5cjxburmr

circumstances would receive POW treatment if they were interned. For example, the rules forthe parole of POWs would apply to them. 133 Similarly, the rules relating to POW escape wouldalso apply to them. 134 So, a demobilized person who disobeyed an internment order andattempted to escape to rejoin his or her armed force would, like a POW, be subject, at most, todisciplinary punishment in respect of the act of escape. 135Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of an occupied State wouldonly be entitled to receive POW treatment while an international armed conflict continues. 136For example, this provision would not apply to a situation like the occupation of Japan afterWorld War II because all hostilities had ended. 1374.6 OTHER MILITIA AND VOLUNTEER CORPSUnder certain conditions, members of militia and volunteer corps that are not part of thearmed forces of a State qualify as combatants and receive the rights, duties, and liabilities ofcombatant status. 138 More specifically, Article 4(A)(2) of the GPW defines prisoners of war toinclude:Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including thoseof organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict andoperating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied,provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistancemovements, fulfil the following conditions:(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;(c) that of carrying arms openly;133 Refer to § 9.11.2 (Parole of POWs).134 Refer to § 9.25 (POW Escapes).135 Refer to § 9.25.2.2 (Only Disciplinary Punishments in Respect of an Act of Escape).136 See LEVIE, POWS 67-68 (“It is important to bear in mind that the foregoing provisions explicitly contemplate thatthe government of the unoccupied part of the territory of the State the members of whose armed forces are inquestion, or that State’s allies if it has been completely occupied, are continuing the hostilities. The mere existenceof a government-in-exile after the complete cessation of hostilities would not suffice to make the provisionapplicable. In other words, this provision was not intended to apply to the situation which arises when thecapitulation of a State is followed by the complete termination of armed hostilities.”).137 See LEVIE, POWS 68 and footnote 261 (“[T]his provision was not intended to apply to the situation which ariseswhen the capitulation of a State is followed by the complete termination of armed hostilities” and “would, therefore,not apply in a situation such as that which existed upon the capitulation of Japan in 1945.”).138 Refer to § 4.4 (Rights, Duties, and Liabilities of Combatants).118