Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Article
  • Published:
China-EU Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Nomura (1943), pp. 705–706.

  2. Article 2, Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) (ratified by Japan 24 July 1929).

  3. Dinstein (2009), p. 3; Fox (2008), p. 220; Stone (1954), p. 695.

  4. Louis (2006), p. 352.

  5. Benvenisti (1993), p. 5.

  6. Ibid, p. 6.

  7. X et al. v. State of Japan, Tokyo District Court, Judgment, June 17, 1999 Available at: http://www.tomeika.jur.kyushu-u.ac.jp/intl/jailpdf/028_Tokyo%20District%20Court%20Judgment,%2017%20June,%201999.pdf (accessed 15 October 2012).

  8. Ibid.

  9. X et al. v State of Japan, Tokyo District Court, Judgment, November 30, 1998; H.T. (991) 262 [1999].

  10. Solis (2010), p. 54.

  11. Kalshoven (1992), p. 830.

  12. Ming (2010); Zegveld (2010); Kwon (2005); Levin (2008); Casey and Strongin (2000); Eilers (2001); Kalshoven (1992).

  13. Article 3, Annexure to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War (the Hague Regulations).

  14. Article 14(b), Treaty of San Francisco (1952).

  15. Holland (1908), p. 40.

  16. Above n 13.

  17. Eilers (2001), p. 474.

  18. Kalshoven (1992), p. 830.

  19. Carnahan (1998), p. 231.

  20. Benvenisti (1993), p. 16.

  21. McNair and Watts (1966), p. 416.

  22. Bentwich (1907), p. 44.

  23. Snow (2004).

  24. Fox (2008), p. 6.

  25. Cole (1974), p. 74.

  26. Lancaster (2006), p. 55.

  27. Meron (2005), pp. 817–818.

  28. Trial of Takashi Sakai, Chinese War Crimes Military Tribunal of the Ministry of National Defense, Nanking (29 August 1947) 7.

  29. Knoops (2008), pp. 170–171.

  30. Cited in Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic (Trial Judgement), IT-95-14-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 3 March (2000), 77.

  31. Article 3, The Hague Regulations.

  32. Article 14(b), Treaty of San Francisco (1952).

  33. Lowe (2003), p. 395.

  34. Ibid, p. 394.

  35. Katada (2000), p. 203.

  36. Eilers (2001), p. 474.

  37. Ibid, p. 497.

  38. Ibid.

  39. Schmitt (2010), p. 807.

  40. Carnahan (1998), p. 220.

  41. Ibid, p. 231.

  42. Koskenniemi (2008), p. 164.

  43. Ibid, p. 174.

  44. Article 14(b), Treaty of San Francisco (1952).

  45. Eilers (2001), p. 478.

  46. Kwon (2005), p. 651.

  47. Scott (1915), p. 132.

  48. Bassiouni (1989), p. 68.

  49. Cole (1974), p. 74.

  50. Eilers (2001), p. 488.

  51. Solis (2010), p. 54.

  52. Ibid.

  53. Ibid.

  54. Ibid.

  55. Mills (1942), p. 389.

  56. Kalshoven (1992), p. 830.

  57. Ibid, p. 833.

  58. Ibid.

  59. Ibid, p. 835.

  60. Ibid, pp. 835–836.

  61. X et al. v State of Japan, Tokyo District Court, Judgment, November 30, 1998 para 21.

  62. Ibid, paras 25–26.

  63. X et al. v. State of Japan, Tokyo District Court, Judgment, June 17, 1999 para 4.

  64. HKRS165-4-1, “Regulations for the Disposal of Seized and Confiscated Goods” (30 November 1942) in Papers Relative to Investigation Into Seizure of Property by the Japanese in the Colony of Hong Kong 3.

  65. Ibid.

  66. Ibid.

  67. Zegveld (2010), p. 87.

  68. Ibid, p. 101.

  69. Togo (2011), p. 343.

  70. Ibid, p. 354.

  71. Hiroshima High Court, Judgment, July 9, 2004; H.J. (1865) 62 [2004].

  72. Ibid, para 7.

  73. Levin (2008), pp. 148–49.

  74. Casey and Strongin (2000), p. 640.

  75. Thandhani (2000), p. 645.

  76. Kwon (2005), p. 650.

  77. Zegveld (2010), pp. 81–82.

  78. Ibid, 87.

  79. Casey and Strongin (2000), p. 645.

  80. Ming (2010), p. 4.

  81. Xu and Pu (2010), p. 160.

  82. Snow (2004), p. 81 citing Li (1964), p. 111.

  83. Snow (2004), p. 186.

  84. Hong Kong War Crimes Trial of Kishi Yasuo WO235/993 (25 April 1946).

  85. Hong Kong War Crimes Trial of Noma Kennosuke WO235/999 (1 October 1946).

  86. Lau, ‘Hong Kong Reparation Association’ Available at http://home.netvigator.com/~hkra2002/ (accessed 15 October 2011).

  87. King (1943), p. 70.

  88. Benvenisti (1993), p. 16.

  89. Bloch (1940), p. 320.

  90. Endacott (1978), p. 160.

  91. Snow (2004), p. 153.

  92. Donnison (1956), p. 224.

  93. Ibid.

  94. HKRS 61-9-4, Correspondence, Ford, Kwan & Co (acting for Chang Ng Shi) to The Land Officer, ‘Re: Inland Lot No. 5448; 23, Yiu Wa Street’, 8 January 1946.

  95. Ibid.

  96. Tsang (2007), p. 60.

  97. HKRS165-4-1: ‘Re: Disposal and Management of Properties in Hong Kong Owned by Enemy Nations and Nationals’ (13 November 1942) In: Papers Relative to Investigation Into Seizure of Property by the Japanese in the Colony of Hong Kong p. 3.

  98. Ibid, ‘Principles of Disposal of Enemy Banks’ (undated) p. 1.

  99. Goodstadt (2007), p. 73.

  100. Above n 97, “Detailed Regulations for the Enforcement of ‘The Principle of Disposal of Enemy Banks’” (undated) p. 4.

  101. Ibid.

  102. Ibid, “Instructions on Reopening Chinese Banks” (undated) para 10.

  103. HKMS 174-1-6: “Army Area Files, Asia—Government General Occupied Hong Kong: April 1942; Senji Geppo Monthly Wartime Report by Government General in Occupied Hong Kong for April 1942” 12 (Translated by Mrs Yukiko Burns, University of Tasmania, 21 June 2011).

  104. Snow (2004), p. 24.

  105. HKRS122-5-26; D&S No 5/21-30, ‘The Bank of East Asia Accounts 1942’. The bank records are in traditional Chinese and the author is indebted to Dr Guobin Zhu for the pains that he took to translate them.

  106. Ibid.

  107. Bell (1942), p. 82.

  108. Above n 97, p. 12.

  109. Ibid.

  110. Above n 95, p. 11.

  111. HKRS141-19-29-1, Register of Enemy Properties vol 1 (Japanese Occupation Government of Hong Kong, 1942) p. 16.

  112. Ibid, p. 2.

  113. King (1943), p. 70.

  114. Ibid.

  115. HKRS165-4-1: “Instructions on Reopening Chinese Banks—Attached Sheet Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation” Above n 97, p. 4.

  116. Moses (2012), p. 5.

  117. Ishikida (2005), p. 56.

  118. Ibid.

  119. Zegveld (2010), p. 87.

  120. Unattributed (1947), pp. 248–249.

  121. Gibbon (1871), p. 45.

References

  • Bassiouni M (1989) International crimes: jus cogens and obligatio erga omnes. Law Contemp Probl 59(4):63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell H (1942) Monetary problems of military occupation. Mil Aff 6(2):77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentwich N (1907) The law of private property in war. Sweet and Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti E (1993) The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch K (1940) Far Eastern war inflation. Pac Aff 13(3):320–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):213–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):631–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole B (1974) Property and the law of belligerent occupation: a reexamination. World Aff 137(1):66–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2009) The international law of belligerent occupation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Donnison FSV (1956) British military administration in the far east. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:469–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Endacott GB (1978) Hong Kong eclipse. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox G (2008) Humanitarian occupation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbon E (1871) The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, vol 1. JB Lippincott, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Kong

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland T (1908) The law of war on land. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishikida M (2005) Toward peace: war responsibility post war compensation. Peace Movements and Education in Japan. iUniverse, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):827–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katada S (2000) Japanese aid after the San Francisco peace treaty. J Am East Asian Relat 9(3):197–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoops G (2008) The contribution of the 1907 Hague convention IV. Israel Def Forces Law Rev 3(1):168–189

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon J (2005) Comfort women litigation and the San Francisco treaty: adopting a different principle of treaty interpretation. George Wash Law Rev 73(3):649–667

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 189:51–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin M (2008) Japan-China joint communiqué of 1972/San Francisco peace treaty article 14(b). Am J Int Law 102(1):148–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Li S (1964) Hong Kong surgeon. Gollancz, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis WR (2006) Ends of British imperialism: scramble for empire, Suez and Decolonization. IB Taurus, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe P (2003) After fifty years: the San Francisco peace treaty in the context of Anglo-Japanese relations 1902–1951. Jpn Forum 15(3):389–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNair A, Watts AD (1966) The legal effects of war. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (2005) Revival of customary international law. Am J Int Law 99(4):817–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ming J (2010) The waiver of right issue in Chinese civil claims for war reparations from Japan. Frontiers Law China 5(1):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses J (2012) Sovereignty as irresponsibility? A realist critique of the responsibility to protect. Rev Int Stud 3:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 705–708

  • Schmitt M (2010) Military necessity and humanity in international humanitarian law: preserving a delicate balance. Va J Int Law 50(4):795–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (ed) (1915) The Hague convention and declarations of 1899 and 1907. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow P (2004) The fall of Hong Kong: Britain, China and the Japanese occupation. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Solis G (2010) The law of armed conflict: international humanitarian law in war. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stone J (1954) Legal controls of international conflict. Maitland Publications, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Thandhani P (2000) Regulating corporate human rights abuses: is Unocal the answer? William Mary Law Rev 42:619–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Togo K (2011) Development of Japan’s historical memory: the San Francisco treaty and the Murayama statement in future perspective. Asian Perspect 35(3):337–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang S (2007) A modern history of Hong Kong. I.B. Tauris, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Unattributed (1947) Judicial decisions involving questions of international law: international military tribunal (Nuremberg), judgment and sentences. Am J Int Law 41:172–249 (reprint)

  • Xu B, Pu X (2010) Dynamic statism and memory politics: a case analysis of the Chinese war reparations movement. China Q 201:156–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zegveld L (2010) Victims’ reparations claims and international criminal courts: incompatible values? Int J Crim Justice 8:79–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

    Rohan B. E. Price

  2. Faculty of Law, Dalian Maritime University, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China

    Rohan B. E. Price

Authors
  1. Rohan B. E. Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rohan B. E. Price.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Price, R.B.E. Making Japan pay for its East Asian occupations (1941–1945): a new modality for international law?. China-EU Law J 2, 5–34 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-013-0021-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-013-0021-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation