POWs Left in the Cold: Compensation Eludes American WWII Slave Laborers for Private Japanese Companies

Abstract

During World War II, thousands of American soldiers were taken as prisoners of war by the Japanese military and used as slave labor by private Japanese companies. During their enslavement, the prisoners of war endured "barbaric conditions, which included routine beatings, starvation, and lack of medical care." Furthermore, the POWs were "forced to work under treacherous conditions in mines, factories, and shipyards." Today, those same companies are worth multi-billion dollars and have extensive U.S. operations. In July 1999, the California legislature passed a law enabling victims of slave labor, including former prisoners of war, to seek compensation from foreign companies in California courts.' Consequently, many of the surviving victims of the aforementioned slave labor recently filed claims in California courts against the private Japanese companies for whom they labored during the war. Although California provided these plaintiffs with a cause of action, their cases were dismissed at the District Court level. The court based its conclusion on the Multilateral Peace Treaty with Japan, signed by the United States in 1951.

This Comment analyzes the court's response to a novel question of law: Can the Multilateral Peace Treaty with Japan bar private claims against private parties? This question is discussed as follows. Part II of this comment introduces the relevant Treaty articles pertaining to plaintiffs' claims and the court's interpretation of those provisions Part III analyzes the Treaty provisions under the Vienna Convention. Part IV presents a historical review of the United States government's custom of waiving nationals' claims against foreign sovereigns. Part V describes California's efforts to address plaintiffs' situation by enacting a statute that gave them a cause of action in the California courts. Part VI describes the federal issues involved in plaintiffs' claims and the legal implications of applying the Treaty to bar plaintiffs' private action. Part VII investigates the role of Congress as an alternative source of compensation." Finally, Part VIII discusses the remaining factors that could influence a resolution.