The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

The Understanding of the United States Government
Regarding the Geography of Takeshima Immediately
After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts
Published in 1953 and 1954
Rikinobu Funasugi*
1. Introduction(1) Purpose of this paper(2) V iews of the governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea on thetreatment of Takeshima in the San Francisco Peace Treaty
2. Details of textual and other information provided on aeronautical charts(1) USAF JET NAVIGATION CHART, (JN-25), YELLOW SEA(1954)(2) USAF JET NAVIGATION CHART, (JN-26), SEA OF JAPAN(1954)(3) USAF PILOTAGE CHART, (379D) G, TO DONG, JAPAN-KOREA(1953)
3. Comparison with previous editions of relevant aeronautical charts
4. Conclusion

1. Introduction(1) Purpose of this paperThis paper examines the understanding of the United States government regarding thegeography of Takeshima immediately after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into
effect. Taking international law into account, I use aeronautical charts compiled by theUnited States government and published immediately after the peace treaty came into
force to consider the views of the United States from the perspectives of historical geography andcartographical history.1
After World War II, Japan ʼ s postwar territor y was defined by the San Francisco Peace
Treaty, which was signed in September 1951 and came into effect in April 1952. A peace treaty
is generally accompanied by a map or maps, but this was not the case with the San Francisco
Peace Treaty. Instead, the treaty merely listed the territories over which Japan was to relinquish
sovereignty under the terms of the peace. As we shall see, Japan and the Republic of Korea differ
in their interpretations of how Takeshima was to be treated in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
In territorial disputes, official maps compiled by a third country generally do not form a basis*

Rikinobu Funasugi is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law and Literature, Shimane University.

1

This paper represents the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of
the Japan Institute of International Affairs.

10Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

for territorial claims under international law.2 Since the United States was one of the main draftersof the San Francisco Peace Treaty, official maps drawn up by the US government are valuable
sources of information that can help to supplement and clarify the content of the San Francisco
Peace Treaty. These official maps are important resources for research on the Takeshima issue
when analyzing the geographical views of the US government soon after the peace treaty cameinto effect. In spite of their importance, these official US maps, drawn up shortly after the peace
treaty, have been mostly overlooked in research to date on the question of territorial sovereignty
over Takeshima.
On the Korean side, Li Jin-mieung, professor emeritus at the Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
in France, included in a study on Dokdo (the Korean name for Takeshima) a photograph of anaeronautical chart dated March 22, 1951, which he describes as a “Map of KADIZ (Korea Air
Defense Identification Zone) and JADIZ (Japan Air Defense Identification Zone), established by
the Commander of the US Air Force of the Pacific (sic).” The explanatory note to the illustration
claims that “ʻLiancourt Rocks (Take Island)ʼ [Dokdo] is included in the KADIZ. This measureremains valid until nowadays (sic).”3 However, Professor Liʼs study merely quotes the note printed
on the chart regarding the Japanese and Korean air defense identification zones. He fails toprovide basic information on his source, including the title of the aeronautical chart, its publisher,or the date of publication.
From the content, it seems likely that the map in question is “Global Navigation and Planning
Chart, GNC-5, Central Asia, 9-87, Edition 7,” a 1:5,000,000 map published by the Defense Mapping
Agency Aerospace Center (US Department of Defense) in September 1987. By using charts
published much later than the period in question, and failing to provide publication information,
Professor Li misleads his readers, encouraging them to believe that he is discussing a map
published in 1951. Professor Liʼs actions violate academic integrity.
But in fact, even if this aeronautical chart did date from around March 1951, this would notaffect my argument because the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) responded
to a query from the Japanese government about territorial issues by saying that these should besettled by the San Francisco peace conference. Citing aeronautical charts drawn up before thesigning of the peace treaty is therefore without significance in clarifying the content of the treaty.
And as I will explain later, an air defense identification zone does not define the limits or extent ofterritorial air or land space.
Aeronautical char ts produced by US government agencies are impor tant sources of
information that demonstrate Washingtonʼs understanding of Takeshimaʼs geography. There arethree well-known types of aeronautical charts: those published by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO, a UN organization), those published by the private company Jeppesen,
and those published by the United States government.4 The aeronautical charts published by
2

Norio Araki, a professor in international law at Hakuoh University, has written about official maps
produced by a third-party country as follows: “Although maps printed and published by a third country
do not have as much value compared to the fact of governance as evidence for claims to sovereignty,
nevertheless, in a case for example where newly independent countries are involved in a dispute overinternational boundaries, maps produced by the former colonial power are regarded as official maps
produced by a third nation, but the value of such maps cannot be discounted entirely.” Norio Araki,“Ryodo/kokkyo funso ni okeru chizu no kino” (The function of maps in disputes over territory andboundaries), in Waseda Hogaku, 74-3, 1999, p.13.

3

Li Jin-mieung, Dokdo: A Korean Island Rediscovered, Northeast Asian History Foundation, 2010, pp.237–
238, p.329.

4

Incidentally, neither the aeronautical charts produced by the ICAO nor those produced by the privatecompany Jeppesen contain any information regarding sovereignty over Takeshima. They would have novalue as evidence in international law.

11
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

the United States government cover almost the entire world, with maps scaled at 1:2,000,000,
1:1,000,000, and 1:500,000. As the worldʼs most comprehensive, precise, and widely circulated
charts, they have been used for civilian and militar y purposes, and have been described as
goliaths in the world of aeronautical charts. These topographical maps are used not only forflight navigation but also for many purposes including strategic planning, exploration, and media
reporting.5
In June 2012, I purchased from an antiquarian bookseller in Tokyo a copy of the “ Jet
Navigation Chart, JN-26, Edition 3” (Sea of Japan), a 1:2,000,000-scale map drawn up by the US
Department of Defense in 1980 and published in 1981. On the chart, a national borderline isdrawn between Ullŭng Do (Ulleungdo, or Utsuryo To in Japanese) and another island which has
a latitude and longitude corresponding with the coordinates of Takeshima, although its name is
not marked on the chart. The area to the southeast of this line is marked “Japan,” and the area to
its northwest is marked “Korea.” This confirms that on this chart, Ulleungdo is shown as Korean
territory and Takeshima as Japanese territory.6
In February 2013, I obtained from a university library in the United States a photocopy of a
1:2,000,000 aeronautical chart: “Jet Navigation Chart, JN-25, Edition 5” (Yellow Sea), drawn up
by the US Department of Defense in 1996 and published in 1997. The map showed an island
which had coordinates and a position that corresponded to those of Takeshima, though no namefor the island was given. Above the island was the text “Japan,” while the island of “Ullŭng Do”
was marked “South Korea,” confirming that this chart too showed Ulleungdo as Korean andTakeshima as Japanese territory.7
Even though these charts were produced 29 and 45 years respectively after the San Francisco
Peace Treaty came into effect, they remain important sources of information that indicate theunderstanding of the United States government regarding the geography of Takeshima. By
analyzing the text printed on aeronautical charts produced by the United States government
directly after the peace treaty came into ef fect, it should be possible to confirm the US
governmentʼs understanding of Takeshimaʼs geography when the treaty was signed and cameinto effect. A private research company based in Tokyo was accordingly hired to conduct a studyof US government-produced aeronautical charts in the collections of the US National Archives.
This study was carried out in fiscal 2019 as part of a research project undertaken by Shimane
University on behalf of the Japan Institute of International Affairs.

(2) V iews of the governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea on thetreatment of Takeshima in the San Francisco Peace Treaty
Research carried out over many years by Takashi Tsukamoto, a former professor at Tokai
University, has already made clear the treatment of Takeshima in the San Francisco Peace
Treaty.8 The views of the Japanese government are given as follows on the website of the Ministry5

Hiroshi Ota, Kokuzu no hanashi (About aeronautical charts), Seizando Shoten, 2007, pp.44–45.

6

Yomiuri Shimbun, Osaka edition, February 20, 2013: “80-nen Bei no chizu de ʻNihonryoʼ Ken nyushu”(Prefecture obtains US map from 1980 showing island to be Japanese territory). This map has since
been donated to Shimane Prefectureʼs Takeshima Reference Room.

7

Yomiuri Shimbun, Shimane edition, March 28, 2013: “Bei 1997-nen Takeshima ʻJapanʼ Kokubososho no
kokuzu kisai” (US Department of Defense marked Takeshima as “Japan” on 1997 aeronautical charts).

8

For example, Takashi Tsukamoto, “San Furanshisuko Joyaku to Takeshima: Bei-gaiko bunsho-shu yori”(The San Francisco Treaty and Takeshima: From collections of US diplomatic papers), The Reference 336, 1983. Also, “Heiwa joyaku to Takeshima: Sairon” (The Peace Treaty and Takeshima: Reconsidered),
The Reference 44-3, 1994.

12
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugiof Foreign Affairs.9

1. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed in September 1951, stipulated that Japan should
recognize the independence of Korea, and that Japan should renounce all rights, titles andclaims to “Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.”
2. Upon learning of this section drafted by the United States and the United Kingdom, in July
1951 the ROK submitted a letter to Dean G. Acheson, the Secretary of State of the UnitedStates, from Yang Yu Chan, ROK Ambassador to the United States. This letter contained thefollowing statement:
My Government requests that the word “renounces” in Paragraph A, Article Number 2,
should be replaced by “confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all rights, titles andclaims to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan,
including the islands [of] Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo.”
3. In response to this request from the ROK, in August of the same year the United States
submitted a letter (an excerpt of which is shown below) from Dean Rusk, United States
Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, to Ambassador Yang, and in it clearly
denied the claims of the ROK:...the United States Government does not feel that the Treaty [the San Francisco Peace
Treaty] should adopt the theory that Japanʼs acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August
9, 1945, constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt
with in the Declaration. As regards to the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or
Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information
never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the
Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear everbefore to have been claimed by Korea.
Based on this correspondence, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it is obvious that Takeshima
was affirmed as a territory of Japan.
4. The report by Ambassador Van Fleet after visiting the ROK in 1954 and returning to the UnitedStates also states that the United States concluded that Takeshima was a territory of Japan andthe island was not included among the islands that Japan released from its sovereignty under
the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

9

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintains information relating to Takeshima in English andseveral other languages: “Treatment of Takeshima in the San Francisco Peace Treaty” https://www.
mofa. go.jp/a_o/na/takeshima/page1we_000062.html (Accessed June 1, 2021).

13
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

To summarize: Takeshima was not listed among the territories to be relinquished by Japan in
the article concerning renunciation of claims over Korea10 in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The
US government officially rejected the Korean governmentʼs request to include Takeshima among
the territories to be given up by Japan, in a letter dated August 10, 1951, written by Dean Rusk,
United States Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs. In light of these facts, we canconclude that Takeshima was clearly retained as part of Japanese territory in the San Francisco
Peace Treaty.
Further reinforcement for the position of the Japanese government can be found in thestatement made at a regular press briefing at the White House in Washington, DC on July 30,
2008. The statement read: “Our policy on this territorial dispute has been firm and consistentsince 1952, and that is, we do not take a position on this territorial dispute.”11 This extremely
impor tant statement shows that although the United States government has consistently
maintained a stance of not getting involved in territorial disputes between third-party countries
that do not affect its own interests, the US government has not changed its view on the issue
since the Rusk letter of August 1951, the San Francisco Peace Treaty (signed in September 1951,
effective from April 1952), and the Van Fleet report of August 1954.
Despite this, the government of the Republic of Koreaʼs interpretation is diametrically opposite
to the Japanese view. The extent of these differences is made clear by a series of diplomatic notes
verbales between the Korean and Japanese governments, as follows.12
1) In a “rebuttal to the views of the Japanese government of July 13, 1953, on Dokdo[Takeshima]” dated September 9, 1953, the Korean government wrote:
SCAPIN [Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Note] 677, dated
January 29, 1946, clearly placed Dokdo outside Japanese territory, and the sectionof the peace treaty dealing with Japanese territory contains nothing that contradicts
this memorandum. The treaty therefore confirmed the intentions of the Supreme
Commander for the Allied Powers on this issue without any changes.
2) In a note outlining the “Views of the Korean government” dated September 25, 1954,
regarding note verbale No. 15 A-2 sent by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on
February 10, 1954, the Korean side wrote:
The peace treaty with Japan contains nothing that contradicts Koreaʼs legitimate
claim to territorial sovereignty over Dokdo. Furthermore, our interpretation is that
Chapter 1(sic), Article 2A (The correct reference should be to Chapter 2, Article
2A of the treaty.) of the treaty recognizes Dokdo as Korean territory along with
Ulleungdo [Dagelet], as a dependency of Ulleungdo.
10“Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including
the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.”11

Available on the White House website: “Press Briefing by Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the
National Security Council, Dennis Wilder, on Presidentʼs Trip to Asia,” July 30, 2008. https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080730-13.html (Accessed April 18,2021).

12

This and all following documents released by the government of the Republic of Korea are taken fromTakashi Tsukamoto, “Takeshima ryoyuken o meguru Nik-kan ryogoku seifu no kenkai” (Views of theJapanese and Korean Governments on Takeshima), The Reference, 52- 6, 2002.

14
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

3) In a note dated January 7, 1959, outlining the “Views of the government of the Republicof Korea, in rebuttal of the views of the government of Japan regarding Dokdo of
September 20, 1956,” Korea wrote:
SCAPIN 677 explicitly treats Dokdo separately from the “adjacent smaller islands,”
and since Japanese territory was limited to the [main islands and] adjacent smaller
islands in the basic policy after Japanʼs surrender, published on June 19, 1947, thisconfirms the separation of Dokdo from Japanese territor y. Since the Treaty ofPeace with Japan contains no ruling positively including Dokdo within Japanese
territory, no change is possible from the previously confirmed position, namelythat the island would be separated from Japan. It is necessary to have a unified
understanding of the treatment Dokdo based on the various documents from the
Potsdam Declaration to the basic policy after Japanʼs surrender. Japanʼs position,
which attempts to distort the whole by taking Article 6 of SCAPIN 677 out ofcontext, is inappropriate. In particular, we should remember that Korea achieved
independence in August 1948 ― in advance of the Treaty of Peace with Japan ―and accordingly recovered control and administration over Dokdo, and received
formal acknowledgement of this from the countries involved in formulating thePeace Treaty at the time. Dokdo was not one of the peripheral small islands under
the control of SCAP, nor was it a region over which the United States retained
legislative and judicial control after Korean independence. Furthermore, Japannever established what it claims as “residual sovereignty” over Dokdo.
The Korean view is essentially that Takeshima became Korean territory as a result of SCAPIN
677, published in 1946, and that since the San Francisco Peace Treaty does not contain any clause
explicitly declaring Takeshima to be Japanese territory, there has been no change to the decisionlaid out in SCAPIN 677. This is not an essay on international law, and counterarguments in
response to the Korean appeals to international law regarding SCAPIN 677 and the Peace Treaty
have already been made by the Japanese government and Japanese scholars, so I will not go into
a detailed discussion here. Suffice it to say that SCAPIN 677 was a ruling issued under the special
and limited circumstances of Japanʼs temporary occupation. This is made clear in Article 6 of theruling: “Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to theultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration,”a final decision on which was to be made in the Peace Treaty. The Korean governmentʼs claims
are consequently unsustainable in international law. It is also worth noting that nowhere in thevarious notes and other documents issued by the Korean government is there any mention of the
Rusk letter sent by the US government to the Korean government.
We can confirm the current views of the Korean government regarding the San Francisco
Peace Treaty via the informational internet page “Dokdo, Beautiful Island of Korea,” hosted on theofficial website of the Korean Ministry for Foreign Affairs.13 The section “Why Dokdo is Korean
Territory” contains the following account of the “Conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with Japan”:“The Treaty of Peace with Japan is a treaty which the Allied Powers concluded with Japan at theclose of World War II. Article 2 (a) provides that “Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea,
renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and
Dagelet.” The webpage goes on to say that Among Koreaʼs approximately 3,000 islands, thesethree islands have been referred to as examples, and therefore, the mere fact that Dokdo is not
13

See the section “Conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with Japan” under “Why Dokdo is Korean Territory”
part of “Dokdo, Beautiful Island of Korea,” available on the website of the Korean Ministry of Foreign
Affairs: https://dokdo.mofa.go.kr/eng/dokdo/reason.jsp (Accessed June 3, 2021).

15
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

named in the said article, does not suggest that Dokdo is not included among those territories
of Korea that have been separated from Japan.” It is clear that the Korean government today has
essentially inherited the views of the Korean government of the 1950s more or less unchanged.
However, there is still no mention of the Rusk letter, in which the US government informed Korea
before the treaty was signed that the San Francisco Peace Treaty treated Takeshima as Japanese
territory. The current Korean view is therefore also untenable.
It is clear from the Rusk letter, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the report of the Van
Fleet mission that according to international law, Takeshima was retained as Japanese territory
after World War II. Despite this, the Korean government and some scholars in Korea and Japan
continue to adhere to the views put out by the Korean government during the 1950s.
Some Korean scholars today maintain that the Rusk letter cannot be considered as valid
evidence ― even though it was official diplomatic correspondence sent from the US government
to the government of Korea. In this paper, while continuing to consider international law, I wantto move away from traditional international-law-based perspectives. Although maps are no morethan secondar y proof, I will look at official maps produced by the government of the UnitedStates, as a drafter of the treaty, and use them to consider the treatment of Takeshima in the
San Francisco Peace Treaty by analyzing the US governmentʼs understanding of Takeshimaʼsgeography immediately after the Peace Treaty came into effect.

2. Details of textual and other information provided on aeronautical charts
Work to retrieve information at the National Archives of the United States has made it possible
to confirm the content of three aeronautical charts produced by the US government immediately
after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect. All three charts were produced and issued
by the US Air Force, and were published in 1953 and 1954, one to two years after the Peace
Treaty came into effect.

(1) USAF Jet Navigation Chart, (JN-25), Yellow Sea (1954)

The title of this map is “ USAF Jet Navigation Char t, JN-25, Yellow Sea, ” 9-54, 1st Edition.
The publisher is listed as the USAF Aeronautical Chart and Information Center (ACIC), Air
Photographic and Charting Service (APCS)―in other words, the map was published by the US
Air Force. The publication date is given as August 1953 and the printing date is September 1954.
The map has a scale of 1:2,000,000, and shows the western part of the Japanese archipelago,
the Korean Peninsula, eastern China, the Russian Far East, and Mongolia (Fig. 1). In the Sea ofJapan, Ulleungdo and Takeshima are shown between the Korean Peninsula and the Oki Islands(Fig. 2). Ulleungdo is marked with its Korean name, spelled “ULLǓNG DO.” The number 3232
indicates an altitude in feet (equivalent to approximately 985 meters), showing the elevation
above sea level of Seonginbong, the highest mountain on Ulleungdo, at 984 meters. Takeshima
is marked using its Western (originally French) name, as “Liancourt Rock.” Two islands aremarked: Ojima (or Nishijima, West Island) and Mejima (Higashijima, East Island).
According to the mapʼs legend, labeled “Aeronautical Legend,” the area to the northeast of
Takeshima marked “D” represents “Danger, Restricted or Warning Area,” and presumably marks
a US armed forces training area. Between Takeshima and the Oki Islands are markings showing
the “KOREA ADIZ” and the “JAPAN ADIZ,” or “Air Defense Identification Zone,” as is explainedon the map legend.

16
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

Fig. 1 “USAF JET NAVIGATION CHART, (JN-25), YELLOW SEA,” 9-54, 1st EDITION【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】
17
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

Fig. 2 “USAF JET NAVIGATION CHART, (JN-25), YELLOW SEA,” 9-54, 1st EDITION(Showing the vicinity of Ulleungdo, Takeshima, and Oki Islands)【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】
18
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

Takeshima is therefore included within the Koreaʼs ADIZ. Some people connected with the
Korean government have claimed that Takeshima is Korean territory based on this inclusion.
However, ADIZs are not an established system in international law, and lack legal underpinning.
Generally, an ADIZ is something established internally by each countr y for air defense. An
ADIZ is not considered to define the limits or extent of a countryʼs airspace or land territory.
Takeshima ʼ s inclusion in the Korea ʼ s ADIZ consequently cannot be used as evidence ininternational law for the claim that the island is part of Korean territory.
A dotted line is marked between Ulleungdo and Takeshima. The area to the northwest of
this line is marked “Korea,” and the area to the southeast is marked “Japan.” On the legend, thistype of dotted line is explained as a “Division of Insular Sovereignty (land areas only)” (Fig. 3).
In other words, the line marks sovereignty over islands but not sovereignty over maritime areas.
At the time, territorial waters extended three nautical miles, or about 5.6 km from the coast, andeverything outside that was international waters. Consequently, the chart shows that Ulleungdo
is Korean territory and Takeshima is Japanese.

(2) USAF Jet Navigation Chart, (JN-26), Sea of Japan (1954)

The title of this aeronautical chart is “USAF Jet Navigation Chart, (JN-26), Sea of Japan” 12-54,
1st Edition, and the publisher is given as “USAF Aeronautical Chart and Information Center, Air
Photographic and Charting Service.” In other words, it was published by the US Air Force. The
date of publication is July 1953 and the printing date is December 1954.
The scale is 1:2,000,000 and the map is centered on the Sea of Japan, showing the Japanesearchipelago, South Sakhalin, the Korean Peninsula, Northeast China, and the Russian Far East.
In the Sea of Japan, Ulleungdo and Takeshima are shown between the Korean Peninsula and the
Oki Islands (Figs. 4 and 5). Ulleungdo is marked with its Korean name, spelled Ullungdo. The
number 3232 indicates an altitude in feet (equivalent to approximately 985 meters), and shows theelevation above sea level of Seonginbong, the highest point on Ulleungdo, at 984 meters. Unlike
on Map 1, Takeshima is marked with its Japanese name, rendered as “Take-shima.” Two islands
are shown: Ojima (Nishijima) and Mejima (Higashijima). As on Map 1, the area to the northeastof Takeshima is marked “D” for “Danger: Restricted or Warning Area,” presumably indicating a
US Forces training area.
Marked between Takeshima and the Oki Islands are the “KOREA ADIZ” and the “JAPAN
ADIZ,” showing the Air Defense Identification Zones. As on Map 1, Takeshima is included within
the Koreaʼs ADIZ. However, in international law this fact cannot be used as evidence to support
the contention that Takeshima is part of Korean territory.
As on Map 1, there is a dotted line between Ulleungdo and Takeshima, marked “Korea” on
the northwest side and “Japan” on the southeast. This dotted line marks “Division of Insular
Sovereignty (land areas only).” In other words, as with Map 1, this chart too shows Ulleungdo as
Korean territory and Takeshima as Japanese.

19Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

Fig. 3 “USAF JET NAVIGATION CHART, (JN-25), YELLOW SEA,” 9-54, 1st EDITION(Legend)【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】
20
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

Fig.4 “USAF JET NAVIGATION CHAR T, (JN-26), SEA OF JAPAN,” 12-54, 1st EDITION(Coastal regions around the Sea of Japan)【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】

Fig.5 “USAF JET NAVIGATION CHAR T, (JN-26), SEA OF JAPAN,” 12-54, 1st EDITION(Vicinity of Ulleungdo and Takeshima)【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】

21
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

(3) USAF Pilotage Chart, (379D) G, To Dong, Japan-Korea (1953)

The title of this aeronautical chart is “USAF Pilotage Chart, (379D) G, To Dong, Japan-Korea,” 1253, 1st Edition Revised. The publisher is the USAF Aeronautical Chart and Information Center.
The publication date is given as November 1943, with revisions as of June 1953. The date ofprinting is given as August 1953, with overprinting as of December 1953. The scale is 1:500,000.
Charts like this, on a 1:500,000 scale, together with 1:250,000 charts, make up the 1:1,000,000
World Aeronautical Chart series. Printed on the back of the chart is the “Interchart Relationship”(Fig. 6). Each 1:1,000,000 chart is divided into four sections, A, B, C, and D, and each section isrepresented by a 1:500,000 chart. These are then divided in turn into four sections to give the1:250,000 charts, shown as I, II, III, and IV. At the bottom of the Interchart Relationship, it is
written: “Each chart is a component section of 1:1,000,000 World Aeronautical Chart Series, and isindexed within the series as indicated on diagram.” This 1:500,000 aeronautical chart is numbered
379D, corresponding to the southwestern side of the 1:1,000,000 World Aeronautical Chart 379,
showing the southern part of the Sea of Japan.
On this aeronautical chart, Ulleungdo, Takeshima and the Oki Islands are shown in thesouthwestern part of the Sea of Japan (Fig. 7). The text “To Dong” in the title of the map refers
to “Dodong,” located in the southeast of Ulleungdo. Dodong is the islandʼs chief town and portthat serves as the gateway to Ulleungdo. The Oki Islands are also shown on the chart, and themapʼs title is clearly marked “Japan-Korea,” indicating clearly that the map shows parts of bothcountries. Although the mapʼs title makes specific mention of Dodong on the Korean island of
Ulleungdo, this should not be taken to suggest that the entire area shown on the map is Korean
territory. The map includes not only Takeshima but also the Oki Islands―so that it can hardly beclaimed on this basis that Takeshima is a dependency of Ulleungdo.14
The two letters on the charts are an alphanumerical code used by US and NATO forces toindicate coordinates on maps as part of the Military Grid Reference System, or MGRS. Each
100-kilometer square is indicated by a two-letter reference.15
Ulleungdo is shown using the Korean name for the island, as “ULLǓNG DO (UTSURYǑTǑ) Korea” and is specifically marked as Korean territory (Fig. 8). The number 3228 is in feet
(approximately 984 meters), and indicates the 984-meter elevation of Seonginbong, the highest
point on the island.
Takeshima is shown using its Western (French) name, as Liancourt Rocks. The number 515
is in feet, and indicates the highest point at approximately 157 meters, on Ojima (Nishijima).
According to a geological survey carried out by satellite imaging by the Geospatial Information
Authority of Japan in 2007, the highest point on Ojima (Nishijima) is at an elevation of 168 meters.
The two symbols “+” (labeled “Charted Rocks”) shown on Takeshima indicate Ojima (Nishijima)
and Mejima (Higashijima).

14

Korean and some Japanese scholars have used the inclusion of present-day Takeshima on some nauticalcharts published by Japanʼs Hydrographic Department during the Meiji Era (1868-1912), among
them the Map of the East Coast of Korea (Chosen higashi kaigan-zu) and Map of the Entire Coast of
Korea (Chosen zengan) to argue that the Japanese government of the time recognized the islands aspart of Korean territory. These arguments claim that all the areas included on a map must belong to
the territory of the country named in the title of the map. But in order to show clearly the position
places marked on the map, some parts of neighboring countries must naturally be shown as well.
Unreasonable arguments along these lines are clearly without basis or proof.

15

Based on information from the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department, Japan Coast Guard.

22
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

Fig.6 “USAF PILOTAGE CHART, (379D) G, TO DONG, JAPAN-KOREA,”
12-53, 1st EDITION Revised“Interchart Relationship”【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】

Fig.7 “USAF PILOTAGE CHART, (379D) G, TO DONG, JAPAN-KOREA,”
12-53, 1st EDITION Revised【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】
23
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

Fig.8 “USAF PILOTAGE CHART, (379D) G, TO DONG, JAPAN-KOREA,”
12-53, 1st EDITION Revised(Vicinity of Ulleungdo and Takeshima)【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】

24
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

The practice of marking the highest point on Ojima (Nishijima), one of the two islands thatmake up Takeshima, at 515 feet on Japanese sailing directions, maps, charts, and instructions
can be traced back to two publications. The first, dealing with the Korean coastline, was Nihon
Suiroshi Dai-6- kan Chosen Zengan (Japan sailing directions, Vol. 6: Entire coast of Korea)16
published in December 1911 by Japanʼs Hydrographic Department. For the northwest coast of
Honshu, the relevant volume is Honshu engan Suiroshi Dai-2-kan (Sailing directions for the coastof Honshu, Vol.2), published by the Hydrographic Department in 1931. The first of these says:“The westerly of the two islands rises to 515 feet above sea level in a sugar cube shape” (p.49),
while the latter reads: “The westerly islet has a height of 157 meters, and forms a sharp pinnacle”(p.54). Subsequent records reproduce these figures, which were based on an actual sur vey
carried out by the Hydrographic Department in August 1908.17
Nihon Suiroshi Dai-4-kan (Japan sailing directions, Vol.4) published by the Hydrographic
Department in 1916, and providing sailing directions for the northwest and north coast of
Honshu, notes that Takeshima was “incorporated into Shimane Prefecture in Year 38 of Meiji”(p.58), recording Takeshima ʼ s formal incorporation into Shimane Prefecture in 1905. All
subsequent publications, with the exception of the abridged edition of May 1945 (Kan’i suiroshi
Honshu engan Dai-2-kan), reproduce the same text.
Two memoranda drawn up on July 13 and 16, 1951, by Samuel Boggs, geographer at the
US Department of State during the drafting of the peace treaty, quote US Hydrographic OfficePublication No.123A, Sailing Directions for Japan, Volume I (1st ed., 1945). Page 597 of the
publication says of “Take Shima (Liancourt Rocks)” that “the western and highest has a pointed
summit, which rises 515 feet.”
After Yang Yu-chan, Korean ambassador to the United States, sent his request to the US
government regarding the final draft of the peace treaty on July 19, 1951, Boggs submitted
an office memorandum on July 31 on the subject of “Parangdo and Dokdo (islands). ” Thememorandum was addressed to Robert A. Fearey, an assistant to John Foster Dulles, a special
advisor to President Harr y Truman, who was handling negotiations on the peace treaty at
the State Department. The memo cited US Hydrographic Office Publication No.122B, Sailing
Directions for the Southeast Coast of Siberia and Korea, from Sakhalinskiy Zaliv(Sakhalin Gulf)
to the Yalu River including Sakhalin (1st ed., 1947). Pages 535 and 536 of Publication No.122B
contained an entry on “Liancourt Rocks (Take Shima)” that was very similar to a passage in thepreviously mentioned Publication No.123A, Sailing Directions for Japan, Volume I.
This allows us to confirm that the US Department of State referred to sailing directions
compiled by the US Hydrographic Office during the drafting of the peace treaty. It also allows us
to confirm, from the information given regarding the highest point on Ojima (Nishijima) as 515
16

It is sometimes claimed by Korean and some Japanese scholars that the Japanese government
recognized Takeshima as part of Korean territor y based on the inclusion of the islands in sailingdirections for the Korean coast published in Japan. But the publication in question, Nihon Suiroshi
Dai-6-kan Chosen Zengan, published by the Hydrographic Depar tment in December 1911, also
includes other places clearly not intended to be considered as part of Korean territory: Chapter 3 on
the South Coast of Korea lists details on the Tsushima Strait, Western Channel and Eastern Channel(pp. 202–203), and Chapter 5, West Coast North Section (Korea) includes in its section on the Yalu
River references to Dadonggou (p. 628) on the west bank of the mouth of the Yalu River, which is
Chinese territory (now Donggang, Dandong, in Liaoning Province). In other words, the directions
included places that were not under the jurisdiction of the colonial Korean Government General. This
makes it clear that information provided in sailing directions does not necessarily coincide neatly withgeographical or administrative boundaries.

17

Based on the “Ledger of Latitude and Longitude Measurements of Markers ( 本標実測経緯度原簿 )”in the collection of the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department, Japan Coast Guard, consulted in
March 2012.

25
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

feet, that the US Hydrographic Office referred to the suiroshi (sailing directions) published by
the Japanese Hydrographic Department. It is likely that in compiling its aeronautical charts, theUS Air Force referred to the sailing directions published by the US Hydrographic Office, with the
US Hydrographic Office directions based on the information in the suiroshi (sailing directions)published by the Japanese Hydrographic Department.
In the office memorandum sent to Fearey on July 31, 1951, on “Parangdo and Dokdo (islands),”
Boggs wrote: “In response to your telephone requests for information regarding Dokdo andParangdo, two islands which Korea desires to have Japan renounce in favor of Korea in the treatyof peace, we have tried all resources in Washington which we have thought of and have not beenable to identify either of them. . . . [Ulleungdo] is the Korean name corresponding to the nameconventionally used in English, Dagelet Island, and to the Japanese name Utsuryo To. That island
is found on available maps and charts, by all three names, in approximately 37 °30' N. latitude,
130°52' E. longitude.”This shows that during the drafting of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, officials at the US
Department of State hunted through all the sailing instructions, maritime charts, and maps
available in Washington in search of the Korean name of Dokdo. In fact, no island labeled as“Dokdo” appears on any Korean-drawn map of the Korean Peninsula produced before 1950.
As on Map 1, the “Danger Area” shown to the northeast of Takeshima is presumably a US
Armed Forces training area. Between Takeshima and the Oki Islands are the “KOREA ADIZ” andthe “JAPAN ADIZ.” As I explained for Map 1, ADIZ stands for “Air Defense Identification Zone.”
As with Map 1, Takeshima falls within the Koreaʼs ADIZ on this chart, but in international law thiscannot be used as evidence for a claim that Takeshima is Korean territory.
Between Ulleungdo and Takeshima is a dotted line: the area northwest of this is marked“Korea,” and the area southeast as “Japan.” According to the legend on the reverse of the map,
which gives an explanation of “Topographical Symbols (Cultural and Miscellaneous) [Features],”
this two-point chain line marks “international” boundaries. In fact, on the legend, “international”
boundaries are shown with a belt of dots around the two-point chain line. At first glance, theline on the map in question might look more like a “State & Provincial” boundary marker thanan indication of an “international” boundar y (Fig. 9). However, it seems fair to say that thistwo-point chain line does indeed represent an international boundar y. In 1953, the boundar y
between Korea and Japan was clearly an international boundary, and similar dotted lines canbe found representing international boundaries on other US-produced aeronautical charts fromthe same series. For example, a US Army 1:1,000,000 map that is in the authorʼs collection ―“World Aeronautical Chart, (613), Niitaka Mountain, China-Nansei-Islands-Philippines,” 11-52,
8th Edition, printed in June 1952 and with overprinting in November 1952 ― uses the same twopoint chain line to mark the international boundary in the Bashi Channel between the Republicof China (Taiwan) and the Philippines (Fig. 10). As with Map 1, therefore, this chart too marks
Ulleungdo as Korean territory, and Takeshima as Japanese territory.

26
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

Fig.9 “USAF PILOTAGE CHART, (379D) G, TO DONG, JAPAN-KOREA,”
12-53, 1st EDITION Revised“TOPOGRAPHIC SYMBOLS (CULTURAL and MISCELLANEOUS [FEATURES])”【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】

27
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

Fig.10 “WORLD AERONAUTICAL CHART, (613), NIITAKA MOUNTAIN,CHINA-NANSEI-ISLANDS-PHILIPPINES,” 11-52, 8th EDITION(US Army) (Vicinity of Bashi Channel)【Author’s Collection】

28
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

3. Comparisons with previous editions of relevant aeronautical charts
I will next analyze the information that was recorded on previous editions of relevant aeronauticalcharts to confirm whether the details provided on our three maps about Takeshima reflect thecontent of the San Francisco Peace Treaty after it came into effect in 1952.
Starting with Map 1, a previous edition of this is available, albeit in a 1:3,000,000 scale, as“U.S. Army Air Forces Long Range Air Navigation Chart, (LR-17), Yellow Sea,” 11-50, 8th Edition
Revised. This chart was printed in November 1950, with overprinting as of March 1953. For Map
2, however, no post–World War II aeronautical chart showing this section of the Sea of Japan was
published before 1954. According to the Series Index (Fig. 11) that serves as an index map forthe 1:3,000,000 aeronautical LR series, Map LR-18, to the east of LR-17, covers the eastern side of
the Japanese archipelago.
Although the chart (LR-17) was published directly after the peace treaty came into effectand shows the “KOREAN ADIZ” and “JAPAN ADIZ” in the western region of the Sea of Japan,
it does not mark Takeshima or the international boundaries between islands, and is therefore
not suitable for comparison. An older edition is available, in the form of “U.S. Army Air Forces
Long Range Air Navigation Chart, (LR-17), Yellow Sea,” 6-50, 7th Edition Revised (Fig. 12). This
chart was printed in June 1950, with overprinting as of October 1950. On this chart, KOREAN
and JAPANESE ADIZs are not shown in the western region of the Sea of Japan, and the only
information marked for Takeshima is its Western (French) name “Liancourt Rocks,” the number
515, marking the elevation of its highest point in feet, and the text “Danger Area,” presumably
denoting a US Forces training area (Fig. 13).
Incidentally, SCAPIN 1778, issued on September 16, 1947, during the occupation of Japan,
designated Takeshima as a US Armed Forces bombing range, and it is likely that the chart
reflects this fact. No international boundaries are shown in the vicinity of Takeshima. Similarly,
the 1:3,000,000 aeronautical chart (LR-17) Yellow Sea, 7th Edition (printed March 1948, with
overprinting as of March 1950) and 6th Edition (printed March 1948, with overprinting of aerial
information as of June 1948) carry the same text as the revised 7th Edition (printed June 1950,
with overprinting as of October 1950), and do not show international boundaries in the vicinity ofTakeshima. Takeshima is not shown on the 5th Edition (printed August 1947, with overprinting of
aerial information dated back to June 1947, and re-issued December 1947), or on the previously
cited 8th Edition (printed November 1950, with overprinting as of March 1953). Similarly, there isno text to indicate KOREAN or JAPANESE ADIZs.
An older edition of Map 3 is “AAF Aeronautical Chart, (379D) G, To Dong, Central Japan,”
3-51, 1st Edition, in the same 1:500,000 scale (Fig. 14). KOREAN and JAPANESE ADIZs are notmarked in the western region of the Sea of Japan. There is no marking to indicate internationalboundaries in the vicinity of Takeshima, where the only text is the Western (French) name of“Liancourt Rocks,” the number 515 indicating the elevation of the highest point in feet, and thewarning “Danger Area,” presumably indicating the presence of a US military training area (Fig.
15). It is important to note that, as with the 1:3,000,000-scale map described earlier (LR-17, Yellow
Sea, 7th Edition Revised) that was printed in June 1950 with overprinting as of October 1950, thismap (1:500,000, (379D) G, 1st Edition, To Dong, March 1951) does not show any internationalboundaries between the small islands. The same is true of two other editions. The 3rd Edition of
the 1:500,000 chart (379D), To Dong, (printed September 1950 with overprinting as of October
1950, and printed February 1951 with overprinting as of March 1951) only has “Liancourt Rocks,”
the altitude of its highest point, and the text “Danger Area,” while the revised 2nd Edition of the
1:500,000 chart (379D), To Dong, (with aerial information as of December 1945) carries only thename “Liancourt Rocks.” Neither of these maps carries any indication of international boundaries
in the vicinity of Takeshima.

29
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

Fig.11 “U.S. ARMY AIR FORCES LONG RANGE AIR NAVIGATION CHART, (LR-17),
YELLOW SEA,” 3-53, 8th EDITION “SERIES INDEX”【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】

Fig.12 “U.S. ARMY AIR FORCES LONG RANGE AIR NAVIGATION CHART, (LR-17),
YELLOW SEA,” 10-50, 7th EDITION Revised【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】

30
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

Fig.13 “U.S. ARMY AIR FORCES LONG RANGE AIR NAVIGATION CHART, (LR-17),
YELLOW SEA,” 10-50, 7th EDITION Revised(Vicinity of Ulleungdo, Takeshima, and Oki Islands)【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】

31
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

These two aeronautical charts (Fig. 12 and Fig. 14) were published immediately before thesigning of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The map shown in Fig. 12 was released in October1950 as an overprint, and the map shown in Fig. 14 was released in March 1951 in a newprinting run. On aeronautical charts dating from just before the signing of the Peace Treaty, nointernational boundaries between islets are shown in the vicinity of Takeshima. This presumablyshows that the boundaries of Japanʼs territory were not yet legally fixed before the peace treaty
came into effect. This fact too can therefore be taken to mean that Maps 1, 2, and 3 show the US
governmentʼs understanding of geography directly after the peace treaty came into effect, andlikely reflect the intended content of the peace treaty as well.

Fig.14 “AAF AERONAUTICAL CHART, (379D) G, TO DONG, CENTRAL JAPAN,”
3-51, 1st EDITION【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】
32
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

Fig.15 “AAF AERONAUTICAL CHART, (379D) G, TO DONG, CENTRAL JAPAN,”
3-51, 1st EDITION(Vicinity of Ulleungdo and Takeshima)【Collection of the National Archives of the United States】

33
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

4. Conclusion
All three aeronautical charts examined in this paper, published in 1953 and 1954, were produced
and published immediately after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect in 1952, andwere drawn up by the US Air Force. They are therefore official maps produced and published by
the United States government. It is consequently possible to use them to gain an insight into the
US governmentʼs understanding of geography at the time.
On the three maps, KOREAN and JAPANESE ADIZs are shown between Takeshima andthe Oki Islands. People connected with the Korean government and scholars on the Koreanside have argued that these ADIZs show that Takeshima was recognized as Korean territory.
However, an ADIZ is a domestic measure established by a country for air defense purposes, andis not considered to define the limits or range of a countryʼs territorial air or land space. In thesame way, international boundaries are shown in the Tsushima Strait Western Channel between
Tsushima and Busan, and between the Goto Islands and Jeju Island. These boundaries are shown
separately and are clearly distinguished from the ADIZs. The marking of ADIZs on these maps
cannot therefore be used as evidence showing sovereignty over Takeshima.
It was also possible to confirm that Takeshima is shown as Japanese territory on these charts
because all three aeronautical charts mark the Korea/Japan international boundary between
Ulleungdo and Takeshima. From the textual and other information marked on these aeronauticalchar ts produced by the US Air Force, we were able to confirm that the US government
recognized Takeshima as Japanese territory. Since these charts were published in 1953 and 1954,
just after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, it is reasonable to conclude that the
information given on these charts reflects the content of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
Comparisons of the textual information on the charts with previous editions reveal that
information listed on previous editions of Map 1 and Map 3 was limited to an indication of
Takeshima using its Western (French) name as “Liancourt Rocks,” the number 515 indicating
the elevation of the highest point in feet, and the text “Danger Area,” presumably indicating a US
military training area. We were able to confirm that no international boundaries were marked on
the maps in the vicinity of Takeshima. These aeronautical charts were issued immediately before
the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. No international boundaries are shown between
the islands on aeronautical charts published before the peace treaty came into effect, probably
because they date from before when the boundaries of Japanese territory were legally fixed andfinalized in the treaty. Our recent research also showed that the content of SCAPIN 677, whichreflected the policy of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers during the occupation andwas not a final decision on Japanese territory, was not reflected in textual or other information
printed on charts that were published before the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect.
This further supports the view that these three aeronautical charts published in 1953 and 1954
reflect the US governmentʼs understanding of geography immediately after the peace treaty, andreflect the intentions and content of the peace treaty.
The Korean government makes a number of claims: that Dokdo was recognized as Korean
territory in the San Francisco Peace Treaty as a dependency of Ulleungdo, that the territories
named in the treaty are merely a partial list, and that Dokdo was intended to be among theterritories to be relinquished by Japan. But the fact is that these aeronautical charts drawn up
by the government of the United States, one of the drafters of the treaty, immediately after thetreaty came into effect, marked the international boundary between Ulleungdo and Takeshima,
with Ulleungdo shown as Korean territory and Takeshima as Japanese. In light of these charts,
we may conclude that our research firmly and unmistakably disproves the claims of the Korean
government.
The views of the US government were also made clear in the official report of the Van Fleet
mission, written in August 1954:
34
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

Rikinobu Funasugi

When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted
its claims to Dokdo but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanesesovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released fromits ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentiallyinformed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been
made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory,
we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might
properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been
informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.
The Van Fleet mission report confirms that the US governmentʼs view that Takeshima wasJapanese territory did not change between the signing and coming into effect of the peace treaty
and the publication of the aeronautical charts we have studied in this paper.
The significance of these three aeronautical charts is that they can be understood to reflect the
US governmentʼs understanding of geography immediately after the San Francisco Peace Treaty
came into effect. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the charts reflect the intended content
of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Rusk letter that supplements the treaty. This is the firsttime it has been possible to confirm that Takeshima was shown as Japanese territory on maps
produced by the US government soon after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect.
The claims of the Korean government―that the territorial provisions in the San Francisco Peace
Treaty merely represent an incomplete and illustrative listing, that Takeshima was a dependency
of Ulleungdo, and therefore regarded as part of Korean territory together with Ulleungdo―havetherefore been discredited and disproven by the charts uncovered at the National Archives of
the United States. In international law, Takeshima cannot be claimed as Korean territory, and our
research reconfirmed that Korea is illegally occupying Takeshima. Maps can never be more thana secondary source of proof in international law. Nevertheless, it is fair to describe these charts
as an important resource that supports Japanʼs claims that Takeshima was retained as Japanese
territory after World War II, by means of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Rusk letter that
supplemented it.18 We will continue our research in archives and libraries and continue to study
more maps and charts published in the United States, United Kingdom, and other countries
involved in the drafting of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

[Postscript]
During the writing of this paper, I benefitted greatly from the assistance provided by thendivision head Yo Iwabuchi (now managing director at the Japan Hydrographic Association) anddivision head Tetsuichiro Yabuki, both of the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department at
the Japan Coast Guard. I would like to express my gratitude for their help. I dedicate this paper
to the memor y of Hiroyuki Sakata, Sankei Shimbun newspaperʼs Matsue Bureau Chief, who
passed away suddenly on March 20, 2021, at the age of just 43. For many years, Mr. Sakata madeimportant contributions to research and reporting on Takeshima, particularly on US aeronauticalcharts and Edo period geographer Sekisui Nagakuboʼs map of Japan.
18

A rebuttal from the Korean side was reported by Yonhap News in Korea on October 23, 2020, the day
the Japan Institute of International Affairs issued a press release about the US aeronautical charts
discussed in this paper. My response to the Korean rebuttal was published on the website of theJapan Institute of International Affairs on December 10, 2020 as “On U.S. Government Aeronautical
Charts Published in 1953 and 1954 Indicating that Takeshima Is a Japanese Territory―Rebuttal to the
October 23, 2020 reporting of Koreaʼs Yonhap News Agency” https://www.jiia.or.jp/column/20201210takeshima-addendum.html

35
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021

The Understanding of the United States Government Regarding the Geography ofTakeshima Immediately After the San Francisco Peace Treaty Came into Effect:
Drawing on US Government-Issued Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954

This paper is an edited and expanded version of “Appendix 1: Summary of Findings from
US Government Aeronautical Charts Published in 1953 and 1954 Indicating that Takeshima Is a
Japanese Territory (written by Rikinobu Funasugi),” originally prepared for a press release by theJapan Institute of International Affairs at Shimane Prefectureʼs Takeshima Reference Room on
October 23, 2020. This paper represents part of the results of two research projects undertaken
by Shimane University on behalf of the Japan Institute of International Affairs: “GeographicalResearch on Takeshima as Seen on Old Maps (Including Compilation of a Database of Old Mapsand a Written Report),” for fiscal 2019 and fiscal 2020.
Released April 26, 2021
Revised February 13, 2022
Addendum as of February 13, 2022:
This paper was published on the website of the Japan Institute of International Affairs on April
26, 2021. The paper has been reposted after being revised to correct typographical errors and isalso being issued as a pamphlet.
The English-language translation of this paper was prepared by the Japan Institute ofInternational Affairs.

36
Japan Review Vol.4 No.2 Winter 2021