SABOTAGGIO. – S. (from the French sahoter, to walk in wooden clogs and hence to behave insolently, to stamp one’s feet) initially meant misleading or making the actions of an adversary impossible by unjust means, harming another and, secondarily, deriving an advantage for oneself. Later it came to mean a means of social struggle by which one harms another (the employer) in order to obtain a personal benefit (the worker).
However, the earliest forms of s. in its ultimate meaning are found in England (1839, 1842), where the prohibition of association gave rise to the revolution in the workshops. In France, it was aversion to every form of indirect representation of workers’ interests that gave rise to direct action against the economic apparatus of capitalism: an action that developed through strikes, demonstrations, and s. Strikes and s., beyond their momentary success, socialism (v.) rigorous and aggressive.
S., for which an entire meticulous system was gradually elaborated, was carried out in various forms: from passive resistance to rendering products unusable, fictitious work, simulation, the contamination of foodstuffs, damage to installations, work or transport equipment, and the roads themselves, to the intimidation of and obstruction to the work of non-strikers, etc. Besides in workshops and in the sphere of labor, it could also be carried out in the military sphere, where it was an expression of treason or of pre-revolutionary political inspiration; or in the colonial sphere, where it was used as a weapon against occupying powers in order to achieve independence.
I. IN ITALIAN CRIMINAL LAW
The Italian Penal Code of 1930 provides, under the name of s., for two distinct types of offences. It deals with s. first in the title concerning offences against the personality of the State (Art. 253), and then as an offence against the economic order. This division is an innovation of the Penal Code of 1930, deriving from the bitter experiences of the First World War.In the first case, the current law seeks to protect the international personality of the State, in peace and in war, so that its military preparedness or efficiency may not be impaired by acts of destruction and s. directed against ships, aircraft, roads, etc. The penalty prescribed for the offence referred to in Art. 253 is imprisonment for not less than eight years. The same article then provides for two aggravating circumstances: « if the act is committed in the interests of a State at war with the Italian State; if the act has compromised the military preparedness or efficiency of the State, or military operations ».
In both cases, the penalty of life imprisonment is prescribed. In every case, if the offence contains the elements qualifying the act as negligent, the penalty is imprisonment for one to five years. If the active subject is a member of the armed forces, such acts, insofar as they may constitute a violation of the specific duties inherent in the offender’s status, assume the character of military offences. In that event, the Military Penal Code in Time of Peace (1940) applies; its Art. 167 provides, analogously to Art. 253 of the Penal Code, and also provides in its final paragraph for the case of a negligent offence.
Acts of s. considered from the particular standpoint of protecting the economic order constitute an autonomous offence. Art. 308 of the Penal Code punishes « anyone who, with the sole purpose of preventing and disrupting the normal course of work, invades or occupies another’s agricultural or industrial enterprise, or makes use of another’s machinery, stocks, equipment or instruments intended for agricultural or industrial production ». The second paragraph of the same article establishes a more severe penalty for « anyone who damages buildings used as an agricultural or industrial enterprise, or any other of the things indicated in the preceding provision ».
The interest underlying these provisions is the protection of the national economy and of the order of work. The private interest is protected only indirectly; it is directly safeguarded by the provisions of Art. 633 concerning offences against property. For the offences provided for in Art. 508 of the Penal Code to be punishable, intent, that is, the intention to bring about the acts specified in that article, is necessary. Negligence is not sufficient. In an analogous provision, the Military Penal Code in Time of Peace regulates acts of obstruction or s. in work carried out by mobilized civilians. Indeed, under Art. 250, « anyone... who obstructs the progress of the work, or performs defective work, or damages the work material entrusted to him » is punished.
II. S. AND TYRANNY. — In states where the single party triumphs, s. is punished under the designation of obstruction of agricultural and industrial production, and often becomes a pretext for the elimination of political enemies or incompetents.
III. MORAL EVALUATION
The forms of sabotage that remain at the level of passive resistance or a simulation of work can be justified only when they represent the sole means of defending oneself against an abuse or obtaining redress, since recourse to legal means is precluded. For its legitimization, it is also necessary to consider the proportion between the harm suffered by the saboteurs and the harm threatened against the person at whom the sabotage is directed; it is likewise necessary to consider the collective harm that may result from a violent suspension of economic activities. social legislation (v.) should prevent these situations, which compel people to take justice into their own hands in a manner that is highly dangerous and difficult to contain within moral limits.In the general sphere of national life, a form of sabotage consisting in passive resistance may be legitimate in order to halt an unjust war or to free oneself from a tyrannical government. Here too, however, it is difficult to contain it within proper limits, and it would be desirable for an effective international organization to eliminate such situations without forcing recourse to this ultima ratio.
Sabotage consisting in the deliberate damaging of installations, goods, etc., is difficult to justify. Still less so when it results in harm to persons. Sabotage as a weapon employed by a political party to impose itself upon the other parties and the legitimate government must likewise be condemned without reservation.