Explaining the Interbellum Rupture in Japanese Treatment of Prisoners of War
Abstract
A puzzle is presented by the interbellum difference in the Japanese treatment of prisoners of war from faithful adherence to flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. This article first analyzes versions of the indoctrination in brutality thesis appearing in works of popular and scholarly history before articulating two constructivist accounts that explain the interbellum rupture. Where one constructivist account focusing on national political elites explains non-adherence yet fails to assign policy making responsibility to agents with power over prisoners of war, a second constructivist account focusing on theatre military elites both explains non-adherence and assigns the policy change responsibility to agents with power over prisoners of war.Downloads
Issue
Section
Articles