Abstract

This dissertation compares the legal requirements placed on the prisoner and the interrogator by the law of war with their moral obligations as described by three different ethical systems, i.e, those of Immanuel Kant , John Stuart Mill , and Aristotle . The purpose of the comparison is to determine whether the law of war can also be an effective moral, as well as a legal, guide for action. ;The first part of the dissertation describes the phenomenon of prisoner of war interrogation. Chapter 1 presents a historical summary of the treatment of prisoners of war and a description of the development of prisoner of war interrogation as a part of military science and intelligence. Chapter 2 describes the nature of prisoner of war interrogation, including the prisoner or source, the interrogator, the purpose of the interrogation, the operational level at which the interrogation takes place, and the methods of interrogation. Chapter 3 identifies 19 key treaties and documents which outline the law of war as it applies to prisoner of war interrogation and examines the requirements which the law of war places on interrogation. ;The second part of the dissertation examines the legal and moral requirements placed on the prisoner and interrogator. Chapter 4 compares the legal requirement that the prisoner truthfully identify himself to his captors with the moral question whether the prisoner may lie in order to protect himself from harm. Chapter 5 develops a model for the parallel evaluation of the legal and moral situation facing the interrogator. The model includes the purpose of the interrogation, the methods of the interrogation, and the operational level at which the interrogation takes place. Chapter 6 offers an explanation for both the high level of correlation among the legal requirements and all three ethical systems and for the limited areas where there is disagreement among the various philosophers and the law of war