ABSTRACT
At British military trials for Japanese war crimes, the accused interpreters were mostly charged with being (together) concerned in the ill-treatment of local civilians and prisoners of war. While pointing out the inconsistencies and falsehoods in the prosecution’s evidence, the defence mainly focused on two arguments. One was that the defendants were only interpreting and had no power to engage in other actions on their own. Thus, they should not be held responsible for the offences committed by other members of the units. The other was that, under the strict military rule of absolute obedience, the accused interpreters had no choice but to follow the orders of superiors when taking part in alleged war crimes. The prosecution rejected the defence’s propositions by arguing the interpreters’ joint responsibility in the crimes committed by the units as a whole and by citing the applicable law which denied the superior orders defence unless the order was lawful. Further, the defence of the Taiwanese interpreters highlighted the complex and difficult circumstances they faced as imperial subjects forced to serve the Japanese military and assigned to deal with anti-Japanese elements in the Chinese communities who shared their linguistic and cultural heritage.
