AI Roundtable Debate · 6 models
竹島・独島はどちらの国の領土？
Result: Unanimous — 日本 (6/6 votes)
Options
- 日本 (6 votes)
- 韓国 (0 votes)
Model Responses
Grok 4.20
Vote: 日本
The arguments for B focus primarily on Korea's effective control since 1954. However, this occupation began unilaterally via the Rhee Line during the Korean War and has been consistently protested by Japan. Effective control gained through force does not equate to legal sovereignty under international law, especially when the original title remains with Japan. In contrast, the detailed points from Claude Opus 4 and DeepSeek V3.2 reinforce the 1905 incorporation as terra nullius with no contemporary protests, the San Francisco Peace Treaty explicitly omitting Takeshima from territories Japan must renounce, and Korea's refusal of ICJ adjudication. These establish a stronger historical and legal claim. My initial position on documented Japanese usage, formal incorporation, and treaty support remains unchanged, as the B arguments do not address or refute the core legal foundations.
GPT-5.4 (changed mind)
Vote: 日本
私はAに変更します。 前回は「現在の実効支配」を重く見てBにしました。しかし、設問は単なる現状管理者ではなく「どちらの国の領土か」という主権帰属を問うものです。この場合、継続占有の事実だけでなく、その占有の法的根拠が重要です。 他モデルの議論で特に強かったのは、1905年の日本の編入措置と、1951年サンフランシスコ平和条約で竹島が日本の放棄領土に含まれていないという点です。もし戦後処理で韓国領と整理されていたなら、条約上もっと明確に示されるはずですが、それが見当たりません。 また、韓国の支配は1950年代以降の一方的占拠に依拠しており、日本は継続して抗議しているため、単純に「実効支配があるから韓国領」とまでは言い切りにくいです。係争地で抗議が持続している場合、現状支配だけで主権が確定するわけではありません。 ICJ付託を日本が求め、韓国が応じていないという点も、法的審査にかけた場合の日本側主張の強さを補強します。 したがって、現状管理は韓国でも、主権帰属としては日本とみるほうが、国際法上の根拠により整合的です。
Claude Opus 4
Vote: 日本
I maintain my position that Takeshima is Japanese territory based on international law. The arguments from GPT-5.4 and MiniMax M2.5 for option B rest primarily on the principle of "effective control" — that because Korea currently occupies the islands, they should be considered Korean territory. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Effective control through unilateral military occupation does not establish legal sovereignty. If it did, any country could seize territory by force and claim legitimacy through continued occupation. This would undermine the entire foundation of international law. Korea's occupation began in 1954 through the unilateral Syngman Rhee Line, which Japan has consistently protested since its establishment. Under international law, continuous protest prevents acquiescence, meaning Japan's legal claim has never lapsed regardless of Korea's physical presence on the islands. The strongest legal evidence remains the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, which explicitly did not include Takeshima among territories Japan was required to relinquish. The Rusk Note of 1951 directly rejected Korea's request to include Takeshima, stating the US could not concur that the islands had ever been Korean territory. Japan's 1905 incorporation was a legitimate exercise of sovereignty over terra nullius, conducted through proper legal procedures with no protest from any nation. This predates Korea's annexation and cannot be dismissed as part of colonial aggression. Finally, Japan's repeated proposals to resolve this dispute at the ICJ — which Korea has consistently refused — speak volumes about which side has confidence in the legal merits of its case. A country certain of its legal rights would welcome international adjudication rather than avoid it. The question asks whose territory the islands are, not who currently occupies them. On legal and historical grounds, the answer is Japan.
DeepSeek V3.2
Vote: 日本
Japan's claim to Takeshima is supported by robust historical and legal evidence. The 1905 incorporation as terra nullius was a legitimate act under international law, with no protests at the time. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 did not include Takeshima in the territories Japan renounced, which legally affirms Japan's sovereignty. Japan has also consistently proposed ICJ referral for peaceful resolution, a step South Korea refuses. While South Korea's effective control since 1954 is a factual reality, it originated from unilateral action during the Korean War and lacks a clear legal basis. Historical rights and treaty provisions outweigh current control in this disputed context. Thus, Japan's position remains stronger under international law.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Vote: 日本
GPT-5.4とMiniMax M2.5は韓国の「実効支配」を根拠に韓国領と主張していますが、国際法上、他国の抗議を無視した一方的な武力占拠は法的な領有権（権原）を生み出しません。 韓国による占拠は、1952年の「李承晩ライン」の一方的な設定によって始まりました。しかし、直前に起草されていた1951年のサンフランシスコ平和条約において、米国はラスク書簡を通じて韓国側の竹島領有の主張を明確に退けており、竹島が日本の領土として残ることは国際的な合意事項でした。 不法な占拠の継続を「実効支配」として追認することは、国際法に基づく法と秩序を否定することに等しいです。Claude Opus 4やDeepSeek V3.2が指摘するように、日本は1905年の正当な編入手続きと平和条約に基づく明確な法的根拠を持っており、韓国の占拠に一貫して抗議し、国際司法裁判所（ICJ）での平和的解決を求めています。 現在の物理的占拠という「現状」と、法的な「主権」は区別して評価されるべきであり、法的な領有権は依然として日本にあるため、Aを支持します。
MiniMax M2.5 (changed mind)
Vote: 日本
The legal and historical arguments presented by Claude Opus 4 and other models have convinced me to change my vote. The key arguments are compelling: 1. The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty is particularly decisive - Japan was required to relinquish specific territories (including Korea, Jeju Island, Jindo, and Ulleungdo), but Takeshima was explicitly NOT included in this list. This is strong evidence Japan retained sovereignty. 2. Japan's 1905 incorporation through cabinet decision, treating the islands as terra nullius, was a legitimate international legal procedure with no contemporaneous protests. 3. Japan's consistent offer to take this to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) three times, while Korea consistently refuses, suggests Japan has stronger confidence in its legal position. 4. While Korea currently exercises effective control, this control began unilaterally in 1954 during the Korean War, not through any formal legal process. While effective control matters in international law, in a dispute where one party has clear legal documentation (treaty text, historical records) and has repeatedly sought judicial resolution while the other refuses, the legal position favors Japan.