SABOTAGE. – Sabotage (from the French *saboter*, to walk in wooden shoes and hence to behave insolently, to scathe) initially meant to mislead or render an adversary’s actions impossible in an unjust manner, to cause harm to another and, secondarily, to derive personal advantage from II. Later it came to denote a means of social struggle, by which one harms another (an employer) in order to secure personal gain (a worker).
Yet the earliest forms of sabotage, in its ultimate sense, are found in England (1839, 1842), where the prohibition of associations gave rise to a revolution in workshops. In France, opposition to any indirect representation of workers’ interests led to direct action against the capitalist economic apparatus: a position that developed through strikes, demonstrations, and sabotage. Strikes and sabotage, besides their immediate success, aimed to maintain socialism (q.v.) in a rigorous and aggressive form.
Sabotage, for which a whole minute system was gradually elaborated, took various forms: from passive resistance to rendering products unusable, feigned work, simulation, adulteration of foodstuffs, damage to installations, tools or means of transport, even to roads, to intimidation and prevention of work by non-strikers, etc. Besides occurring in factories and the field of labour, it can also be practised in the military sphere, where it is an expression of treason or of pre-revolutionary political aspirations; or in the colonial sphere, where it is used as a weapon against occupying powers to achieve independence.
I. IN ITALIAN CRIMINAL LAW
The Italian Penal Code of 1930 provides for two distinct types of crimes under the name of sabotage. It first regulates sabotage in the title of crimes against the personality of the State (art. 253), then as a crime against economic order. This division is an innovation of the 1930 Penal Code, which draws its motives from the sad experiences of the First World War.In the first case, the current law aims to protect the international personality of the State, in peace and war, so that its military preparation or efficiency is not prejudiced by acts of destruction and sabotage directed against ships, aircraft, roads, etc. The penalty provided for the offence under 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 interest of a State at war with the Italian State; if the act has compromised the State’s war preparation or efficiency, or military operations.
In both cases, the penalty of life imprisonment is prescribed. In any case, if the offence contains elements that qualify it as culpable, a penalty of from one to five years’ imprisonment is applied. If the active subject is a serviceman, such acts, insofar as they may constitute a violation of the specific duties inherent in the culprit’s status, assume the character of military offences. The Military Penal Code of Peace (1940) provides for this case, which at art. 167 makes provision analogous to art. 253 of the Penal Code and in its final paragraph also envisages the case of culpable offence.
Acts of sabotage considered under the particular aspect of the protection of economic order constitute a separate offence. Art. 508 of the Penal Code punishes “whoever, with the sole purpose of preventing or disrupting the normal conduct of work, invades or occupies another’s agricultural or industrial undertaking, or disposes of another’s machines, stocks, apparatus or tools intended for agricultural or industrial production.” And in the paragraph of the same article a more severe penalty is imposed on “whoever damages buildings used for agricultural or industrial undertakings, or any other of the things indicated in the preceding provision.”
The interest underlying such provisions is the protection of the national economy and of the order of labour. The private interest is protected only indirectly; directly it is safeguarded by the provisions of art. 633 concerning crimes against property. For the punishability of the offences envisaged in art. 508 of the Penal Code, intent is required, i.e. the intention to bring about the acts foreseen in the article itself. Culpability is not sufficient. By an analogous provision, the Military Penal Code of Peace regulates acts of obstruction or sabotage of work carried out by mobilized civilians. Indeed, under art. 250 it is punished “whoever... obstructs the course of the work or performs faulty or defective work or damages the material of work entrusted to him.”
II. SABOTAGE AND TYRANNY
In States where a single party triumphs, sabotage is punished under the heading of obstruction of agricultural and industrial production, and often becomes a pretext for the elimination of political enemies or incompetents.III. MORAL EVALUATION
Forms of sabotage that amount to no more than passive resistance or feigned work can be justified only when they represent the sole means of defending oneself against an abuse or of obtaining redress, where legal means are precluded. For legitimacy it is further necessary to consider the proportion between the harm suffered by the saboteurs and the harm threatened against the party against whom the sabotage is directed; it is also necessary to consider the collective harm that may arise from a violent suspension of economic activity. Good social legislation (q.v.) should prevent such situations, which force people to take the law into their own hands in a manner that is highly dangerous and difficult to keep within moral limits.In the general sphere of national life, a form of sabotage that consists in passive resistance may be legitimate as a means of halting an unjust war or freeing oneself from a tyrannical government. Yet even here it is difficult to keep within limits, and it would be desirable that an effective international organization should eliminate such situations without forcing recourse to this last resort.
Sabotage that consists in positive damage to installations, goods, etc., is hardly justifiable. Much less so if it involves harm to persons. Sabotage as a weapon of a political party to impose itself on other parties and on the legitimate government must likewise be unreservedly condemned.