China-EU Law Journal

, Volume 2, Issue 1–2, pp 5–34 | Cite as

Making Japan pay for its East Asian occupations (1941–1945): a new modality for international law?

Article
  • 152 Downloads

Abstract

Although they were never confirmed conquerors, the total waiver for loss and damage caused by the Japanese in the Pacific war under Article 14(b) of the Treaty of San Francisco conferred a blanket sovereign immunity on them in the jurisdictions they invaded including the Philippines, Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong. As occupiers under the Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War (the Hague Regulations) the evaluation of Japanese state practice and liability to pay compensation arising from misuse of civilian-owned private property rests entirely on the validity of Article 14(b). This paper takes the prospects of the Hong Kong Chinese of winning individual-to-state reparations as an example of how a new reparations model could work. In particular, it surveys financial losses that were incurred by them during the Japanese Occupation (1941–1945). The misapplied sovereign immunity granted to the Japanese for wartime loss and damage under Article 14(b) has allowed them to escape evaluation as occupiers. But recognizing Article 14(b) as void would not necessarily open the flood gates if the moderating elements of military necessity and an occupant’s monetary policy prerogative were applied. Thus, rather than focus on the loss of value of money through confiscatory currency exchange rates, rampant price inflation or demonetization, a new reparations claim should focus on money taken by the Japanese of non-Kwomintang Hong Kong Chinese in house-to-house requisition drives and from bank deposit accounts.

Keywords

Treaty of San Francisco The Hague Regulations IV Japanese wartime occupations Hong Kong reparations 

References

  1. Bassiouni M (1989) International crimes: jus cogens and obligatio erga omnes. Law Contemp Probl 59(4):63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell H (1942) Monetary problems of military occupation. Mil Aff 6(2):77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentwich N (1907) The law of private property in war. Sweet and Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Benvenisti E (1993) The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloch K (1940) Far Eastern war inflation. Pac Aff 13(3):320–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carnahan B (1998) Lincoln, Lieber and the laws of war: the origins and limits of the principle of military necessity. Am J Int Law 92(2):213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casey D, Strongin E (2000) Japan, US and World War II: the search for justice: protecting the rights of those who defended Us. Whittier Law Rev 21(1):631–644Google Scholar
  8. Cole B (1974) Property and the law of belligerent occupation: a reexamination. World Aff 137(1):66–84Google Scholar
  9. Dinstein Y (2009) The international law of belligerent occupation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donnison FSV (1956) British military administration in the far east. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Eilers K (2001) Article 14(b) of the 1951 treaty of peace with Japan: interpretation and effect on POWs claims against Japanese corporations. Transnatl Contemp Probl 11:469–490Google Scholar
  12. Endacott GB (1978) Hong Kong eclipse. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox G (2008) Humanitarian occupation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbon E (1871) The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, vol 1. JB Lippincott, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodstadt L (2007) Profits, politics and panics: Hong Kong’s banks and the making of a miracle economy 1935–1985. Hong Kong University Press, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  16. Holland T (1908) The law of war on land. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Ishikida M (2005) Toward peace: war responsibility post war compensation. Peace Movements and Education in Japan. iUniverse, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalshoven F (1992) State responsibility for warlike acts of the armed forces: from article 3 of the Hague convention IV of 1907 to Article 91 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 and Beyond. Int Comp Law Q 40(4):827–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katada S (2000) Japanese aid after the San Francisco peace treaty. J Am East Asian Relat 9(3):197–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King E (1943) Hong Kong under Japanese occupation: a case study in the enemy’s techniques of control. US Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Knoops G (2008) The contribution of the 1907 Hague convention IV. Israel Def Forces Law Rev 3(1):168–189Google Scholar
  22. Koskenniemi M (2008) Occupation and sovereignty: still a useful distinction? In: Engdale O, Wrang P (eds) Law at war: law as it was and as it should be. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  23. Kwon J (2005) Comfort women litigation and the San Francisco treaty: adopting a different principle of treaty interpretation. George Wash Law Rev 73(3):649–667Google Scholar
  24. Lancaster N (2006) Occupation law, sovereignty and political transformation: should the Hague Regulations and the fourth Geneva convention still be considered customary international law? Mil Law Rev 189:51–91Google Scholar
  25. Levin M (2008) Japan-China joint communiqué of 1972/San Francisco peace treaty article 14(b). Am J Int Law 102(1):148–154Google Scholar
  26. Li S (1964) Hong Kong surgeon. Gollancz, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Louis WR (2006) Ends of British imperialism: scramble for empire, Suez and Decolonization. IB Taurus, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Lowe P (2003) After fifty years: the San Francisco peace treaty in the context of Anglo-Japanese relations 1902–1951. Jpn Forum 15(3):389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNair A, Watts AD (1966) The legal effects of war. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Meron T (2005) Revival of customary international law. Am J Int Law 99(4):817–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mills L (1942) British rule in Eastern Asia: a study of contemporary government and economic development in British Malaya and Hong Kong. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Ming J (2010) The waiver of right issue in Chinese civil claims for war reparations from Japan. Frontiers Law China 5(1):1–26Google Scholar
  33. Moses J (2012) Sovereignty as irresponsibility? A realist critique of the responsibility to protect. Rev Int Stud 3:1–23Google Scholar
  34. Nomura K (1943) Proposal by the Japanese Government Handed by the Japanese Ambassador to the Secretary of State on August 6, 1941 In: US Department of State, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy 1931–1941 USGPO. New York, pp 705–708Google Scholar
  35. Schmitt M (2010) Military necessity and humanity in international humanitarian law: preserving a delicate balance. Va J Int Law 50(4):795–840Google Scholar
  36. Scott J (ed) (1915) The Hague convention and declarations of 1899 and 1907. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Snow P (2004) The fall of Hong Kong: Britain, China and the Japanese occupation. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  38. Solis G (2010) The law of armed conflict: international humanitarian law in war. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stone J (1954) Legal controls of international conflict. Maitland Publications, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  40. Thandhani P (2000) Regulating corporate human rights abuses: is Unocal the answer? William Mary Law Rev 42:619–646Google Scholar
  41. Togo K (2011) Development of Japan’s historical memory: the San Francisco treaty and the Murayama statement in future perspective. Asian Perspect 35(3):337–360Google Scholar
  42. Tsang S (2007) A modern history of Hong Kong. I.B. Tauris, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Unattributed (1947) Judicial decisions involving questions of international law: international military tribunal (Nuremberg), judgment and sentences. Am J Int Law 41:172–249 (reprint)Google Scholar
  44. Xu B, Pu X (2010) Dynamic statism and memory politics: a case analysis of the Chinese war reparations movement. China Q 201:156–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zegveld L (2010) Victims’ reparations claims and international criminal courts: incompatible values? Int J Crim Justice 8:79–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© China-EU School of Law 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of LawDalian Maritime UniversityLiaoningPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations