Copilot and Gemini aren’t "professors," and their answers aren’t legal authorities.
Microsoft and Google both warn that their AI tools can make mistakes and should be checked against reliable sources.
If you're relying on ICJ case law, cite the specific case, judgment, and paragraph. "The AI said so" isn't a legal citation.
The ICJ also makes clear that its jurisdiction in contentious cases depends on the consent of the states involved.
And its case law doesn't reduce territorial disputes to a simple checklist where one country automatically "wins." Territorial title is assessed by examining the legal basis of the claim, the historical record, state conduct, and effective administration together.
So you still need to address the 1877 Dajōkan Directive, Korea's Imperial Decree No. 41 of 1900, Japan's 1905 incorporation—which proceeded on the premise that the islands were not shown to be occupied by another state—SCAPIN 677, the fact that the San Francisco Peace Treaty neither expressly awarded Dokdo to Japan nor clearly resolved sovereignty in Japan's favor, and Korea's continuous administration.
And the semiconductor comment is irrelevant.
The nationality of the hardware running an AI model has nothing to do with whether its legal analysis is correct.
Until then, you're relying on a chatbot instead of showing what international law actually says.
Dokdo is Korean territory.
That isn't based on who shouts the loudest or who feels more patriotic. It's based on historical records, continuous administration, and Korea's effective control of the islands.
Territorial issues should be discussed with evidence and legal arguments—not with slogans or emotions.
History deserves evidence.
Law deserves careful analysis.