Torture

Lore & Background

Torture was legally and morally accepted in most ancient, medieval, and early modern societies. It was integrated into judicial processes, where it was seen as a reliable method for extracting truth, a suitable punishment, and a deterrent against future crimes. Legal regulations often restricted the methods and circumstances under which citizens could be tortured, typically reserving it for serious offenses like treason when some evidence already existed. In contrast, non-citizens, including foreigners and slaves, were commonly subjected to torture without such protections. Archaeological evidence of torture exists from Early Neolithic Europe, approximately 7,000 years ago. Over time, torture was used for purposes including punishment, extracting confessions, interrogation for information, and intimidating third parties. The most common physical method is beatings, often combined with other techniques. Since the twentieth century, many torturers have favored non-scarring or psychological methods to maintain deniability. Torturers are typically motivated by fear or limited resources rather than sadism, and they rarely receive explicit orders, instead learning techniques informally within organizations that enable their behavior. Once initiated, a torture program tends to escalate beyond initial intentions and often reduces the effectiveness of the involved agencies. The practice aims to break a victim’s will, destroy their agency and personality, and is considered one of the most damaging experiences a person can endure. Victims frequently suffer chronic pain and mental health issues, with high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, though many demonstrate psychological resilience. Most victims are poor and marginalized individuals suspected of crimes, though political prisoners and those in armed conflict receive disproportionate attention.

Reader's Guide

Torture remains a central human rights issue despite its unambiguous prohibition under international law. Most countries practice torture, though few acknowledge it. Measuring its prevalence is difficult due to secrecy, and many survivors, especially from poor or marginalized populations, are unwilling to report. Torture aims to break the victim's will and is cited as one of the most damaging experiences a person can undergo, with many victims suffering chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder. Prevention efforts have had mixed effectiveness, but institutional reforms and elimination of incommunicado detention have shown positive effects. The definition of torture remains controversial, particularly regarding the threshold of severity and whether it must involve state actors.

Did You Know?

• Most victims of torture are poor and marginalized people suspected of crimes.
• The most common form of physical torture is beatings.
• Torture is prohibited under international law for all states under all circumstances.
• Many torturers act out of fear or due to limited resources, rather than sadism.

Scale and Nature of the Atrocities

The Empire of Japan carried out a vast campaign of violence across the Asian-Pacific region both before and during the Second World War, with the bulk of the suffering concentrated in the early years of Emperor Hirohito's reign. Estimates place the total death toll between nineteen and thirty million people. The Imperial Japanese Army and Navy were directly responsible for an array of horrors that included mass killings, the systematic enslavement of women for sexual purposes, the infliction of torture, deliberate starvation, coerced labor, and grotesque experiments conducted on human subjects. The military's air arm also deployed chemical and biological agents against civilian populations, actions that directly contravened international treaties Japan had itself signed. What makes the record particularly damning is that Japanese political and military leaders were aware of these abuses and, rather than halting them, frequently endorsed or rationalized the conduct. The majority of troops stationed in the region either actively participated in the violence or stood by without resistance. Survivors' oral accounts, personal diaries, and official war journals—many supplied by Japanese veterans themselves—corroborate the breadth of the atrocities, which have been described in various terms including "the Asian Holocaust" and "the Rape of Asia."

Legal Violations and the Framework of Accountability

The acts committed by Japanese military personnel were not merely moral failures but clear breaches of multiple layers of law. The Tokyo Charter, which governed the post-war tribunals, defined war crimes as violations of the laws or customs of war, encompassing the use of prohibited weapons, violations of combat norms, and harm inflicted on protected persons such as enemy civilians and neutral-state property. Japan had signed the 1929 Geneva Conventions covering prisoners of war and the wounded, yet it refused to fully ratify the POW Convention, later claiming in 1942 that it would comply only "mutatis mutandis"—altering terms as it saw fit. The military also flouted the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which banned chemical weapons and protected captured soldiers, the 1930 Forced Labour Convention, and the 1921 treaty against the trafficking of women and children. By signing the 1929 Kellogg-Briand Pact, Japan had further exposed itself to charges of crimes against peace. Crucially, many of these offenses also violated Japanese military law itself, making the perpetrators subject to court-martial under their own country's statutes.

The Tokyo Trials and the Question of Domestic Law

Following the war's end, Japan accepted the terms of the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, whose Article 10 explicitly called for the punishment of all war criminals, including those who had inflicted cruelties on prisoners. The subsequent Tokyo Trials prosecuted three categories of offenders: Class A individuals charged with crimes against peace, Class B for war crimes in the conventional sense, and Class C for crimes against humanity. Japan's governments have formally accepted the judgments rendered in these proceedings, a position reinforced by the 1952 Treaty of San Francisco. Yet a persistent legal ambiguity endures: Japanese domestic law does not classify those convicted in the post-1945 tribunals as criminals. Former Prime Minister Shinzō Abe articulated this distinction by arguing that Japan accepted the tribunal's authority as a condition for concluding the war, but that its verdicts carry no weight under national law. In his view, the individuals found guilty in Tokyo remain, in the eyes of Japanese statute, not criminals at all—a position that has fueled ongoing debate over whether genuine legal reckoning ever took place within Japan's own judicial system.

Apologies, Denial, and the Contested Legacy

Since the 1950s, senior Japanese government officials have issued numerous formal apologies acknowledging that the country caused "tremendous damage and suffering" before and during the war, with specific recognition of the massacre and sexual violence committed against civilians in Nanjing. Nevertheless, many observers in affected nations have regarded these statements as insufficiently sincere. The controversy deepens with actions such as former Prime Ministers Junichiro Koizumi and Shinzō Abe paying respects at the Yasukuni Shrine, a site that enshrines all Japanese war dead, including individuals convicted as Class A war criminals. In education, some Japanese history textbooks offer only passing references to the atrocities, and certain members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party have openly denied specific crimes, including the government's role in abducting women to serve as "comfort women"—a euphemism for sex slaves. The geographical and temporal scope of what constitutes "Japanese war crimes" also varies by society: Korean nations trace the period back to the 1910 annexation, while Western and Southeast Asian perspectives typically focus on the 1941-to-1945 campaigns.

Gallery