No, the Japanese didn't but "we" did and we continue to abide by the rules.
This is a weird coincidence, isn't it?
The point of the rules, is, when an enemy does not abide by them, you are freed from them also. In that way, the enemy is encouraged to follow the rules, because the evil ones gain no advantage by their violation.
I used to teach a class on the subject. If the enemy fired on you from a hospital, they do not gain protection by so doing, but rather, they remove protection from the hospital. By firing from a mosque/church, the same thing occurs. Because we are nice people, we teach our Soldiers Sailors, Marines and Airmen to respond when necessary, and to respond proportionately. That proportionate response goes beyond the rules, which puts us on the right side of where we have to be.
By continuing the fight during WWII, by destruction of resources, until there was no food left for the civilian population, the Germans did not place an obligation on the Allies to starve their soldiers. Rather, Eisenhower did the very hard, very right thing, and set priorities: First priority Allied Soldiers. Second priority civilians. Third priority German POWs.
A lot of German POWs died in Germany, of starvation. Half rations makes people thin. Quarter rations make people thin out fast.
The point is, people do don't play by the rules don't get to complain when the rules aren't followed. A lot of the German soldiers who didn't destroy food stocks died. A lot of German soldiers who did destroy food stocks did die.
Best to play by the rules. Best to do what it takes to encourage the enemy to play by the rules, and not be stupid enough to give him an advantage when he cheats.