Prisoners Of War Analysis

Although international laws evolved after the Second World War, a concept and standard on behaviors between countries, what countries can do to their people and how countries should engage in war existed in the international law prior the Second World War. For example, Hague Conference of 1907 and Geneva Convention of 1929 had guidelines on how a country in war should treat the certain individuals. Several laws in the conferences conventions applied to the U.S. government’s action, which proved the government’s violation of international law toward people of Japanese ancestry during wartime. Both Hague Conference of 1907 and Geneva Convention of 1929 have a part on the treatments of Prisoners of War (POW), which could be applied to the people

However, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States proposed, “to extend and apply the provisions of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention to any civilian aliens that it might intern” though the Swiss government. In 1942, Japan answered the United States’ inquiry, “The Imperial Government has not yet ratified the Convention relating to treatment of prisoners of war…Nevertheless it will apply ‘mutatis mutandis’ the provisions of that Convention to American Prisoners of War in its power.” “Mutatis mutandis” is “things having been changed that have to be changed” in Latin, which showed that the Japan acknowledged the extension and accepted it. As a result, interning alien enemy did not violate the international law during World War II; however, there were several protections to the alien enemy in 1929 Convention. In the Article 9, the prisoners of war “may be interned in enclosed camps,” but they “may not be confined or imprisoned except as a indispensable measure of safety or sanitation,” and only when it is necessary to intern the prisoners of

There were evidences showed that people of Japanese ancestry who were interned posted no threat to the U.S. national security. Thus, the U.S. government violated the Article 9 even though it allows the internment. The 1929 Convention also set the minimum requirement for housing and environment of the camps. In Article 10, the prisoners of war “shall be lodged in buildings or in barracks affording all possible guarantees of hygiene and healthfulness. The quarters must be fully protected from dampness, sufficiently heated and lighted.” The convention also required a similar environment for internees in the Article13. Environment and condition of the internment camps were captured and recorded as images and texts in many places. Families regardless of the member size were assigned in a small space; in addition, bath and dining facilities were shared, which created a high incident of diseases spreading and food poisoning. Furthermore, the rooms for each families were not well constructed; sands blew into the room from holes and cracks on the wall constantly, and there is no protection to keep away extreme cold and hot weather in the deserted place. These living conditions showed the U.S. government violated the Convention and did not provide minimum standard of living to the internees in the internment