Doubtful Legislative Innovations: Criminalising Wartime Collaboration during Russian Aggression in Ukraine
- Artem Nazarko
- Jul 1, 2024
- 36 min read
Updated: Jul 6
1. Historical Overview of Wartime Collaboration
In situations of armed conflict, it is almost inevitable that there will be instances of civilians or combatants cooperating with the opposing side. The parties involved in the conflict often attempt to gain an advantage by turning their opponent's people against them. At the same time, individuals may collaborate with the enemy for various reasons, including personal conviction, desperation, or coercion.[1] As historian Gerhard Hirschfeld says, wartime collaboration ‘is as old as war and the occupation of foreign territory’.[2]
There is ongoing debate about the precise definition of collaboration.[3] However, common practices can be categorised as wartime collaboration, such as sharing information with the opposing side, defecting to fight for the enemy’s forces, engaging in propaganda activities on behalf of the enemy, or providing administrative support to an occupying power.[4]
Notably, international humanitarian law, which applies in armed conflicts, does not explicitly prohibit these activities or the recruitment of collaborators.[5] However, it does forbid the use of coercion for such purposes, particularly against prisoners of war or civilians in occupied territories.[6] The repercussions for those involved in collaboration may not become apparent until after the armed conflict has ended. This delay in consequences typically occurs when evidence of their actions becomes known, power dynamics shift, and a relative sense of stability returns, making it possible to hold these individuals accountable for their actions.[7]
There are well-documented cases of wartime collaboration in various parts of the world during the tumultuous era of World War II (WWII). Notably, countries like Norway, France, and Poland grappled with the complex issue of collaboration in the face of occupation and conflict. Wartime collaboration manifested differently, blurring the lines between cooperation and coercion.
In Norway, the collaborationist government under Vidkun Quisling collaborated with the Nazi occupiers, while a robust Norwegian resistance movement (Motstandsbevegelsen) actively opposed them.[8] This divergence in responses and allegiances raised intricate questions of justice, accountability, and reconciliation in the post-war period.[9] France, too, witnessed a multifaceted landscape of collaboration during WWII. The Vichy regime, ruled by Marshal Philippe Pétain, collaborating with the Nazi occupiers, stood in stark contrast to the French Resistance (La Résistance), exemplifying the ideological and geographic divisions within the country.[10] The aftermath of the war led to a complex web of legal proceedings, reflecting the challenges of distinguishing between voluntary collaboration and collaboration under duress.[11] Similarly, Poland’s experience during WWII was marked by diverse responses to the occupation. The Polish Underground State (Polskie Państwo Podziemne), including organisations like the Home Army (Armia Krajowa), actively resisted the Nazi occupation and Soviet influence.[12] However, collaboration, whether driven by opportunism or coercion, coexisted alongside this resistance. Post-war Poland grappled with the legal complexities surrounding collaborators, shedding light on the intricacies of determining the extent of collaboration.[13] It has taken two generations for most countries that Nazi Germany occupied to admit that it was the resisters, not the collaborators, who were the minority.[14]
