text: Chapter 1
  1-82. Under LOAC, belligerents may employ spies and saboteurs. Spying and sabotage are not prohibited
  by LOAC. For example, spying and sabotage are not prohibited by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, nor defined
  as a grave breach of those conventions. Similarly, spying and sabotage are not war crimes punishable under
  the statutes of international criminal tribunals. In addition, LOAC treaties that regulate, but do not prohibit,
  spying recognize implicitly that belligerents may use these methods of warfare (see HR art. 24, 29-31;
  consider AP I, art. 46). Although spying and sabotage are not prohibited by LOAC, acting clandestinely or
  under false pretenses (out of uniform) could, in some circumstances, constitute “feigning a protected status”
  (such as that of a civilian), one of the elements of perfidy. Persons engaged in these activities and commanders
  who employ them should take special care not to commit perfidy (i.e., wounding or killing the enemy while
  engaged in “feigning a protected status.”).
  Spying and Sabotage – Forfeiture of the Privileges of Combatant Status
  1-83. Although LOAC allows belligerents to employ spies, saboteurs, and other persons engaged in secretive
  hostile activities behind enemy lines, LOAC also permits belligerents to take additional measures to defend
  against these persons. These individuals, by acting clandestinely or under false pretenses, fail to distinguish
  themselves as combatants generally must do. Thus, persons entitled to privileges of combatant status,
  including POW status, forfeit their entitlement to those privileges while engaged in spying, sabotage, or other
  hostile, secretive activities behind enemy lines. Although not explicitly reflected in the GPW, this
  understanding was the general understanding at the 1949 Diplomatic Conference of Geneva and is reflected
  in other treaties (HR art. 31; consider AP I art. 46(1)), cases, military manuals, and scholarly works.
  Liability for Previous Acts of Espionage
  1-84. Persons who qualify for the privileges of combatant status, engage in spying, and then return to friendly
  lines incur no responsibility or liability for previous acts of espionage (HR art. 31). Persons who have never
  qualified for the privileges of combatant status would not benefit from this rule because they cannot regain a
  status that they never held.
  PRIVATE PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN ACTS OF HOSTILITY
  1-85. Like it treats spying and sabotage, international law does not generally prohibit private acts of hostility,
  but does recognize that opposing States may punish persons who commit these acts. Nonetheless, private
  persons engaging in hostilities have been described in some contexts as having committed a war crime, a
  violation of international law, or a violation of LOAC. In more recent times, private persons committing acts
  of hostility are often punished as committing acts of terrorism. The unauthorized use of violence by private
  persons to achieve political ends is contrary to the principles of democratic States. Moreover, States have
  obligations under international law to repress terrorism, especially when conducted on their territory against
  other States.
  1-86. In general, private persons who engage in acts of hostility forfeit many of the protections to which
  members of the civilian population are entitled and may be liable to treatment as unprivileged belligerents.
  Loss of Protections Afforded Civilians
  1-87. Taking military action (such as detention) to address the threat posed by civilians engaged in hostilities
  can be justified by military necessity. The forfeiture of many of the protections of civilian status is also
  reflected in the principle that a person cannot exercise the distinct rights of both a civilian and a combatant
  at the same time.
  Denial of Combatant Status
  1-88. Private persons who engage in hostilities are not entitled to the privileges of combatant status and may
  be punished, after a fair trial. LOAC does not condone the unprivileged belligerent, for example, a farmer by
  day and guerilla by night. The denial of the privileges of combatant status to private persons engaging in
  hostilities is justified principally on the basis that such persons lack the principal qualification for entitlement
  to the privileges of combatant status—State authorization to engage in hostilities. Denying private persons
  who engage in hostilities the privileges of combatant status is also justified on humanitarian grounds. Private