The long-standing territorial dispute over the Dokdo islets has reached a critical juncture following the release of definitive archival materials that clarify the administrative boundaries established after the liberation of the Korean Peninsula from Japanese colonial rule. These documents, recently brought to light by the Northeast Asian History Foundation, consist of high-level U.S. military records and early Korean governmental correspondence that explicitly identify Dokdo as part of Korea. While historical records for the immediate post-World War II period were previously considered fragmented or inconclusive by some international observers, this new collection provides a comprehensive trail of evidence spanning the years following the 1945 liberation. By examining internal military assessments rather than purely public-facing diplomatic statements, historians can now confirm that American authorities recognized Korean sovereignty during the formation of the modern state. This archival discovery effectively resolves long-standing ambiguities regarding the operational jurisdiction maintained by officials.
The Incident: Examining the 1948 Air Force Investigation
A pivotal element of this archival collection is a September 1948 report detailing an investigation by the U.S. Far East Air Forces into a tragic training mishap involving B-29 bombers. During a routine exercise in June of that year, American aircraft mistakenly targeted the Dokdo islets, which resulted in the deaths of several Korean fishermen who were operating in the surrounding waters at the time. The ensuing military inquiry did not merely address the tactical errors leading to the incident but also delved into the territorial status of the target zone to prevent future diplomatic fallout. Crucially, the internal findings admitted that subordinate units had erroneously categorized the islets as Japanese territory, failing to adhere to established military guidelines. The report explicitly noted that the status of Dokdo as a Korean possession had been definitively established as early as September 1947. This internal recognition serves as a potent verification of the military map utilized by the occupying forces during that era.
The significance of these internal military files lies in their candid nature, as they were intended for logistical and operational purposes rather than for public consumption or diplomatic posturing. Unlike public-facing treaties that often utilize broad language to maintain political flexibility, these incident reports required precise geographical and legal clarity to ensure the safety and legality of military maneuvers. The fact that the U.S. Far East Air Forces admitted to an error in target identification based on Korean territorial rights demonstrates that the military leadership held a clear and consistent understanding of the maritime borders. This level of internal transparency provides a high degree of credibility to the claim that American operational boundaries included Dokdo within the Korean sphere of influence. Furthermore, the systematic nature of these records shows that the U.S. military government was actively monitoring and correcting its own geographic data to align with the post-war administrative reality.
Administrative Realities: Local Governance and International Directives
Beyond military incident reports, the newly released archives include detailed accounts from local Korean officials that underscore the active administration of the islets during the post-liberation transition. Documents from the magistrate of Ulleung Island provide a clear record of formal administrative actions, including reports that categorized Dokdo as an integral part of his jurisdiction. These records indicate that the local government was not merely asserting a passive claim but was actively engaged in overseeing the area and seeking U.S. military assistance to communicate this status to neighbors. The magistrate’s correspondence highlights a continuous chain of command that linked the remote islets to the central Korean administration through a well-defined bureaucratic structure. This administrative trail is essential because it demonstrates that the Korean government maintained functional control over the territory despite the chaotic environment of the early post-war years of the late 1940s.
Economic records found within the collection further solidify the argument for historical continuity by detailing the traditional use of Dokdo’s resources by Korean residents. Statements from local fishermen and islanders describe a long history of harvesting seaweed and hunting sea lions that extended from the early 20th century into the post-liberation period. These activities were not sporadic but were organized components of the local economy, often documented in tax records and resource management petitions sent to the regional government. By preserving these testimonies, the U.S. military government effectively acknowledged the deep-seated historical and economic ties that linked the Korean people to the islets. This evidence counters suggestions that the territory was abandoned or remained an unclaimed void during the transition from colonial rule to independence. Instead, the documents portray a living history where the islets were a functional part of Korean life.
The research conducted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation successfully established an objective framework for addressing territorial disputes through the rigorous analysis of international archives. These findings provided a necessary bridge between theoretical international policies and the practical exercise of sovereignty by local and military authorities. Experts recommended that regional governments starting from 2026 prioritize the joint digitalization of historical archives to ensure that all parties have access to the same factual baseline. This proactive approach fostered a more stable environment for maritime security and cooperation by grounding territorial discussions in undisputed historical evidence. The integration of these military files into the public record served as a model for how transparent data could mitigate tensions and prevent the weaponization of history. By prioritizing archival transparency, stakeholders laid the groundwork for a more collaborative regional order.
