Sabotage

SABOTAGE. - S. (from the French sahoter, to walk in clogs and hence to behave insolently, to stamp one's feet) initially meant misleading or unjustly making the actions of one's adversary impossible, doing harm to another and, secondarily, deriving advantage from it for oneself. Later it came to mean the means of social struggle by which one harms others (the employer) in order to gain a profit for oneself (the worker).

However, the first forms of s., in its latter meaning, are found in England (1839, 1842), where the prohibition of association gave rise to revolution in the workshops. In France it was the aversion to any indirect representation of workers' interests that gave rise to direct action against the economic apparatus of capitalism: action that developed through strikes, demonstrations, s. Strikes and s., beyond momentary success, aimed at keeping socialism (v.) rigorous and aggressive.

S., for which in time an entire meticulous system was elaborated, was carried out in various forms, from passive resistance to rendering products unusable, to sham work, to simulation, to the fouling of foodstuffs, to the damaging of plants, of work or transport equipment, of the roads themselves, to the intimidation and hindering of the work of non-strikers, etc. Besides in the workshops and in the field of labor, it can also be carried out in the military field, where it is an expression of treason or of political, pre-revolutionary inspirations; or in the colonial one, where it is used as a weapon against the occupying powers, in order to achieve independence.

I. IN ITALIAN CRIMINAL LAW

The Italian Penal Code of 1930 provides, under the name of sabotage, for two distinct types of offenses. It regulates sabotage first under the title of crimes against the personality of the State (art. 253), and then as a crime against the economic order. This division is an innovation of the Penal Code of 1930, which draws its grounds from the sad experiences of the First World War.

In the first case, the present law seeks to protect the international personality of the State, in peace and in war, so that its military preparation or efficiency may not be prejudiced by acts of destruction and sabotage directed against ships, aircraft, roads, etc. The penalty provided for the offense 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 against the Italian State; if the act has compromised the preparation or the military efficiency of the State, or military operations."

In both cases the penalty of life imprisonment is established. In any case, if the elements that qualify the act as negligent are present in the offense, the penalty of one to five years' imprisonment applies. If the active subject is a member of the military, such acts, insofar as they may represent a violation of the specific duties inherent in the offender's status, take on the character of military offenses. In that case the Peacetime Military Penal Code (1940) provides for them; its art. 167 lays down provisions analogous to art. 253 of the Penal Code and also provides, in its last paragraph, for the hypothesis of the negligent offense.

Acts of sabotage considered under the particular aspect of the protection of the economic order constitute a separate offense. Art. 508 of the Penal Code punishes "whoever, with the sole purpose of preventing or disrupting the normal course of work, invades or occupies another's agricultural or industrial enterprise, or disposes of another's machines, supplies, apparatus or instruments intended for agricultural or industrial production." And in the second paragraph of the same article a more severe penalty is imposed against "whoever damages the buildings used as an agricultural or industrial enterprise, or any other of the things indicated in the preceding provision."

The interest that motivates such rules is the protection of the national economy and of the order of labor. The interest of the private individual is protected only indirectly; it is directly guaranteed by the provisions of art. 633 concerning crimes against property. For the punishability of the offenses provided for in art. 508 of the Penal Code, intent is necessary, that is, the intention to bring about the acts provided for in the article itself. Negligence is not sufficient. By an analogous provision, the Peacetime Military Penal Code regulates acts of obstruction or sabotage in works perpetrated by mobilized civilians. In fact, under art. 250, "whoever... obstructs the course of the works, or carries out defective workmanship, or deteriorates the work material entrusted to him" is punished.

II. SABOTAGE AND TYRANNY

In states where the 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 of the incompetent.

III. MORAL EVALUATION

The forms of sabotage that stop at passive resistance or at a simulation of work can be justified only when they represent the sole way of defending oneself against an abuse or of obtaining redress, the path to legal means being closed. For legitimization it is then necessary to consider the proportion between the harm suffered by the saboteurs and the harm threatened against the one against whom the sabotage is directed. It is also necessary to consider the collective harm that can arise from a violent suspension of economic activities. Good social legislation (v.) ought to prevent these situations, which compel people to take justice into their own hands in a very dangerous manner and one difficult to keep within moral limits.

In the general field of national life, a manner of sabotage that takes concrete form in passive resistance in order to halt an unjust war, or to free oneself from a tyrannical government, can be legitimate. But even here it is difficult to keep it within limits, and it would be desirable that an effective international organization eliminate such situations without compelling recourse to this last resort.

Sabotage that takes concrete form in positive damage to installations, goods, etc., is hardly justifiable. Much less so if it takes concrete form in harm to persons. Sabotage as a weapon of a political party to impose itself on the other parties and on the legitimate government is likewise to be condemned without reservation.

Francesco Ercolani