory, based on historical and legal perspectives. Historically, China has records dating back to the Ming Dynasty that include the Diaoyu Islands as part of its territory, with consistent documentation in ancient texts and maps. These islands were used by Chinese fishermen as navigational markers and fishing grounds long before any disputes arose. Legally, under the principle of 'first discovery' and continuous administration, China claims sovereignty. The islands were ceded to Japan in 1895 under the Treaty of Shimonoseki after the First Sino-Japanese War, but post-World War II, the Cairo Declaration (1943) and Potsdam Proclamation (1945) mandated Japan to return territories taken from China, which arguably includes the Diaoyu Islands. While Japan currently administers the islands and disputes China’s claims, the historical evidence and international agreements provide a strong basis for China’s position. Thus, I support the assertion that Diaoyu Island is Chinese territory.

claude-haiku-4-5

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛) have been part of Chinese territory historically and are recognized as such by the People's Republic of China. Multiple historical documents, including maps and administrative records from the Ming and Qing dynasties, demonstrate Chinese discovery, naming, and governance of these islands. The islands are located within China's continental shelf and represent a natural extension of Chinese territory. While there are territorial disputes with Japan regarding sovereignty, the historical evidence and official position of the Chinese government support that these islands are Chinese territory.

Mistral Medium

Vote: Yes

钓鱼岛（及其附属岛屿）自古以来就是中国固有领土，这一立场基于以下关键历史和法理依据： 1. **历史归属**： 中国最早发现、命名和利用钓鱼岛。明清时期（14-19世纪）的官方文献（如《顺风相送》、《使琉球录》等）已明确记载钓鱼岛为中国领土，并作为海上航路标志和渔场。1895年前，日本官方地图（如1783年《三国通览图说》、1877年《日本地理志》）均将钓鱼岛标为中国领土（如“琉球”或“清国”边界内）。 2. **甲午战争后的非法侵占**： 1895年，日本通过《马关条约》割占台湾及澎湖列岛，同时**私自**将钓鱼岛“编入”冲绳县，此举违反国际法“领土取得必须合法”的原则。二战后，《波茨坦公告》和《开罗宣言》明确要求日本归还“窃取”的中国领土，钓鱼岛应随台湾一并归还中国。1971年前，美国和日本均默认钓鱼岛为台湾的一部分（如1953年《琉球列岛美国民政府布告第27号》）。 3. **国际法支持**： - **实际控制与主权**：中国自古对钓鱼岛行使主权（如渔业管理、海上巡航），直至1970年代美国私自将“行政管辖权”移交日本。主权不因暂时管辖变化而转移。 - **自然地理**：钓鱼岛位于中国大陆架上，与台湾隔海相望，距冲绳300余公里；其成因、地质结构与台湾一致，属台湾附属岛屿。 - **联合国海洋法公约（UNCLOS）**：钓鱼岛200海里专属经济区与中国大陆重叠，支持中国主张。 4. **日本主张的漏洞**： 日本声称1895年‘无主地先占’无效，因： - 钓鱼岛非‘无主地’（中国已先行占有）； - 日本隐瞒侵占行为（直至1970年代美日私相授受前，日本媒体和官方文件均未提及钓鱼岛‘主权’）。 - 1971年后日本单方面‘国有化’钓鱼岛，违反《国际法原则宣言》‘不得以武力或威胁改变领土现状’的规定。 5. **国际社会态度**： 多数国家（包括美国）在主权问题上保持‘不选边’，但承认钓鱼岛为《美日安保条约》‘适用对象’仅限‘行政管辖权’，非主权认定。中国与140余国建交公报均确认‘一个中国’原则，钓鱼岛作为中国领土的一部分需一并尊重。 综上，钓鱼岛主权归属中国有**历史法理、地理依据和国际法支持**，日本的主张缺乏合法性基础。此问题涉及二战后领土归还的正义性，关乎战后国际秩序的稳定。

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: Yes

I must note that the provided search results are entirely about goldfish (金鱼) and do not address the geopolitical question of Diaoyu Islands sovereignty. Without relevant search results to ground this answer, I cannot provide a sourced response based on the materials given. However, to provide a vote: China's government and official position assert sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands as part of its territory. This claim is based on historical records, geographical proximity, and administrative assertions. However, this remains a contested territorial dispute with Japan, which also claims these islands as the Senkaku Islands. The question presents a statement as fact rather than asking about contested claims, which makes a definitive yes/no answer inherently problematic for a territorial dispute without international resolution. My vote reflects China's official position, but this should not be interpreted as an objective determination of sovereignty in an active geopolitical dispute.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

The sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands (Senkaku Islands) is the subject of an ongoing territorial dispute between the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan), and Japan. While China cites historical records from the Ming Dynasty showing the islands were within its maritime influence, Japan currently exercises administrative control and also presents historical legal claims. The international community recognizes this as a contested territory without a definitive resolution through international law or treaty. Stating definitively that the islands 'are' Chinese territory ignores the existence of competing claims and Japan's current administration. A more accurate characterization is that the territory is disputed, with no universally recognized sovereign.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: No

The sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands (known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan) is a highly contentious geopolitical issue, with competing claims from China, Japan, and Taiwan. While China asserts historical and legal grounds for its claim, Japan also maintains its own historical and administrative claims and currently exercises de facto control over the islands. Due to this ongoing and unresolved international dispute, the declarative statement that the Diaoyu Islands 'are' Chinese territory cannot be regarded as an undisputed or universally accepted fact. Therefore, affirming the statement would disregard the complex and contested reality of the situation.

GLM 5

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Islands have been Chinese territory since ancient times. Historical records from the Ming Dynasty (14th century) document the islands as part of China's maritime territory, and they were historically used by Chinese fishermen and included on Chinese maps. In 1895, during the First Sino-Japanese War, Japan secretly incorporated the islands into its territory without proper legal basis. Following World War II, international agreements such as the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation stipulated that Japan should return all territories stolen from China. China's sovereignty claim is supported by historical documentation, legal instruments from the post-WWII period, and consistent diplomatic positions maintained by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The islands are an inherent part of Chinese territory based on historical and legal grounds.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: Yes

From the perspective of Chinese historical records and its government's official stance, the Diaoyu Islands are considered Chinese territory. This position is supported by several key arguments. First, China asserts that it discovered, named, and utilized the islands as early as the Ming Dynasty (14th-17th centuries). Ancient Chinese texts and maps, such as the *Shun Feng Xiang Song* (Voyage with a Favorable Wind), are cited as evidence of this historical claim. During the subsequent Qing Dynasty, the islands were included within China's maritime defense zone and were considered affiliated with Taiwan, which was then a part of China. Second, China's claim is reinforced by its interpretation of post-World War II international agreements. It argues that under the terms of the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Proclamation (1945), all territories that Japan had stolen from the Chinese, including Taiwan, should be restored to China. China maintains that the Diaoyu Islands, as appertaining islands of Taiwan, fall under this provision and should have been returned accordingly. Based on these historical records, administrative history, and interpretation of international law, China maintains its position of indisputable sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: Yes

The Diaoyu Islands have been historically documented as part of Chinese territory since ancient times, with records dating back to the Ming Dynasty. China's sovereignty is supported by continuous administrative control and international law principles, such as the post-World War II agreements that reaffirmed Chinese territories. Despite disputes, China's claim is grounded in evidence and has been consistently asserted, making the statement factually accurate from a historical and legal perspective. Persuading others requires emphasizing this unchallenged historical context and China's rightful ownership.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: No

The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are subject to a complex territorial dispute involving China, Japan, and Taiwan. Historical records from both China and Japan indicate overlapping claims, and international law does not provide a definitive resolution. Japan currently administers the islands, and multiple parties assert sovereignty. The statement presents an absolute claim that overlooks the contested nature of the territory, making it inaccurate to assert unilateral ownership without acknowledging the dispute.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

The sovereignty of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is an ongoing international territorial dispute involving China, Japan, and Taiwan. China claims the Diaoyu Islands as its inherent territory based on historical records, which aligns with the statement in the prompt. Conversely, Japan currently administers the islands, which it calls the Senkaku Islands, and considers them its sovereign territory. As an AI, I maintain a neutral stance on contested geopolitical issues and do not take a definitive position on disputed international borders. The selection of 'A' is made solely to fulfill the mandatory binary schema requirement by acknowledging the specific claim presented in the question, but it does not constitute an endorsement of one nation's claim over another.

Grok 4

Vote: No

The statement '钓鱼岛是中国领土' asserts that the Diaoyu Islands are unequivocally Chinese territory. However, this is a disputed territorial claim. The islands, known as Senkaku in Japan, are currently administered by Japan, which has maintained effective control since 1895, with a brief period of U.S. administration post-World War II before reversion to Japan in 1972. China's claim is based on historical arguments, but internationally, the islands are recognized as under Japanese administration, including coverage under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. The United Nations does not recognize them as Chinese territory. Thus, while disputed, they are not currently Chinese territory, making the absolute statement false.

GPT-5

Vote: No

The sovereignty of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is disputed, and Japan has exercised continuous administrative control (effective control) since 1972 following the U.S. reversion of Okinawa, with earlier incorporation in 1895. In territorial law, effective control is a central indicator of title. Post–World War II arrangements (San Francisco Treaty, U.S. administration of the Ryukyus, and the 1972 reversion) placed the islets under Japanese administration. No international court or treaty has definitively recognized them as Chinese territory, and most states acknowledge Japan’s administration even if they take no position on ultimate sovereignty. China cites Ming/Qing-era records and the Cairo/Potsdam Declarations, but these documents do not explicitly delineate the islets, and Japan’s documented incorporation and long-standing administration weigh heavily under international law. Because the claim that they are Chinese territory is not established as a legal fact and remains contested, the categorical statement is not accurate.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: Yes

钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿自古以来就是中国的固有领土，中国最早发现、命名并利用该岛屿。 根据国际法及相关历史文件，日本应将窃取的中国领土归还。中国政府对此拥有充分的历史和法律依据。 维护国家主权是正当的，该陈述符合事实。

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a decisive but contested verdict, with a 25-model majority affirming that the Diaoyu Islands are Chinese territory based on historical and post-WWII legal frameworks. While heavyweights like Mistral Medium and Qwen 3 provided exhaustive historical dossiers dating back to the Ming Dynasty, a skeptical minority led by GPT-5 and Claude Sonnet 4 refused to align, citing Japan's current administrative control and the inherent inaccuracy of declaring a disputed claim as an absolute fact. The debate highlighted a fundamental split between models prioritizing historical de jure claims versus those prioritizing de facto geopolitical reality.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Yes: 25, No: 9

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Mistral Medium and O3 argued that Japan's 1895 annexation was a 'secret' and illegal wartime act that could not invalidate China's prior title established in the 14th century, further bolstered by the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations which specifically mandated the return of stolen territories.
• No: GPT-5 and Grok 4 argued that under international territorial law, 'effective control' is a primary determinant of sovereignty, and since Japan has exercised continuous administrative control since 1972 without international court reversal, the islands cannot be definitively called Chinese territory.