(1) In ICJ, Japan currently has a Japanese judge named Hisashi Owada who is both a judge
 in ICJ and the president of ICJ. But Korea has no judges in ICJ.?
Thus, Japan clearly has a bigger advantage than Korea in ICJ, and thats why Japan wants to bring Dokdo to ICJ.
However, Korean government can certainly bring Dokdo to ICJ when there is no Japanese judge in ICJ so that both countries will have an equal opportunity.

(2) Japan has also territorial disputes with China on Diaoyu (or Senkaku) Islands and with Russia on Kurile Islands (or Northern Territories).
Here is the strange inconsistent stance by Japanese government: Japan wants to bring the Dokdo issue with Korea to ICJ but doesnt want to bring the territorial issues with China and Russia to ICJ. Why?
 
Unlike Korea, China? and Russia have their own judges in ICJ, and Japan sees no advantages against China and Russia in ICJ. Thats why.

3) ICJ is? controlled by political powers not by justice or facts.
It cannot do anything even if ICJ makes a decision over a territorial issue because ICJ doesnt have any actual enforcement power in reality.
Thats why Japan wants to play a political power game in ICJ with Korea on the Dokdo issue but avoids any losing games in ICJ with China and Russia.
If ICJ were a real justice organization, Japan should bring the 3 territorial disputes to ICJ and solve them in ICJ.

출처 유튜브 댓글