Status of Prisoners of War in Islam
PREFACE
The assigned topic for project is “The Status of Prisoners of War in International Humanitarian Law”.
To end up this project with a fruitful discussion along with a reasonable conclusion we proceeded with the discussion in the following manner.
Starting with the introduction of what a prisoner war actually is, his qualifications to be so, his certain relaxations to be enjoyed as a prisoner of war in international humanitarian law. Followed by its status in ancient times, that what were the procedures for dealing with them at that time. This period is of about fourth century AD.
Afterwards the status of POWs in the middle ages i.e. after fourth century AD. Their status, how they were dealt with at that time, what were the points of improvement regarding their status at that time as compared with ancient times.
After that jumping towards the Islamic prospective in this scenario. In this discussion a detailed account is there that how Islam given these POWs a reasonable status not to be ill-treated and mishandled after they are captured. The humane behavior to be followed with them and a detailed discussion and points of difference among Islamic schools of thoughts and versions of different scholars in this regard are being recorded here with extreme care. Then the role of Muslim Caliphate in this regard and its effects hereinafter.
Then the discussion moved over to modern times, the improvements carried out in this regard, different conferences and conventions which laid milestones in this regard, are being discussed.
The Term Paper on Time Travels Billy War Chapter
Chapter One: The first chapter serves as an introduction in which Vonnegut directly addresses the reader, pointing out that the book is based on events that really occurred. He experienced first-hand the destruction of Dresden, during WWII, an event that he has never been able to put out of his mind. For twenty-three years, he has wanted to write about it. Vonnegut's attitude towards war becomes ...
Such steps including Hague Conference and Geneva Conventions. As a result of these international conventions there were certain rulings made and to be followed afterwards by the International community regarding treatment, handling and modes of handing over of POWs.
Then leading ahead a brief account is there about the treatment of POWs which was observed in World War I and II.
And to sum up all this discussion certain points to conclude with for this issue are being noted in black and white.
WHO IS PRISONER?
A prisoner of war,any person captured or interned by a belligerent power during war. In the strictest sense it is applied only to members of regularly organized armed forces, but by broader definition it has also included guerrillas, civilians who take up arms against an enemy openly, or noncombatants associated with a military force.
A prisoner of war or enemy prisoner of war is a person, whether civilian or combatant, who is held in custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.
A person captured in war; especially : a member of the armed forces of a nation who is taken by the enemy during combat.
QUALIFICATION OF PRISONERS OF WARS;
To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must
• have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war,
• be part of a chain of command,
• and wear a uniform and bear arms openly.
Criticism ;
Thus, francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies may be excluded. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly yet are sometimes granted POW status if captured (although Additional Protocol may give them POW status in some circumstances).
However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner of war status.
STATUS OF POWs IN DIFFERENT ERAS
The Essay on Attitudes Towards War in A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Ernest Hemingway was one of the most influential writers of the Modern period. After being rejected from the army, Hemingway entered the war in 1917 as an ambulance driver on the Italian front. Hemingway’s relationship with the war could have been his reason for writing his novel A Farewell to Arms. A Farewell to Arms takes place in Italy in World War I. The novel tells of the conflicts of ...
ANCIENT TIME
In the early history of warfare there was no recognition of a status of prisoner of war, for the defeated enemy was either killed or enslaved by the victor. The women, children, and elders of the defeated tribe or nation were frequently disposed of in similar fashion. The captive, whether or not an active belligerent, was completely at the mercy of his captor, and if the prisoner survived the battlefield, his existence was dependent upon such factors as the availability of food and his usefulness to his captor. If permitted to live, the prisoner was considered by his captor to be merely a piece of movable property, a chattel. During religious wars, it was generally considered a virtue to put nonbelievers to death, but in the time of the campaigns of Julius Caesar a captive could, under certain circumstances, become a freedman within the Roman Empire.
For most of human history, depending on the culture of the victors, combatants on the losing side in a battle could expect to be either slaughtered or enslaved. The first Roman gladiators were prisoners of war and were named according to their ethnic roots such as Samnite, Thracian and the Gaul (Gallus).
Typically, little distinction was made between combatants and civilians, although women and children were more likely to be spared. Sometimes the purpose of a battle, if not a war, was to capture women, a practice known as raptio; the Rape of the Sabines was a large mass abduction by the founders of Rome. Typically women had no rights, and were held legally as chattel.
In the fourth century AD, the Bishop Acacius of Amida, touched by the plight of Persian prisoners captured in a recent war with the Roman Empire,who were held in his town under appalling conditions and destined for a life of slavery, took the initiative of ransoming them, by selling his church’s precious gold and silver vessels, and letting them return to their country. For this he was eventually canonized which testifies to his act being exceptional.
STATUS OF PRISONERS AND SLAVES
Likewise the distinction between POW and slave is not always clear. Some Native Americans captured Europeans and used them as both labourers and bargaining chips; see for example John R. Jewitt, an Englishman who wrote a memoir about his years as a captive of the Nootka people on thePacific Northwest Coast from 1802–1805.
The Essay on How did war world 1 impact women
There are all types of information including lesson plans, articles and news. BBC origin is a British Broadcasting Corporation. Established in 1922,London. The founders of BBC are John Reith and George Villers. BBC purpose is to “enrich peopleʼs lives with programs and services that inform, educate and entertain.” The values of the source are that it has benefits of hindsight; this is because they ...
MIDDLE AGES AND POW’s
During Childeric’s siege and blockade of Paris in 464, the nun Geneviève pleaded with the Frankish King for the welfare of prisoners of war and met with a favourable response. Later, Clovis I liberated captives after Genevieve urged him to do so.
In the later Middle Ages, a number of religious wars were particularly ferocious. In Christian Europe, the extermination of the heretics or “non-believers” was considered desirable. Examples include the 13th century Albigensian Crusade and the Northern Crusades. When asked by a Crusader how to distinguish between the Catholics and Cathars once they’d taken the city of Béziers, the Papal LegateArnaud Amalric famously replied, “Kill them all, God will know His own”.Likewise the inhabitants of conquered cities were frequently massacred during the Crusades against the Muslims in the 11th and 12th centuries. Noblemen could hope to be ransomed; their families would have to send to their captors large sums of wealth commensurate with the social status of the captive. Many French prisoners of war were killed during the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.In the samurai-dominated Japan there was no custom of ransoming prisoners of war, who were for the most part summarily executed.Every city or town that refused surrender and resisted the Mongolswas subject to destruction. In Termez, on the Oxus:
“all the people, both men and women, were driven out onto the plain, and divided in accordance with their usual custom, then they were all slain”.
The Aztecs were constantly at war with neighbouring tribes and groups. The goal of this constant warfare was to collect live prisoners for sacrifice. For the re-consecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 80,400 people over the course of four days.According to Ross Hassing, author of Aztec Warfare, “between 10,000 and 80,400 persons” were sacrificed in the ceremony.In Mayan civilization of Mesoamerica more than a thousand years ago, prisoners of war were paraded before the king and his royal cohort and subjected to ritual humiliation and torture.
The Essay on Croats And Muslims Serbs Yugoslavia War
When referring to the Bosnia-Herzegovina Civil War it is necessary to look at past history of the nation before being able to make an accurate and reliable hypothesis on the decision making that was made during the crisis. The aspect, which will be argued, will be that the principals actions were unjust when referring to the religious injustices that occurred. During the past century there have ...
ISLAMIC PROSPECT OF POWS
In pre-Islamic Arabia, upon capture, those captives not executed were made to beg for their subsistence. During the early reforms under Islam, Muhammad changed this custom and made it the responsibility of the Islamic government to provide food and clothing, on a reasonable basis, to captives, regardless of their religion. If the prisoners were in the custody of a person, then the responsibility was on the individual. He established the rule that prisoners of war must be guarded and not ill-treated, and that after the fighting was over, the prisoners were expected to be either released or ransomed. The freeing of prisoners in particular was highly recommended as a charitable act. MAKKA was the first city to have the benevolent code applied. It is misunderstood that the leader of the Muslim force capturing non-Muslim prisoners could choose whether to kill prisoners, to ransom them, to enslave them, or to cut off their hands and feet on alternate sides because this law is not applied to the prisoners of wars but applied to the people (either Muslims or non-Muslims) who do mischief in the land, gangsters, killers of the people for robbery or raping of women or children. However, Christians who were captured in the Crusades were sold into slavery if they could not pay a ransom.
Historically, Muslims routinely captured large number of prisoners. Aside from those who converted, most were ransomed or enslaved.
Pasquier writes,
“It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war and the Islamic state would have put itself at a grave disadvantage vis-a-vis its enemies had it not reciprocated to some extent. By guaranteeing them , humane treatment, and various possibilities of subsequently releasing themselves, it ensured that a good number of combatants in the opposing armies preferred captivity at the hands of Muslims to death on the field of battle.”
However, when Muslims defeated the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza “The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while the women and children were enslaved.”
According to accounts written by Muhammad’s ( ) followers, after the Battle of Badr, some prisoners were executed for their earlier crimes in Mecca, but the rest were given options: They could convert to Islam and thus win their freedom; they could pay ransom and win their freedom; they could teach 10 Muslims to read and write and thus win their freedom.
The Term Paper on Non Muslims View On Prophet Muhammad
My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels. Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world’s great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. ...
William Muir wrote of this period:
“In pursuance of Mahomet’s commands the citizens of Medina and such of the refugees as possessed houses received the prisoners and treated them with much consideration. “Blessings be on the men of Medina” said one of these prisoners in later days, ‘they made us ride while they themselves walked; they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.”
During his rule, Caliph Umar ( )made it illegal to separate related prisoners of war from each other, after a captive complained to him for being separated from her daughter.
These principles were also honoured during the Crusades, as exemplified by sultans such as Saladin and al-Kamil. For example, after al-Kamil defeated the Franks during the Crusades, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food.
“Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power.”
Treatment of prisoners
In Islamic law there are very liberal provisions about the treatment of POWs during captivity. Upon capture, the prisoners must be guarded and not ill-treated.Islamic law holds that the prisoners must be fed and clothed, either by the Islamic government or by the individual who has custody of the prisoner. The Prophet (PBUH) divided the captives of POWs of Badr among his companions and ordered them,
“Take heed of the recommendation to treat the prisoners fairly.”
Consequently many Muslim families contended themselves with dates and fed the prisoner in their charge with bread.This position is supported by the verse ( 76:8 of the Quran).
The Research paper on Revolutionary Man Muhammad Prophet God
Muhammad the Just Profit Islam began in Arabia during the seventh century common era. Islam is the youngest of all monotheistic religions of the western world and despite its later development after Judaism and Christianity, there are nearly one billion believers in existence today. This makes Islam the third largest religion in the world today. Generally, there are many misconceptions about the ...
The prisoners must be fed in a dignified manner, and must not be forced to beg for their subsistence.Muhammad’s early followers also considered it a principle to not separate prisoners from their relatives. The Quran praised their behaviour in these words:
“and who give food however great be their own want of it – unto the needy, and the orphan, and the captive, (saying, in their hearts,) “We feed you for the sake of God alone: we desire no recompense from you, nor thanks:”
After the fighting is over, prisoners are to be released, with some prospect of survival, or ransomed. The freeing or ransoming of prisoners by Muslims themselves is highly recommended as a charitable act.The Qur’an also urges kindness to captives and recommends, their liberation by purchase or manumission. The freeing of captives is recommended both for the expiation of sins and as an act of simple benevolence.
JURIST WRITING
Among the Hanafi jurists some have dealt with this issue summarily, while others have given details. However, they agree on the basic principles regarding the options available to the political authority for termination of captivity of the POWs. They agree on three options, that is, execution, enslavement, and setting them free with the condition that they should pay ‘jizyah’ (poll-tax) but there is disagreement on ransom which is explained latter.
Whatever the case, it is undeniable that both ransom and exchanging the POWs were practiced by the Prophet (PBUH) himself when he exchanged one non-Muslim with two Muslim captives. Similarly, he had exchanged a non-Muslim woman for many Muslim captives. According to Imam Muhammad b. al-hasan al-Shaybani (d.189/804) – the famous disciple of Abu- Hanifah who codified the corpus juris of Hanafi School, freeing POWs is allowed if the political authority considered it to be in the interest of the community because the Prophet (PBUH) had set Thumama b. Athal (d.11/633) free. The Hanafi scholars also agree that non-Muslim POWs may all be freed if both their persons as well as land would be subjected to ‘jizyah’ and ‘kharaj’ respectively as ‛Umar b. al-Khattab (d.23/644) – the second successor – did with the people of Iraq.
Thus, the Hanafites leave their fate to the political authority to do what is best for the Muslim community.
According to the majority – Shafites, Hanbalites, Shi‛ide, Zahirites and Awzae‛, the political authority has the following options:
• execution,
• enslavement,
• mann’ (releasing them gratis),
• and ‘fida’ (ransom or releasing after a condition or a promise).
According to the Maliki school of thought the options available are:
• execution,
• enslavement,
• mann’
• fida’
• and imposing jizyah on them.
It would be interesting to analyse the arguments of fuqaha’ regarding their disagreement on the fate of the POWs.
The Qur’an has mentioned only two ways to end captivity, that is, ‘mann’ (freedom gratis) and ‘fida’ (ransom).
The first mention comes in the chapter of ‘spoils’, verses 8: 67-68. Here the special occasion for their revelation was the conduct of the Prophet (PBUH) in relation to the captives of Badr in the second century after the migration of the Prophet to Madinah in which Muslims had taken some 70 non-Muslims as captives. Since this was the first time that the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions had faced this situation. The Prophet consulted his companions. The majority opined that they be ransomed on the account of material help that was much needed by the Muslims at that time. ‛Umar b. al-Khattab, advised that they be executed. The real problem was that there was no textual authority regarding POWs and there was no revelation to the Prophet (PBUH).
He followed the advice of the majority. It is reported by ‛Ali -bin -Abi Talib (d.40/661) that the Prophet (PBUH) put two choices to his companions.
In another Hadith regarding the spoils of war the Prophet (PBUH) states,
“I have been blessed with five things which were not bestowed on any Prophet before me. One of these was that spoils acquired from disbelievers were not lawful for anyone, but it was made lawful for the Muslim Ummah.”
However, no revelation attesting to it being lawful had been sent to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) till that point. Abu ‛Ubayd al-Qasim b. Salam (d.229/837) reports that the Prophet (PBUH) said,
The spoils before you were not lawful for any of the black headed beings (humans).
The fire used to descend and consume them. On the day of the Battle of Badr, people started pouncing upon the spoils even before they had been made lawful for them. God, the Exalted, therefore, sent down the following verse:
“Had it not been for a previous ordainment from God, a severe punishment would have reached you for the ransom that ye took. But now enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good, but fear God for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Mufti Muhammad Shafi‘ mentions :
The spoils of war in the previous religions were not lawful for them and they could not use them for their benefit. Instead, the entire spoils would be collected and placed in some open field, and according to the Divine practice, a fire would come from the skies and burn down the whole spoils. The burning would be considered as a sign that the particular jihad was approved of. If the fire from the skies did not come to burn the spoils, it was taken to be a sign of divine discontentment, that there were shortcomings in the jihad because of which it was disapproved by Allah.
Thus, when the Prophet (PBUH) decided to ransom the POWs of Badr, these verses were revealed, that is, 8: 67-68, passing censor on the Prophet (PBUH) for having kept prisoners and having been tempted by the ransom. God told him:
It does not behove a prophet to keep captives unless he has battled strenuously on earth. You may desire the fleeting gains of this world , but God desires “for you the good of” the life to come: and God is almighty, wise. Had it not been for a decree from God that had already gone forth, there would indeed have befallen you a tremendous chastisement on account of all (the captives) that you took. Enjoy, then, all that is lawful and good among the things which you have gained in war, and remain conscious of God: verily, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
Although the companions were thinking that some of the non-Muslims would become Muslims when liberated but other seems to be motivated by personal interest as well. In the absence of a decisive textual authority which proved spoils as permissible property for Muslims, the slightest turn of thought towards material gains was considered a kind of disobedience. This verse simply urges Muslims to fight hard during the war and that there should be no captives for Muslims before ‘ithkhaan’ that is killing the enemy and weakening them and thrashing them. Thus, it is to emphasize the killing of non-Muslims in war.
Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi (d.606/1210) in his Tafseer of the Holy Qur’an (known as Al-Tafseer al-Kabeer) the warning given in the verse above does not mean that captives shall not be taken at all.
After the displeasure of Allah was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) he is reported to have said:
“The Divine punishment was almost about to descend when Allah, in his Grace, held it back and had this punishment come, no one except ‛Umar b. al-Khattab and Sa‛d b. Mu‛adh (d.6/627) would have remained safe from it.”
According to authoritative commentators of the Holy Qur’an, these verses were revealed only for that specific occasion, and this point is supported by the subsequent Qur’┐nic revelation on prisoners. This occurs in 47: 4 which says:
Now when you meet (in war) those who are bent on denying the truth, smite their necks until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds; but thereafter (set them free,)either by an act of grace or against ransom, so that the burden of war may be lifted: thus (shall it be).
This verse makes execution illegal and makes captivity a temporary affair, and which must give rise to either unconditional or conditional freedom or freedom bought with ransom.
Abu ‛Ubayd reports that verses 8: 67-8 were revealed on the day of Battle of Badr when there were a few Muslims. As the Muslims increased in number and their power increased God, revealed: “set them free” either by an act of grace or against ransom, so that the burden of war may be lifted.”
Modern times, Prisoners of War
During the nineteenth century, efforts increased to improve the treatment and processing of prisoners. The extensive period of conflict during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1793-1815), followed by the Anglo – American War of 1812, led to the emergence of a cartel system for the exchange of prisoners, even while the belligerents were at war. A cartel was usually arranged by the respective armed service for the exchange of like ranked personnel. The aim was to achieve a reduction in the number of prisoners held, while at the same time alleviating shortages of skilled personnel in the home country. Later, as result of these emerging conventions a number of international conferences were held, starting with the Brussels Conference of 1874, with nations agreeing on;
It was necessary to prevent inhumane treatment of prisoners and the use of weapons causing unnecessary harm. Although no agreements were immediately ratified by the participating nations, work was continued that resulted in new conventions being adopted and becoming recognized as international law, that specified that prisoners of war are required to be treated humanely and diplomatically.
Hague and Geneva Conventions Prisoners of War
Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal;
to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
However, nations vary in their dedication to following these laws.
The third Geneva Convention provides a wide range of protection for prisoners of war. It defines their rights and sets down detailed rules for their treatment and eventual release. International humanitarian law (IHL) also protects other persons deprived of liberty as a result of armed conflict.
The status of POW only applies in international armed conflict. POWs are usually members of the armed forces of one of the parties to a conflict who fall into the hands of the adverse party. The third 1949 Geneva Convention also classifies other categories of persons who have the right to POW status or may be treated as POWs.
“POWs cannot be prosecuted for taking a direct part in hostilities. Their detention is not a form of punishment, but only aims to prevent further participation in the conflict. They must be released and repatriated without delay after the end of hostilities. The detaining power may prosecute them for possible war crimes, but not for acts of violence that are lawful under IHL.POWs must be treated humanely in all circumstances. They are protected against any act of violence, as well as against intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. IHL also defines minimum conditions of detention covering such issues as accommodation, food, clothing, hygiene and medical care.”
The fourth 1949 Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I also provide extensive protection for civilian internees during international armed conflicts. If justified by imperative reasons of security, a party to the conflict may subject civilians to assigned residence or to internment. Therefore, internment is a security measure, and cannot be used as a form of punishment. This means that each interned person must be released as soon as the reasons which necessitated his/her internment no longer exist.Rules governing the treatment and conditions of detention of civilian internees under IHL are very similar to those applicable to prisoners of war.
In non-international armed conflicts, Article 3 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II provide that persons deprived of liberty for reasons related to the conflict must also be treated humanely in all circumstances. In particular, they are protected against murder, torture, as well as cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment. Those detained for participation in hostilities are not immune from criminal prosecution under the applicable domestic law for having done so.
World War I, Prisoners of War
About 8 million men surrendered and were held in POW camps until the war ended. All nations pledged to follow the Hague rules on fair treatment of prisoners of war, and in general the POWs had a much higher survival rate than their peers who were not captured. Individual surrenders were uncommon; usually a large unit surrendered all its men. At Tannenberg 92,000 Russians surrendered during the battle. When the besieged garrison of Kaunas surrendered in 1915, 20,000 Russians became prisoners. Over half the Russian losses were prisoners (as a proportion of those captured, wounded or killed); for Austria 32%, for Italy 26%, for France 12%, for Germany 9%; for Britain 7%. Prisoners from the Allied armies totaled about 1.4 million (not including Russia, which lost between 2.5 and 3.5 million men as prisoners.) From the Central Powers about 3.3 million men became prisoners. Germany held 2.5 million prisoners; Russia held 2.9 million, and Britain and France held about 720,000, mostly gained in the period just before the Armistice in 1918. The US held 48,000. The most dangerous moment was the act of surrender, when helpless soldiers were sometimes gunned down. Once prisoners reached a camp in general conditions were satisfactory (and much better than in World War II), thanks in part to the efforts of the International Red Cross and inspections by neutral nations. Conditions were terrible in Russia, starvation was common for prisoners and civilians alike; about 15-20% of the prisoners in Russia died. In Germany food was short but only 5% died. The Ottoman Empire often treated prisoners of war poorly. Some 11,800 British soldiers, most of them Indians, became prisoners after the five-month Siege of Kut, in Mesopotamia, in April 1916. Many were weak and starved when they surrendered and 4,250 died in captivity. The most curious case came in Russia where the Czech Legion of Czech prisoners (from the Austro-Hungarian army), were released in 1917, armed themselves, and briefly became a military and diplomatic force during the Russian Civil War.
World War II, Prisoners of War
Germany and Italy generally treated prisoners from the British Commonwealth, France, the U.S. and other western allies, in accordance with the Geneva Convention (1929), which had been signed by these countries. Nazi Germany did not extend this level of treatment to non-Western prisoners, such as the Soviets, who suffered harsh captivities and died in large numbers while in captivity. The Empire of Japan also did not treat prisoners of war in accordance with the Geneva Convention. When soldiers of lower rank were made to work, they were compensated, and officers (e.g. in Colditz Castle) were not required to work. The main complaint of British, British Commonwealth, U.S. and French prisoners of war in German Army POW camps, especially during the last two years of the war, was the poor quality and miserly quantities of food provided, a fate German soldiers and civilians were also suffering due to the blockade conditions. Fortunately for the prisoners, food packages provided by the International Red Cross supplemented the food rations, until the last few months when allied air raids prevented shipments from arriving. The other main complaint was the harsh treatment during forced marches in the last months, resulting from German attempts to keep prisoners away from the advancing allied forces. In contrast, Germany treated the Soviet Red Army troops that had been taken prisoner with neglect and deliberate, organized brutality. The first eight months of the German campaign on their Eastern Front were by far the worst phase, with up to 2.4 of 3.1 million POWs dying. Soviet POWs were held under conditions that resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands from starvation and disease. Most prisoners were also subjected to forced labour under conditions that resulted in further deaths. An official justification used by the Germans for this policy was that the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention; this was not legally justifiable, however, as under article 82 of the Geneva Convention (1929), signatory countries had to give POWs of all signatory and non-signatory countries the rights assigned by the convention. A month after the German invasion in 1941 an offer was made by the USSR for a reciprocal adherence to the Hague conventions. This ‘note’ was left unanswered by Third Reich officials. According to some sources, between 1941 and 1945, the Axis powers took approximately 5.7 million Soviet prisoners. Approximately 1 million of them were released during the war, in that their status changed but they remained under German authority. A little over 500,000 either escaped or were liberated by the Red Army; 930,000 more were found alive in camps after the war. The remaining 3.3 million prisoners (57.5% of the total captured) died during their captivity. According to Russian military historian General G. Krivoshhev, 4.6 million Soviet prisoners were taken by the Axis powers, of which 1.8 million were found alive in camps after the war and 318 770 were released by the Axis during the war and were then drafted into the Soviet armed forces again. In comparison, 8,348 British or American prisoners died in German camps in 1939-45 (3.5% of the 232,000 total).
On 11 February 1945, at the conclusion of the Yalta Conference, the United States and the United Kingdom signed a Repatriation Agreement with the USSR. The interpretation of this Agreement resulted in the forcible repatriation of all Soviets regardless of their wishes. The forced repatriation operations took place in 1945-1947. Many Soviet POWs and forced laborers transported to Nazi Germany were on their return to the USSR treated as traitors and sent to the gulag. In the Pacific War, the Empire of Japan had never signed the Third Geneva Convention of 1929. The Empire however violated international agreements signed by Japan, including provisions of the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907), which protect prisoners of war (POWs).
Prisoners of war from China, the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Netherlands and New Zealand held by the Japanese armed forces were subject to murder, beatings, summary punishments, brutal treatment, forced labor, medical experimentation, starvation rations, and poor medical treatment. No access to the POWs was provided to the International Red Cross. Escapes were almost impossible because of the difficulty of men of European descent hiding in Asiatic societies. According to the findings of the Tokyo tribunal, the death rate of Western prisoners was 27.1% (American POWs died at a rate of 37%), seven times that of POW’s under the Germans and Italians. The death rate of Chinese was much larger as, according to the directive ratified on 5 August 1937 by Hirohito, the constraints of international law were removed on those prisoners. Thus, if 37,583 prisoners from the UK, 28,500 from Netherlands and 14,473 from USA were released after the surrender of Japan, the number for the Chinese was only 56.
Conclusion
To conclude all this discussion we must consider it through different dimensions including roots of humanitarian law which is based on Islamic principles, and secondly the ultimate goal which has to be achieved through all this.
Firstly the basis of humanitarian law, that what is the motive behind these step regarding POWs i.e. eradication of ill-treatment, torture, providing them with reasonable and basic necessecities of life and humane behavior.
Apparently all this started in 18 century where international community activists played their role to protect prisoners of wars through different conferences and conventions, but actually all it started with the advent of Islam in this world. Islam guides us in each sphere of life starting from individual practices and going through interactions among groups, societies and nations. There is a separate discipline in Islamic law referred to as Islamic International law, and its domain which pertains to law of wars.
All principles regarding POWs are discussed in it and are supported by verses from Holy Quran and Hadith.
Islam is religion of peace and humanity. Islam teaches us to adopt humane behavior, and based on this principle POWs are treated well in Islam. Traces are there which support these claims, from life of Prophet (P.B.U.H) as happened in Battle of Badar, and during Holy Caliphate.
The difference is that nowadays it has got much complicated. Today wars are not of that nature, as a result of varieties of issues problems of POWs also got complex. Therefore basic principles of humanity are there but procedures are different.
Secondly, the motive behind capturing armies is not to destroy then. But to weaken their strength. Once war is over there doesn’t exist any logic to kill POWs. Rather they maybe used to carry out other distinct purposes ie exchange or ransom.
Difference between theory and practice:
By law all laws regarding POWs are humane in nature and providing safeguards to them as being concluded in different international conventions.
But the other side of picture is not so bright, when we talk about practice on these laws, there are a number of voilations. As after First World War certain laws provided safeguards to POWs, but were voilated in World War II.
Extreme voilations are being done in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghuraib Jail.
Then in 1971 when Bangladesh captured Pakistani armies their behavior was not according to the laws. What was done in Veitnam was a bare voilation.
Another issue is that instead of active armies innocent citizens are captured.