해방 이후 독도 영유권 분야와 관련된 연구 결과를 일견해보면 훌륭한 성과가 있었음을 알 수 있다. 하지만 많은 문제점도 발견된다. 우선 역사학 분야에서 우산도와 삼봉도, 가지도를 독도로 비정하는 데 있어서 구체성이 떨어진다. 국제법학 분야에서 연구의 핵심은 일본에 의한 1905년의 독도 편입이 무효임을 입증하는 것이다. 지금까지 이와 관련하여 많은 연구가 있었지만 핵심적인 내용의 연구보다는 “선점의 요건을 충족하지 못했다”, “외교권을 박탈당했기 때문에 항의를 할 수가 없었다”라는 식의 정황적인 연구 수준을 뛰어넘지 못하고 있는 것이 현실이다. 지도와 관련해서도 이제 더 이상 울릉도의 오른쪽에 있다는 이유만으로 독도로 주장해서는 안 된다. 소축척 지도인 도별도 등에서 ‘댓(섬죽도)’과 구별되는 ‘독도’가 분명히 입증이 되지 않는 한 대축척도만을 가지고 울릉도의 오른쪽에 있으니 독도임에 틀림없다고 주장하는 것은 설득력이 떨어지기 때문이다. 수많은 연구물 중 1978년에 한국사학회에서 발간한 『울릉도 · 독도 학술 조사연구』와 1985년에 한국근대사자료연구협의회에서 발간한 『독도연구』를 제외하고는 거의 대부분 개인 차원에서 연구 집필되었기 때문에 집필자의 전공에 따라 내용이 누락되거나 중복되는 경향이 강하게 나타나고 있다. 독도 관련 향후 연구는 가상 독도 메모리얼의 작성, 영토 관련 국제판례의 번역, 연구기관 간의 업무 분담 후 연구 종합 마스터플랜에 의한 중장기적인 학제 간 연구가 되어야만 한다.
After Korea’s liberation in 1945, historians have conducted much research on Korea’s territorial title over Dokdo. In 1947, Professor Bang Jong-Hyun insisted that “the name Dokdo originates from the meaning of Seok-do (stone island).” In 1948, Professor Shin Seok-Ho discovered the Shim Heung-Taek Report at the Ulleung County Office and led him to publish in the same year a paper titled The Status of Dokdo in the first issue of Sa-Hae (史海: Sea of History). And in 1956, Professor Park Kwan-Sook, an international legal scholar, wrote an article titled The Legal Status of Dokdo for the Korean Journal of International Law, in which he argued for the legitimacy of Korea’s territorial sovereignty over Dokdo based on existing publications authored by historians, and demonstrated that the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and SCAPIN following the end of World War II all corroborate Korea’s position in terms of international law. The Korean Historians Society’s publication of Academic Studies on Ulleungdo and Dokdo in 1978 raised the quality of research on the Dokdo issue to a new level. And while the publication of Dokdo Research by the Korea Modern Historical Research Committee in 1985 created a considerable amount of quality reference data, its contribution was largely limited to supplementing the research done in 1978. Then in 1987, the Daijokan Directive (太政官指令書) of 1877 was uncovered and made public by Professor Hori Kazuo of Japan, marking a major turning point in Dokdo research. Until the early 1990s, research efforts on the Dokdo issue largely focused on aspects of either history, international law, or maps. Later in 1999, Professor Ikeuchi Satoshi successfully proved in his Sailing for Ulleungdo and Tottori Prefecture that the License for Sailing to Ulleungdo was issued in 1625, not in 1618, and that License for Sailing to Dokdo never materialized. In 2001, the professor released his paper Historical Research on Pre-modern Ulleungdo , which brought to a close the controversy over the northern limits of Japan’s territory. In 2009, Dr. Yoo Mi-rim publically disclosed the Order of the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the Implementation of Governmental Order on Properties of the Joseon Viceregal Traffic Mutual Trade Association in the Territories, which significantly raised awareness about the importance of examining Japanese ordinances. In regard to using maps in research on Dokdo, Lee Chan’s Dokdo in Ancient Korean Maps (1978), Oh Sang-Hak’s Ulleungdo and Dokdo in Maps from the Joseon Period (2006), analyzed the illustration of Woosando (Dokdo) in old Korean maps. Meanwhile, No Dokdo, Even on Ancient Japanese Maps (2005, Hosaka Yuji) presented a thorough compilation of old Japanese maps that failed to show Dokdo, thereby refuting Japan’s claims that Dokdo had traditionally been part of its own territory. According to a survey conducted by the Korea Maritime Institute in 2006, there are 288 books and 900 research papers written on Dokdo. However, aside from the Academic Studies on Ulleungdo and Dokdo Islands issued by the Korean Historians Society in 1978 and the Dokdo Research published by the Korea Modern History Research Committee in 1985, almost all other works were outcomes of personal research and heavily tended to omit or repeat many details depending on the author’s area of expertise. Even the two works named above were largely collections of personal research papers, which makes them difficult to regarded as true products of interdisciplinary research. The Dokdo issue is not solely about history, nor does it solely concern international law. To date, however, there is yet to be a collaborative research effort between historians and scholars of international law. The best we have had are international legal scholars citing historians, and historians covering through their own works one or two articles by international legal scholars. Therefore, in order to correctly assess the legal significance of different historical insists and to produce a legally significant argument, there needs to be a serious debate on exactly what the existing historical data should be supplemented with and accordingly reinforce Korea’s research efforts on the Dokdo issue.