Rarely did a schoolchild in my childhood ask his parents or teachers such a question. Because we all knew very well: intelligence officers are ours, Soviet, spies are always American (for some reason I couldn’t even imagine spies from other countries). True, there were also German spies, but that was earlier, during the war years...
During my childhood, American spies really existed and tried to find out all our strategic secrets... And Soviet intelligence officers responded with their strategic secrets. The only difference was that their spies were spying, and our intelligence officers were reconnaissance.
Our scouts have always been knights without fear or reproach, and their spies could resort to any meanness and any crime to achieve their unseemly goals. And all the films that I watched then, all the books that I read, only confirmed this firm conviction of mine.
Why am I telling all this?
Yes, I just recently re-read Boris Vasiliev’s story “The Dawns Here Are Quiet.” A talented work by a very talented writer... But in one episode I seemed to stumble. I didn’t stumble before, but now...
Remember when Sergeant Major Vaskov and the girls find two dead Germans. They were finished off by their own people, because these two were taken out of the battlefield, seriously wounded...
- They are not people! - Outraged to the very depths of his soul by such cruelty of the enemy, Vaskov declares. - Animals! With two arms, with two legs, and animals! So, their law is this: finish off the wounded!
And I completely agreed with him before. You can’t do this: your wounded - and...
But now I’m thinking about it. And I imagined the opposite situation: when a group of our saboteurs is thrown into the German rear, and there, having encountered the Germans, they suffer losses in killed and wounded. Everything is clear with the dead, they need to be buried... But what about the wounded? Especially the seriously wounded?..
There are three options here. The first, a losing one in advance: turn back without completing the task, but at the same time saving the lives of wounded comrades. And bring yourself to court...
Second: leave the wounded to their fate and move on. It is dangerous because there has been a battle, many enemy soldiers are roaming the area, and therefore there is a high probability that those remaining may be captured. And then interrogations, torture... and the purpose of the task may become known to the enemy, which means that its completion will also be in jeopardy. True, our saboteurs may accidentally meet partisans and leave the wounded with them, but this happened more often in films and books than in real life...
There remains a third option - the most cruel, but the only possible one. The one that was used (who knows, maybe with pain in the heart) by German saboteurs. By the way, the second option was not suitable for them at all, since there could not be any such German partisans in our rear.
True, in books and films of the Soviet era, our wounded, finding themselves in the same hopeless situation, said goodbye to life themselves. Like, for example, the same Rita Osyanina. Didn’t the chairman guess, leaving her the revolver, that she would do just that? Didn’t even such a thought flash through his head, especially after Rita’s insistent request to take care of her little son?
Such is the literary (and cinematic) cliché of Soviet times: our seriously wounded, in order not to disturb their comrades, shoot themselves, while the enemies finish off their own. But aren’t there many other clichés about our “right” people and their “wrong” ones, even in the generally good works of that time...
Let's take, for example, Alexei Dudarev's play “Choice” - about how a tank crew died while saving the lives of children. A wonderful work that shocked me to the very depths of my soul... Just one episode...
The end of the war, the fighting is already on German territory... And so the Germans, in order to hinder our advance, put up a human shield of German children in front of their trenches and bunkers. And our soldiers go on the attack without shooting and suffer unreasonably large losses...
As Stanislavsky said: “I don’t believe it!” I don’t believe that our soldiers, having seen all the atrocities of the invaders on their land, in the very last days of the war, so en masse and voluntarily went to their deaths just to save the German “Kinders”. I don’t believe that German soldiers, even in a completely hopeless situation, could do this to their children! If it were with prisoners of war, I would believe it. With children from a concentration camp - also likely. But with our own, German...
It’s like with the same scouts and spies from my distant childhood. Some nobly scouted out enemy secrets, while others, bastards, simply spied...
Gennady Ovlasenko.
Volunteer - this person who voluntarily enters the active army of one of the warring parties, he loses the status of a person of a neutral state; the actions of a volunteer are lawful if he joins an army waging a war in defense of his country from foreign enslavement.
Mercenary - is a person who 1) is specifically recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; 2) actually takes direct part in hostilities; 3) guided primarily by the desire to obtain personal gain, and who was actually promised by a party or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material remuneration that significantly exceeds the remuneration promised or paid to combatants of the same rank and with the same functions from among the personnel of the armed forces of that sides; 4) is neither a citizen of a party to the conflict nor a person permanently residing in the territory controlled by a party to the conflict; 5) is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; 6) was not sent by a state that is not a party to the conflict to perform official duties as a member of its armed forces; 7) recruited to participate in pre-planned acts of violence aimed at overthrowing the government of a state, undermining its constitutional order or violating its territorial integrity and inviolability. A mercenary does not have the right to the status of a combatant and a prisoner of war; he is subject to criminal liability according to the laws of the state that captured him.
Military advisors and instructors – these are civilians or military personnel who are under the political leadership or military command of a belligerent state for the purpose of providing political advice to the leadership or training personnel of the armed forces of a foreign state in handling supplied equipment and weapons. Their legal status is not determined by the MP; it is determined in bilateral international treaties. Military advisers and instructors are not part of the armed forces of the warring states and, in their legal status, are close to non-combatants.
Combatant non-combatants. In Afghanistan, on the one hand, the forces of the state, combatants, are fighting, on the other - the forces of the unrecognized government of Afghanistan, the fighting non-combatants, the Taliban. According to Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Victims of War of 1949, Article 43: “In the event of a conflict, the armed forces of the unrecognized government are considered as combatants”, Article 44: “if they are captured, they fall under the regime of combatants”
International regime for prisoners of war, wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the Armed Forces at sea during an interstate conflict. The regime of this category of persons is regulated mainly by Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1949. And Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Persons at Sea, 1949
The wounded and sick are considered to be civilians and military personnel located in an area of armed conflict who, due to injury, illness, other physical disorder or disability, require medical attention or care and who refrain from any hostile action. This category also includes women in labor, newborns, infirm, and pregnant women. Civilians and military personnel who are exposed to danger at sea or in other waters as a result of an accident to the ship or aircraft carrying them and who refrain from any hostile action are considered shipwrecked.
Regardless of which belligerent side they belong to, these individuals enjoy patronage and protection and have the right to humane treatment; they are provided with medical assistance to the maximum extent possible and in the shortest possible time. Once in the power of the enemy, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked are considered prisoners of war, and the rules of the MP regarding prisoners of war apply to them.
At all times, and especially after a battle, the parties must accept all possible measures to search for and pick up the wounded and sick and protect them from robbery and ill-treatment. Robbery of the dead (looting) is not allowed. When circumstances permit, truces or ceasefires should be negotiated to collect and exchange wounded men remaining on the battlefield.
The parties to the conflict must register all data that helps to establish the identity of the wounded, sick, shipwrecked and dead of the enemy side who are in their power. These details shall be brought to the attention of the National Prisoner of War Information Bureau for transmission to the Power to which the persons are attached, through a Central Prisoner of War Agency to be established in a neutral country.
It is prohibited to kill or exterminate the wounded, sick or shipwrecked, to deliberately leave them without medical assistance or care, to deliberately create conditions for their infection, to subject these persons, even with their consent, to physical mutilation, medical or scientific experiments, or the removal of tissue or organs for transplantation. , except when this is justified by the state of health of the person and complies with generally accepted medical standards. These persons have the right to refuse any surgical operation. The party forced to leave the wounded or sick to the enemy is obliged to leave with them, as far as military conditions allow, part of its medical personnel and equipment to assist in their care.
During the Austro-Italian-French War (1859), Swiss citizen Henri Dunant organized assistance for the wounded after the Battle of Solferino. His book "Memories of Solferino" awakened public consciousness. In 1863, the International Committee for Relief of the Wounded was created, today it is International Committee of the Red Cross . ICRC– non-governmental (private) neutral Swiss organization, founder of the Red Cross movement; one of the tasks of his activities– full promotion of compliance with the Geneva Conventions. During armed conflicts, it provides protection and assistance to victims, both military and civilian. The ICRC's mandate to operate during armed conflicts is based on the 4 Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Additional Protocols I and II, as well as on the Statute
The ICRC plays a major role in the codification of international humanitarian law, with its active participation the 4 Geneva Conventions of 1949 (“Treatment of Prisoners of War”, “Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”) on the Protection of Victims of War and Additional Protocols I and II were developed 1977 to them. There is a representative office of the ICRC in Russia - the Moscow delegation of the ICRC.
78. Legal regime of military occupation.
Military occupation is the temporary occupation during a war by the armed forces of one state of the territory of another state and the assumption of control of these territories.
According to international law, the occupied territory legally continues to remain the territory of the state to which it belonged before the occupation. During the period of temporary, actual transfer of power from the hands of the legitimate government to the military authorities that have occupied the territory, these authorities are obliged to ensure public order and the life of the population, respecting the laws existing in this country. The 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War establishes that persons in occupied territory have the right to respect for their person, honor, family rights, and religious beliefs.
The occupying state is not allowed to abolish the laws in force in the occupied territory. It has the right only to suspend the operation of those local laws that do not meet the interests of the security of its army or the occupying power, and can also issue temporary administrative acts if this is necessary to maintain public order. Criminal laws issued by the occupying power shall enter into force only after they have been published and communicated to the population in their language.
It is prohibited to destroy and destroy not only private, but also public and state property; The destruction of movable or immovable property representing the individual or collective property of private individuals or the state, communities or public or cooperative organizations, which is not absolutely necessary for military operations, is recognized as unlawful.
The regime of post-war occupation should be distinguished from the regime of military occupation as a measure of state responsibility for aggression(for example, the occupation regime in Germany and Japan, starting from the moment of their unconditional surrender in 1945 until the abolition of such a regime, which was based on special international legal acts).
79. Legal regime of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces.
See question 78.
80. Means and methods of warfare.
Means of warfare- weapons, shells, substances used by the armed forces of the warring parties to harm and defeat the enemy. Methods of warfare- this is the order of using the means of warfare.
Means and methods of warfare are divided into prohibited (or partially prohibited) and not prohibited by international law. According to Art. 35 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the right of the parties to the conflict to choose means and methods of warfare is not unlimited. It is prohibited to use weapons, projectiles, substances and methods of warfare that are capable of causing unnecessary damage or suffering or making the death of combatants inevitable, as well as leading to mass destruction and wanton destruction of material assets (Article 22 of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and customs of land war).
International law prohibits the following means and methods of warfare (land, sea, air):
· poisons or poisonous weapons, asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, similar liquids, substances and processes, as well as bacteriological weapons;
means of influencing the natural environment for hostile purposes;
· any weapon if its effect is to cause damage by fragments that are not detectable in the human body by X-rays (glass, plastic, etc.); mines, booby traps and other devices in the form of children's toys and objects medical care; any incendiary weapons against civilians, populated areas and non-military objects;
· other types of conventional weapons that may be considered to cause excessive injury or have an indiscriminate effect;
· carrying out genocide in occupied territory; treacherous killing or wounding of an enemy who has laid down his arms or is unarmed; an announcement to the defenders that if they resist, there will be no mercy;
· senseless destruction of cities and towns and destruction of enemy property, unless this is caused by military necessity;
However, international law does not prohibit stratagems intended to mislead the enemy or induce him to act rashly. Examples of such tricks are: the use of camouflage, decoys, false operations and disinformation (Article 37 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949).
In connection with the development of scientific and technological progress and the increase in its level in the military-industrial complex, means and methods of air warfare occupy a special place in the international law of armed conflicts. The provisions of Additional Protocol I are aimed at protecting civilians from air attacks. Air attacks can only be directed against military targets. An attack or threat of attack the primary purpose of which is to terrorize the civilian population is prohibited.
81. The end of the war and its legal consequences.
The most common forms of cessation of hostilities are truce and surrender. Truce- temporary cessation of hostilities, carried out on the basis of mutual agreement between the parties to the armed conflict. There are two types of truce: local and general. A local truce aims to suspend hostilities between individual units and subunits in a limited area of military operations. As a rule, it is aimed at solving specific problems (selecting the wounded, burying the dead, evacuating civilians from a besieged area, sending envoys, etc.).
A general truce differs significantly from a local one. Firstly, in the event of a general truce, military operations are suspended throughout the entire theater of military operations. Secondly, a general truce under certain circumstances (for example, if the parties to the conflict have not formally declared the existence of a state of war between them) can not only suspend hostilities, but also lead to their cessation.
A specific form of suspension of hostilities is the implementation by the states participating in the conflict of a decision of the UN Security Council (based on Article 40 of the UN Charter “On temporary measures”, which may include, in particular, a ceasefire, the withdrawal of troops to previously occupied positions, the liberation of a certain territory and etc.).
Surrender- this is the cessation of resistance by the armed forces or part of them. As a rule, upon surrender, all weapons, military equipment, warships and aircraft go to the enemy. The surrendering party is subject to military captivity. Capitulation differs from a truce in that the capitulating party is deprived of even formal equality with the winner. According to the usual rule of international law, violation of the terms of surrender constitutes an international offense if committed at the direction of the belligerent government, or a war crime if committed without such direction. Such a violation may entail either adequate military action or punishment of the perpetrators as war criminals.
The main international legal means of ending the state of war between the warring parties is the conclusion of a peace treaty. Such agreements cover a wide range of issues relating to the settlement of political, economic, territorial and other problems in connection with the cessation of war and the restoration of peace between the warring parties.
The legal consequences of the end of the war occur both for the belligerents and for neutral and other non-belligerent states. For warring states, the laws and customs of war cease to apply and normal peaceful relations, including diplomatic ones, are established. For neutral states, the state of neutrality in war ends, and for all non-belligerent states, the need to comply with the regime of war zones is generally eliminated, interned citizens are returned, etc.
82. Law environment. General characteristics.
MEP is a set of principles and norms governing relations between the subjects of small business regarding environmental protection and rational use of natural resources for the benefit of current and future generations of people.
The formation of the MEP industry can be fully associated with the first UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972. At this conference it was created United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which is designed to coordinate international activities in the field of environmental protection, monitor the state of the environment, develop and codify MEAs, and facilitate the development of programs rational use natural resources, with special regard to the interests of developing countries, to provide them with technical assistance in this area.
In 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development took place in Rio de Janeiro. It adopted the Rio Declaration, which develops the principles of the Stockholm Declaration, as well as Principles on forest protection And Agenda 21, which proposes a program of action for all governments in different areas of environmental protection for the period 1993-2000. and further into the 21st century.
Main source law in the field of MEAs is international treaty. This is primarily because environmental provisions may include, rely on or refer to certain technical and physical parameters and characteristics. Such provisions require a clear and concise statement, which is only possible if an international treaty is concluded. At the same time international legal custom played and continues to play a certain role in the development of MPOS and the formation of its principles - the fundamental norms of this industry of MP. Soft norms. Internal law.
The fundamental principle of IEG is the principle that States shall not, through activities within their jurisdiction or control, cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond national jurisdiction. This principle was formulated at the Stockholm Conference (Principle 21), however, it has its roots in a principle of Roman law. This principle is a customary legal principle.
Another fundamental principle of IEG is the principle of state sovereignty over its national natural resources. It, in essence, is an expression of the principle of state sovereignty, which is part of the general MP. Developing states seeking independence from rich states in developing their own resources insisted on special emphasis on this principle in the field of the environment.
The MEP develops the principle that states have an obligation to notify other states of emergencies or natural disasters that may have harmful effects on the environment. This principle is included in such treaties as the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution of 1979, the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident of 1986, etc.
Stands out the principle that states must consult with other interested states regarding activities they are planning that may have potentially adverse transboundary consequences. This principle, for example, is contained in the 1994 Nuclear Safety Convention.
Currently taking shape precautionary principle, Whereby States should exercise caution in undertaking any activity or project that could potentially cause harm to the environment, despite the lack of full scientific evidence that such damage will actually occur. This principle is contained in the Preamble of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and in the 1991 Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import of Hazardous Wastes into Africa and on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes within Africa.
Brussels 1913 – 1st conference. 60-70s – NTR:
Stage 1– before the UN Stockholm Conference - June 1972 Stage 2– from 1972 to the conference in Rio de Janeiro – June 1992 Stage 3– after 1992 until September 2002 (Johansburg).
3 groups of conventions:
1) conventions of a general nature - regulate relations in various fields (Convention on the Law of the Sea).
2) framework conventions – general principles environmental protection (Stockholm, Rio de Janeiro).
3) specific norms of behavior for states (Kyoto Protocol - entered into force in 2005).
Regional conventions – protection of the Baltic Sea.
83. Protection of the planetary environment and outer space.
Space – a vast territory extending from the outer boundary of the airspace (~ 100-110 km from the Earth’s surface) to the limits of the lunar orbit – the so-called. near space, and beyond, i.e. further 384 thousand km – deep space.
Space law - the branch of international business, a set of legal principles and norms that determine the legal regime of outer space, and determines the procedure for the activities of states in this area.
1958 – 13th session of the UN General Assembly, a decision was made to develop norms of space law.
1963 – Declaration of Principles on the Activities of States in Outer Space (advisory).
The main sources of international space law are international treaties. Among them -
1. The Treaty on Principles for the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967 (Outer Outer Treaty), is open for signature in Washington and Moscow.
2. Agreement on the rescue of astronauts, the return of astronauts and the return of objects launched into outer space, 1968
3.Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972 (Liability Convention),
4.Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1975,
5. Agreement concerning the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1979 (Moon Agreement),
6.regional and bilateral agreements between states, between states and international organizations.
Important role also play a role in regulating the legal regime of outer space Treaty Banning Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Under Water of 1963, Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems of 1972, etc.
main sources : conventional, customary, soft law (Unispace), national norms.
Basic principles. The legal regime applies to: space itself and celestial bodies, plus space objects made by man, plus the activities of states in space. There is a UN Space Committee. UNISPACE - three conferences, the last one in 1999. Applicability in this area of all the basic principles of MP.
According to the 1967 Treaty, “outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies , are not subject to national assignment neither by declaring sovereignty over them, nor by use or occupation, nor by any other means.”
Outer space and celestial bodies are open for exploration and use by all states without any discrimination on the basis of equality with free access to all areas of celestial bodies.
Space stations can be operated jointly, but they belong to the countries where they are registered.
Standards have been developed for the rescue of people in space.
Activities in space must comply with the MP, including the UN Charter. States are obliged to take into account the interests of other states and avoid harmful pollution of outer space and celestial bodies.
It is prohibited to launch nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction into space and place them there., carry out their tests (although there is the possibility of missiles flying through space, and the deployment of conventional weapons). The moon and celestial bodies should be used for peaceful purposes.
The Moon and other celestial bodies are declared the common heritage of humanity.The prohibition of national appropriation of celestial bodies applies to their surface, subsoil and natural resources and applies to States, SIDS, legal entities and individuals. The rules established in relation to the Moon (demilitarized regime) also apply to the orbits of flight trajectories to and around the Moon. The 1979 Moon Agreement regulates in detail the procedure for carrying out scientific research on the Moon, but the leading space countries do not participate in it.
One of the problems of international space law is the problem of high-altitude delimitation of air and outer space. There is no definite boundary between them. Neither the MP nor the national legislation of states contain rules establishing the border between these spaces. This issue has remained on the agenda of the UN Outer Space Committee for a long time.
The practice of states confirms the opinion existing in the doctrine that a customary rule is emerging, according to which the sovereignty of a state does not extend to the space located above the orbit of the smallest perigee of an artificial Earth satellite (this altitude is approximately 110-140 km above sea level). A number of states (including Russia) propose to adopt a treaty norm defining that outer space begins from a height 100-110 km above ocean level. At the same time, space objects, when launching them into orbit and returning to Earth, retain the right of “harmless (peaceful) flight” over the territories of foreign states and at lower altitudes. Such a norm would make it possible to determine the spatial sphere to which the legal regime of outer space applies.
The activities of non-governmental legal entities in space can only be carried out with the permission and under the supervision of the relevant state. SIDS are allowed to operate in space.
If someone else's satellite falls into the territory of another state, you must pay for the damage caused.
There is a problem of space contamination with spent spacecraft.
Latin countries are unhappy with the broadcasting of American satellites into their territory.
Of particular importance is the orbital region of the so-called geostationary satellites. This is a part of outer space located at a distance of approximately 35,800 km and located in the plane of the earth's equator (such a spatial ring is also called a geostationary orbit or geostationary space).
Geostationary satellites have a number of features. Their orbital period around the Earth is equal to an Earth day, which ensures a constant position of the satellite above a certain point on the Earth’s equator. At the same time, a third of the Earth's surface area is visible to the satellite. This creates optimal conditions for some applied types of space activities (for example, for the use of communication satellites, television broadcasting, meteorological observation, etc.). As a result, more than half of all existing satellites are located in geostationary orbit. However, only a limited number of satellites can be placed in this space, since when they are close to each other, on-board radio equipment can create mutual interference. All this was the reason for the discussion regarding the legal regime of this part of space. space. This issue is currently being discussed in the UN Committee on Outer Space. In 1976, seven equatorial countries (Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Congo, Uganda, Zaire, Kenya) made claims to the geostationary orbit; in 1978, this was reviewed by the UN and rejected.
At the same time, certain coordinating work on the economical use of geostationary space is carried out by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The 1992 ITU Constitution defines radio frequencies and the geostationary satellite orbit as finite natural resources that must be used rationally, efficiently and economically to ensure equitable access to the orbit and frequencies different countries, taking into account the features geographical location some States and the special needs of developing countries. In order to rationally use the geostationary orbit resource and avoid mutual radio interference, the ITU coordinates, allocates and registers radio frequencies and orbital positions for geostationary satellites declared by various states. At the same time, in relation to the allocation of orbital positions, one cannot speak of their national assignment.
In 1992, the UN General Assembly adopted the Principles Relating to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources (NPS) in Outer Space. The use of nuclear propulsion in space should be limited only to those space flights that cannot be carried out without nuclear propulsion. In order to prevent spacecraft with nuclear propulsion from falling to Earth, it has been established that such satellites can be used during interplanetary flights in sufficiently high orbits, and in low Earth orbits - provided that spent objects are stored in sufficiently high orbits.
Planetary environment
Since our website www.site is dedicated not only to information security, which is in one way or another connected with intelligence and espionage, but also to intelligence itself. I would like to help the visitor understand the terminology associated with this topic. And so in this article I will try to answer the questions:
- What types of scouts are there?
- Who is a spy?
- Who is an intelligence agent?
- Who is an intelligence resident?
An intelligence officer or spy is usually called a person for whom intelligence is his main profession. An intelligence officer has a special intelligence education and is a full-time employee of one or more intelligence agencies.
The famous Soviet intelligence officer Richard Sorge (Ramsay) While carrying out his assignments, a professional intelligence officer may be in a foreign country under the guise of a journalist, diplomat, entrepreneur, etc.
What types of scouts are there?
Scouts are:
- Legal
- Illegal
"Legal" intelligence officer acts in other countries as a citizen of his country, working in one of its representative offices (for example, an embassy).
"Illegal" intelligence officer works under the guise of a citizen of the country in which he is located, or a foreigner from another, third country.
Who is an intelligence agent?
An intelligence agent is an intelligence assistant who is not a professional intelligence officer, but who carries out assignments for intelligence agencies.
In some cases, the importance of an agent in obtaining the necessary information is even higher than the role of a professional intelligence officer, since such people may have access to secret data that is not available to the intelligence officer.
Who is a spy?
Now let's figure out who a spy is? and who do we call spies?
One of the first books on intelligence gives the following formulation: “All our employees are intelligence officers, and all enemy employees are spies.”
The word “Spy” has always been considered a despicable word all over the world. It is believed that these are people who sold the interests and secrets of their country for money.
Red Chapel
But there is a deep difference between hero scouts and corrupt spies, although both seem to pursue a common goal: to learn the secrets of the enemy. But we can hardly call the members of the Red Chapel who helped intelligence spies who were caught and executed during World War II in Germany. They were brave and fierce anti-fascists, ready to give their lives just like those soldiers who fought the enemy at the front.
These people did not receive any monetary rewards for their work; their goal was one - to protect the people of Germany from fascism. There have been many similar cases in the history of intelligence.
Who is a resident?
Another term you may come across in the intelligence world: resident. This is an intelligence department employee in charge of a station, that is, a group of agents and intelligence officers subordinate to him.
And of course, you need to know who the counterintelligence agents are. There is counterintelligence in every country. This is an organization designed to fight and protect from enemy intelligence, to prevent it from collecting classified data. Counterintelligence officers carry out difficult operations to expose and apprehend enemy spies.
Many people remember that during the Soviet era, the word “spy” was equated with a curse. This was the name given to enemies of the people, traitors, deceivers and traitors. Every pioneer dreamed of identifying a spy and turning him over to the authorities. Whereas the term “scout” evoked only positive associations among our compatriots and was even surrounded by a certain romantic aura. Take, for example, the screen Stirlitz from “Seventeen Moments of Spring.” So why were essentially identical concepts given such different meanings? Let's try to figure out the difference between a scout and a spy.
Definitions
Scout- a person whose functions include collecting, studying and summarizing information about a potential or actual enemy. Depending on the tasks performed and methods of work, it can be military or intelligence. In the first case, this is a uniformed soldier who penetrates the enemy’s location in order to collect certain information. The received data is transmitted to the command and used by it to assess the situation and make decisions. Human intelligence agents often act under the guise of diplomats and enjoy immunity status. Some of them work undercover and do not communicate directly with their representative offices. Called illegal intelligence officers, they resort to illegal methods of obtaining information that fall under the concepts of “information theft” and “espionage.”
Scout
Spy– a person engaged in covert collection of information about one of the parties to the conflict for the benefit of the other party. Often its activities involve the theft of officially classified information under the leadership of the intelligence services of foreign states. In their work, spies use various secret techniques, be it spying or eavesdropping using special technical devices. Often an agent infiltrates the enemy’s camp and poses as “one of his own.” Spies are both full-time employees of foreign intelligence and citizens of the state recruited by the opposing side and transmitting secret information to it.
Comparison
Let's try to look deeper into the essence of each concept. Let's start with the fact that the term “intelligence officer” is used primarily to refer to a person who obtains information in favor of our state. He may also be called an informant or an informant. Whereas a spy is an agent recruited by foreign services. That is why the last word has an exclusively negative connotation and is used in the context of “enemy, traitor.” Scouts are always treated with respect, often even elevated to the rank of heroes. This is largely due to the exploits of the soldiers of World War II.
Spy Another difference between an intelligence officer and a spy is the method of collecting information. The latter is engaged in the theft of secret information, obtaining it by dishonest methods. He spies, eavesdrops, gains people's trust and extracts the necessary data from them. Often he infiltrates the enemy’s camp and poses as “one of his own.” Espionage is an illegal activity that carries criminal liability. An intelligence officer can obtain information using both legal and illegal methods. The first category includes collecting data from open sources, listening to foreign radio channels, and using special satellites. Illegal operations fall under the concept of “espionage.”
When obtaining secret information on the territory of a foreign state, an intelligence officer must wear the uniform of his armed forces. If an agent is captured by the enemy, he will have the status of a prisoner of war. Whereas, in the absence of a uniform, a person is automatically classified as a spy. That is, from the point of view of international law, only military personnel wearing the clothes of their armed forces are considered intelligence officers. All other persons who obtain secret information secretly are, by definition, spies. They may be subject to criminal prosecution.
Let's summarize what is the difference between an intelligence officer and a spy.
| Scout | Spy |
| Collects information about the enemy for the benefit of our state | Engaged in the theft of secret information under the direction of foreign intelligence services |
| Has a positive reputation | The word is used exclusively in a negative context |
| Synonyms – informant, informant | Synonyms – enemy, traitor |
| Can obtain data using both legal and illegal methods | Collects information dishonestly |
| Wears the uniform of his armed forces and acts only on their side | Can infiltrate the enemy’s camp and pose as “one of their own” |
| If captured by the enemy, he receives prisoner of war status. | If exposed, bears criminal liability |
Answer from °*”*° Veda °*”*° [guru]
A spy is a person who secretly collects information about one of the conflicting parties for the benefit of the other party. Close in meaning to the word “scout”, but differs from it in some features of use and a general negative connotation. In international law, the status of a spy and an intelligence officer differs significantly.
In accordance with international humanitarian law, any person from the armed forces party to the conflict who falls into the power of the opposing party while engaged in espionage is not entitled to prisoner of war status and may be treated as a spy, that is, he may be subject to criminal prosecution.
Unlike a spy, an intelligence officer, that is, a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict who, on behalf of that party, collects or attempts to collect information in territory controlled by the opposing party, is not considered to be an espionage unless, in so doing, it wears the uniform of its armed forces. Thus, in the event of capture, the intelligence officer has the right to prisoner of war status.
Accordingly, from the point of view of international law, only front-line intelligence officers wearing the uniform of their armed forces can be considered intelligence officers. All intelligence agents are, by definition, spies
Answer from Victor Kornev[guru]
Both words mean the same thing, but a scout is a hero, which means OUR, and a spy is an enemy (THIS) ---)))
Answer from Igornik[guru]
You answered it yourself! Foreigners are nasty, bastards are spies, and ours are heroic intelligence officers!
Answer from Mainka[active]
We call our fellow a scout who scouts something about others (strangers)... and a spy is the opposite: a stranger and learns something “about us.” That’s why the perception of these words is opposite!
Answer from UNKNOWN[guru]
The spy wants to steal information from you, but the intelligence officer
For you. According to the principle of “friend or foe”. Children's explanation.))) As for American understanding, translation is a delicate thing. Many of our words, terms and concepts do not coincide.
Answer from Alekx KU[guru]
spying on us we are reconnaissance
there is nothing complicated.
Answer from Lusa diatchenko[guru]
for their own -
scout
for the enemy -
spy
today
drives -
the one who came out
Answer from Aahzam Imamullah[newbie]
I became interested in the reasoning of “VIRGIN” - “... only front-line intelligence officers who wear the uniform of their armed forces can be considered intelligence officers.”
I would like to ask you a question as a veteran of the Armed Forces who served in a special forces group of the Northern Fleet. Let's say I ended up on the beach of a potential enemy for the purpose of...well, it doesn't matter. In only shorts, oh, that is, in swimming trunks! I'm finding out. And then - bam, I was captured by enemy counterintelligence, you bastards. Well, it’s clear with that hare, who, if identified by his ears, then he is 300 years old. But what about me - will they identify me by my uniform - that is, by my underpants, oh, again, by my SUITS or by my DICK now?
