5cjxburmr

9.1 INTRODUCTIONThis Chapter addresses the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs).9.1.1 Brief History of POW Law. States have made significant humanitarian advances inthe international law relating to the treatment of POWs. 1 Before the modern law of war, POWswere often put to death, held for ransom or as hostages, or sold into slavery.Gradually, protections for POWs, such as providing for their repatriation at the end ofconflict without ransom, were concluded in treaties. 2 The United States concluded bilateraltreaties for the humane treatment and protection of POWs, written with a view towardsforbidding abuses that occurred during the Revolutionary War. 3 Eventually multilateral treatiesfor the protection of POWs were concluded, which also drew from the experience of POWsduring prior conflicts. 4 War crimes trials after World War II for POW mistreatment recognizedthat the humane treatment of POWs was required under customary international law. 5After World War II, the 1949 Geneva Conventions were concluded, and more than 190States, including the United States, are Parties to the GPW. 69.1.2 Interpretation and Application of the GPW. The GPW underlies most of theinternational law rules applicable to the United States for the treatment of POWs.The GPW’s provisions should be interpreted in light of the principles that underlie POWdetention and, in particular, in light of the goal of advancing the humane treatment of POWs. 71 WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW & PRECEDENTS 788 (“Modern sentiment and usage have induced in the practice of warfew changes so marked as that which affects the status of prisoners of war. The time has long passed when ‘noquarter’ was the rule on the battlefield, or when a prisoner could be put to death by virtue simply of his capture.”).2 See, e.g., Treaty of Peace Between Spain and the Netherlands, Signed at Munster, in Westphalia, on 30 January1648, LEVIE, DOCUMENTS ON POWS 5 (“LXIII. All prisoners of war shall be delivered up by both sides, without thepayment of any ransom, and without any distinction and without exception with respect to the prisoners who servedoutside of the Low Countries and under other standards and flags than those of the said Sovereign States.”).3 For example, Treaty of Amity and Commerce between His Majesty the King of Prussia and the United States ofAmerica, art. 24, Sept. 10, 1785, 18 STAT. 641, 647.4 Refer to § 19.8.1 (1899 Hague II); § 19.13.2 (1929 GPW).5 See, e.g., United States, et al. v. Göring, et al., Judgment, I TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THEIMT 232 (“The argument in defense of the charge with regard to the murder and ill-treatment of Soviet prisoners ofwar, that the U.S.S.R. was not a party to the [1929] Geneva Convention, is quite without foundation.”); UnitedStates v. von Leeb, et al. (The High Command Case), XI TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 495(quoting the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg’s discussion of the murder and maltreatment of SovietPOWs and noting: “All of these unlawful acts, as well as employment under inhumane conditions and at prohibitedlabor, is shown by the record in this case. They were deliberate, gross and continued violations of the customs andusages of war as well as the Hague Regulations (1907) and the Geneva Convention (1929) and of internationalcommon law.”).6 Refer to § 19.16 (1949 Geneva Conventions).7 See Jack L. Goldsmith III, Assistant Attorney General, “Protected Person” Status in Occupied Iraq Under theFourth Geneva Convention, Mar. 18, 2004, 28 OPINIONS OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 35, 55 (“Our recourseto fundamental principles to address an ambiguity in article 4 is not unusual. In the context of the law of armedconflict, interpreters faced with changed or unexpected circumstances have not hesitated to resort to a treaty’s512