Conclusion
The Jus in Bello principles that are applied when engaging in conflict are guidelines, aimed at holding accountable those who do not enter into combat in a morally and ethically sound manner. Similarly, the Geneva Conventions were instigated to more specifically define the laws of Jus in Bello, and to modify them to suit modern warfare methods. Cultural differences prohibited America and Japan from treating each other in good faith, as violations of the Jus in Bello principles occurred during the conflict. The blatant disregard of the Jus in Bello principle of non-combatant immunity which was displayed by America with the decision to drop not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan, provided a poor example of maintaining distinctions between non-combatants and combatants in war. The Jus in Bello law of proportionality of force was not upheld by America or Japan, as America’s insistence on Japan’s ‘unconditional surrender’ caused Japan to become stubborn and ruthless, clearly displaying the national ideals that were encompassed in their code of Bushido. It can be said that neither America nor Japan abided by all the rules and regulations of Jus in Bello and the Geneva Conventions, drawing the conclusion that America and Japan did not wage a ‘Just War’.