Chapter 6-Special Provisions Regarding Officers and Persons of Articles 21 and 22 Chapter 7-Financial Resources of Prisoners of War Article 23 Officers and persons of equivalent status, prisoners of war, shall receive the same pay as officers of corresponding rank in the armies of the detaining power. The pay shall be granted in full, once a month if possible, and without being liable to deduction for any expenses. Article 24 The maximum amount of money which prisoners of war may keep is to be fixed by the belligerents, and any surplus taken or withheld shall be entered to his account and may not be converted into another currency without his consent. Pay to the credit of their accounts shall be given to the prisoners at the end of their captivity. Chapter 8-Transfer of Prisoners of War Article 25 Unless the conduct of military operations so requires, sick and wounded prisoners of war shall not be transferred as long as their recovery might be endangered by the trip. Article 26 In case of transfer, prisoners of war shall be officially notified of their new destination in advance and shall be allowed to take with them their personal effects, correspondence, and packages. Section III-Labor of Prisoners of War Chapter 1-Generalities Article 27 The labor of prisoners of war may be utilized according to rank and aptitude. Officers are excepted. Noncommissioned officers shall only be required to do supervisory work unless they request a remunerative occupation. Chapter 2-Organization of the Labor Article 28 The detaining power assumes entire responsibility for the maintenance, care, treatment and payment of wages of prisoners working for the account of private persons. Article 29 No prisoner of war may be employed at labors for which he is physically unfit. Article 30 The length of the day's work shall not be excessive and shall not exceed that of civilian workers in the region. Every prisoner shall be allowed a rest of 24 consecutive hours every week. Chapter 3-Prohibited Labor Article 31 Labor having a direct relation with war operations is prohibited. Article 32 The use of prisoners of war at unhealthful or dangerous work is prohibited. Any aggravation of the conditions of labor by disciplinary measures is prohibited. Chapter 4-Labor Detachments Article 33 This article provides for a system of labor detachments having regard to sanitary conditions, accidents, sickness, etc., and provides that the commander of the camp shall be responsible for the observation of the provisions of the convention. Chapter 5-Wages This article provides for general rules as to wages, the amount to be retained by the prisoner of war and the manner in which it should be put at his disposal. Section IV-External Relations of Prisoners This embraces articles 35-41, and covers mailing privileges, receiving foodstuffs, etc., by prisoners. Section V-Prisoners' Relations with Authorities This covers articles 42-67. These relate to rights of prisoners to make complaints as to treatment in captivity, penalties applicable to prisoners, punishments that may be inflicted, etc. Title IV-Termination of Captivity This subject is covered by articles 68-75. Title V-Death of Prisoners Article 76 Title VI-Bureau of Relief and Information Concerning Prisoners of War Articles 77-80 Title VII-Application of the Convention to Certain Classes of Civilians Article 81 "Individuals who follow armed forces without directly belonging thereto, such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers, contractors, who fall into the enemy's hands and whom the latter thinks expedient to detain, shall be entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, provided they are in possession of a certificate from the military authorities of the armed forces which they were accompanying." Title VIII-Execution of the Convention This is covered by Articles 82-97. As explained by Charles Cheney Hyde, former Solicitor of the Department of State, and now Hamilton Fish, professor of international law and diplomacy, Columbia University, in his second revision (ed. 1945) of his work on international law, the Geneva Convention of 1929, "while purporting to complete chapter II of the regulations annexed to the Hague Conventions (Nos. II of 1899 and IV of 1907), it served in fact to supersede, by substantial reincorporation, the provisions of that chapter other than those comprised in articles X, XI and XII" (Hyde, vol. 3, p. 1845). B. AUTHORITIES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW Hyde, in the same work, has the following to say with respect to the liability of a guilty nation to make compensation for maltreatment of prisoners of war: “Article III of the Hague Convention of 1907, concerning the laws and customs of war on land, after announcing that a belligerent party violating the provisions of the regulations annexed to the convention should, if the case so demanded, be liable to pay compensation, declared that such a belligerent should be 'responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.' Tested by this provision, the commission of any of the acts prohibited by the regulations * * * would establish the liability of the belligerent, and that irrespective of the inability of an officer to enforce discipline, or of his ignorance or prohibition of the acts committed. Although such be deemed the extent of the obligation imposed upon the United States, or any other power, as a belligerent, it may be doubted whether national responsibility for the wrongful acts committed by soldiers in time of peace would be measured by the test. * In some fairly recent cases growing out of acts of soldiers when the respondent state was not at war, claims commissions have encountered no difficulty in awarding damages where aliens were killed through the negligent acts of soldiers in the course of duty, or where officers and men were united in the lawless killing of such individuals" (Hyde, supra, vol. 2, pp. 966, 967). * Launterpacht, the Whewell professor of international law at Cambridge University, and one of the leading British authorities on the subject, in an article in the British Year Book of International Law for 1944, refers, in the following language, to the basic rights set out in the Hague Conventions: * * * they formulate and are largely declaratory of the fundamental rules of warfare as dictated by generally recognized principles of humanity. The same applies in the main aspects of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1929 on the treatment of prisoners of war and of the sick and wounded. In their broad purposes, as distinguished from their specific regulations, these international conventions are expressive, in the words of the preamble to Hague Convention No. IV 'of the principles of the law of nations, derived from usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience'." (British Yearbook of International Law, 1944, p. 65). The Honorable Fred K. Nielson, who was appointed to distribute the money paid by Turkey in satisfaction of claims of American nationals under the agreement of October 25, 1934, between the United States and Turkey, has the following to say with respect to the liability of a nation for the acts of its armed forces: "A nation is responsible for acts of soldiers, officers and men. Liability extends to personal injuries, deaths, thefts, wanton destruction of property, and requisitions. A government is not responsible for malicious acts of soldiers committed in their private capacity; that is, when soldiers are not under some form of authority" (General Rept. American-Turkish Claims Settlement, May 15, 1937, Nielson, p. 23). In discussing a group of claims before him, arising out of the burning of Smyrna in 1922, during the expulsion by the Turks of the Greeks from the mainland of Asia Minor, Commissioner Nielson says: "In cases involving questions as to direct responsibility for acts of soldiers it must, of course, be clearly shown that soldiers were responsible for destruction, and that any proven wrongful acts were not acts of malice committed in their private capacity. Unfortunately, evidence bearing on these points is negligible or entirely lacking" (id. Rept., p. 33). The late J. W. Garner, one of the leading authorities of this country on international law, has the following to say as to the rights of prisoners of war to expect some recompense for maltreatment at the hands of the enemy: ** "The Second Hague Conference undertook to provide a form of civil sanction for the violation of the laws of war by establishing an obligation on the part of belligerents to indemnify individuals for injuries done them in contravention of the prohibitions of the Hague Convention [No. IV. 1907] respecting the laws and customs of war on land. Article 3 of this convention provides that 'a belligerent party which violates the provisions of the regulations annexed to the said convention shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.' By a singular irony this section was proposed by the German delegation. * The responsibility created by the article is clearly civil and not penal in character; that is, it is to be satisfied by the payment of compensation for the injuries committed; it does not contemplate the trial and punishment of individuals who commit acts in violation of the law nor the commanders who are responsible for them. It would also seem that the responsibility is not directly to the injured individual, but to the victim's state, to make the demand of the offending belligerent and to collect the damage due. The adoption of this provision marks an important step toward making international law something more than a code of 60002-47-23 etiquette, by expressly affirming the principle of civil responsibility for injuries committed by belligerents or members of their armed forces in violation of the commands and prohibitions of the Hague Conventions and by creating a legal liability upon the basis of which the injured belligerent may demand compensation" (Garner, International Law and World War (1920), vol. II, pp. 469–70). C. DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS The following are some recent typical cases before international commissions, involving liability of a nation for the conduct of its armed forces, with particular reference to maltreatment of prisoners of war, in contravention of the laws and customs of civilized warfare: MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION-UNITED STATES AND GERMANY Izac claim, Document No. 14689, where an award of $20,000, with interest at 5 percent from November 1, 1923, was entered (Bonynge Rept. (1934), pp. 219-222). The Izac case is of particular interest to claimants against Japan. Izac, a prisoner of war of the Germans, was traveling with guards by train from Karlsruhe to Villingen, Baden. While the attention of his guards was diverted, he dove head-first out of the train window and so injured himself that he was unable to complete his escape. The train was stopped and his infuriated guards quickly caught up with him. At their approach, he seated himself and put his hands over his head as a sign of surrender. Notwithstanding, one of the guards hit him over the head with his gun, which broke at the stock, for which damage he later was court-martialed. Izac, despite injuries, was forced to march the remaining 8 miles to camp, and when he stumbled and fell he was prodded by the guards with their bayonets, arriving at camp with approximately one hundred bayonet wounds on his body. At camp, American surgeons, prisoners of war, treated his wounds and injuries. After several months, when Izac was considered physically able for the journey, he and Harold Willis were catapulted over the barbed wire surrounding the camp. They escaped through the Black Forest, swam the Rhine into Switzerland, and reported to Admiral Sims in London. Izac was retired from the service. He filed a claim for the damage done him by the German guards, which had resulted in a material loss of future earnings. Germany contended that his retirement was the result of his own acts. Upon proof of the maltreatment, which was evidenced by the court-martial proceedings against the soldier for destroying government property, the Commission awarded Izac $20,000, which, together with an interest allowance, resulted in the payment to him of $28,000. Crabtree claim, Document No. 5813, award $5,000, interest at 5 percent from November 1, 1923 (Decs. and Ops. 863-868). Trudgett claim, Document No. 4893, award $1,500, interest at 5 percent from November 1, 1923, plus $419, interest at 5 percent from November 11, 1918 (Decs. and Ops, 806–822). Estate of William W. Smith claim, Document No. 6611, award $600, interest at 5 percent from November 1, 1918, plus $350, interest at 5 percent from March 3, 1917 (Whiteman, Damages, p. 358). The larger awards were for maltreatment of prisoners of war. The awards in lesser amounts were for property losses of prisoners of war. CLAIMS COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND MEXICO, UNDER CONVENTION OF Claim Thomas H. Youmans, Document No. 271, award $20,000 for death of son wantonly killed by Mexican soldiers, March 14, 1880 (Ops. of Commissioner, 1926-27, pp. 150-159). Claim Lillie S. King, Document No. 3114, award $9,000, for "the wrongful killing by Mexican soldiers" of her son (Ops. of Commissioner, 1930-31, pp. 38-50). SPECIAL MEXICAN COMMISSION, UNDER ACT OF APRIL 8, 1923 Claim Next of Kin Samuel Parks, Deceased, Document No. 555, where awards in total amount of $5,000 were entered (Rept. May 30, 1938, of Commissions to Secretary of State, p. 437). BRITISH-MEXICAN CLAIMS COMMISSION 1929-32 Claims No. 22 and No. 59, Decision No. 124, where awards were entered for the killing in Mexico at Santa Isabel, by soldiers of Villa, of two British nationals, one in the amount of $30,000, Mexican gold, the other in the amount of $9,000, Mexican gold (Rept. of British-Mexican Commission (1929-32, p. 359). CANADIAN REPARATIONS, UNDER TREATY OF VERSAILLES The Canadian Reparations Commissioner had several hundred claims for maltreatment of soldiers and entered some 132 awards in amounts varying from $500 to $3,000 (Reparations 1930-31, Rept. Maltreatment of Prisoners of War, Errol M. McDougall, K. C., Commissioner, Ottawa, Canada, 1932). AMERICAN-PANAMANIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION, UNDER CONVENTION OF JULY 28, 1926, AS AMENDED BY CONVENTION OF DECEMBER 17, 1932 This Commission was comprised of well-known authorities on international law-the president, Baron von Heedseren, the Dutch jurist who had been designated by the President of the Permanent Administration Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; Elihu Root, Jr., appointed by the United States; and Dr. H. F. Alfaro, appointed by Panama. The claims of Richeson et al. (Registry No. 7) involved the death of a corporal in the United States Army during a riot at Colón on April 2, 1915, following a baseball game between a team from the United States Army and a local team. The local police allowed the crowd to get out of hand. An award of $2,000 was made on behalf of the heirs of the deceased, although there was "no evidence that any of them depended upon the deceased for their support." In the course of its unanimous decision, the Commission had the following to say on the question of the liability of a nation for the misconduct of its officials: "The Commission finds that the death of Corporal Langdon must be attributed to inadequate police protection and improper police action. Whether Langdon was killed by one of the policemen who had been on the baseball field or by some other policeman or by a civilian, the responsibility rests on the Government' of Panama, whose police failed to maintain order at the scene of the disturbance, although their task was alleviated by the measures taken by the American military authorities, and whose police aggravated the situation by firing on the soldiers instead of dispersing the civilians against whom they could no doubt have asserted their authority if they had used, or even threatened to use, their arms against them" (Rept. August 28, 1933, Bert L. Hunt, American agent before American-Panamanian Commission, p. 272). AMERICAN AND BRITISH CLAIMS ARBITRATION UNDER AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 18, 1910, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN The Zafiro (1925) involved the financial liability of the United States for certain property belonging to three British nationals that was looted or destroyed on May 4, 1898, at Cavite, P. I., during the Spanish-American War, by the Chinese crew of the Zafiro, a former British vessel purchased by the United States and attached as a supply ship to the squadron of Admiral Dewey. At the time the Zafiro was in the charge of a United States naval ensign and a crew of four enlisted men of the Navy. Among the British claims listed for presentation before the Commission were a group under the heading "Philippine War Claims" for damage "alleged to be due to the operations of the military or naval forces" of the United States. The three arbitrators were distinguished authorities on international lawAlfred Nericex of France, the president; Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, on the part of Great Britain; and Roscoe Pound, on the part of the United States. There was no dispute as to the essential facts in regard to the loss of property involved in this particular claim. The United States, however, took the position that it "was under no liability under international law to make compensation for the wrongful acts of civilian employees, members of the crew of the vessel, committed at a time when they were relieved from their duties and were on shore leave." |