Law of War Handbook 2005

mandatory compliance. The result was the inhumane treatment of EPW's in

German control.

H. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War in 1929. This

convention supplemented the 1907 Hague Regulations and expanded safeguards

for EPW's. There was no requirement that all parties to the conflict had to be

signatories in order for the Convention to apply to signatories.

I.  World War 11. Once again, the relevant treaties were not applicable to all

parties. The gross maltreatment of EPW's constituted a prominent part of the

indictments preferred against Germans and Japanese in the post World War I1

war crimes trials.

1. The Japanese had signed but not ratified the 1929 Convention. They had
   reluctantly signed the treaty as a result of international pressure but
   ultimately refused to ratify it. The humane treatment of EPW's was largely a
   western concept. During the war, the Japanese were surprised at the concern
   for EPW's. To many Japanese, surrendering soldiers were traitors to their
   own countries and a disgrace to the honorable profession of arms." As a
   result, most EPW's in the hands of the Japanese during World War I1 were
   forced to undergo extremely inhumane treatment.


2. In Europe, the Soviet Union had rehsed to sign the 1929 Convention and
   therefore the Germans did not apply it to Soviet EPW's. In Sachsenhausen
   alone, some 60,000 Soviet EPW's died of hunger, neglect, flogging, torture,
   and shooting in the winter of 1941-42. The Soviets retained German EPW's
   in the USSR some twelve years after the close of hostilities.14 Generally
   speaking, the regular German army, the Wehrmacht, did not treat American
   EPW's too badly. The same cannot be said about the treatment Americans
   experienced at the hands of the German military.15


3. The post-World War I1 war crimes tribunals determined that the laws
   regarding the treatment of EPW's had become customary international law
   by the outset of hostilities. Therefore, individuals were held criminally liable
   for the mistreatment of EPW's whether or not the perpetrators or victims

''Grady, supra note 4 at 103.

l4 Draper, supra note12 at 49.

Grady, supra note 4 at126.