|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
156561
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The building of reliable covers has always been of the utmost importance for clandestine Humint. Using both primary and secondary sources, this study seeks to examine how classical authors and modern scholars have dealt with this topic, and which kind of covers have been the most used throughout history in different sociopolitical contexts, and what are the new perspectives for today’s challenges. Findings suggest that a careful reading of the political milieu in which intelligence officers are required to work, and a certain degree of creativity, are the essential premises for the construction of a plausible cover; that some apparently outdated disguises such as merchants, itinerant monks and philosophers should be understood more broadly today to include business people, humanitarian NGOs and academics; that undercover practices have been theoretically and historically recognized as necessary and convenient by a great number of societies, often with scant regard for ethical considerations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
149299
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper aims to examine the relevance of intelligence gathering as an essential prerequisite for any political or military decision, and the resulting special relationship between rulers and spies, through a theoretical comparison between renowned classics and niche literature on strategy, literature, philosophy and political science belonging to several periods and historical contexts. Findings suggest that criticism on intelligence does not concern its utility, but rather the reliability of the sources, the obstacles presented by intelligence gathering and the ethics of spying. Spies are often described as ‘ramifications’ of the ruler, to whom they are tied by a special relationship of trust, rooted in a spirit of sacrifice, adequate remuneration and honours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
156926
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article aims to analyze a very little-known classic of strategy, written by a Muslim scholar of the late fourteenth century called al-Ansari, which extensively discusses intelligence, strategy, deception, and stratagems. When comparing his work with those of some renowned authors such as Sun Tzu and Kautilya on intelligence issues, astonishing similarities and intriguing nuances emerge. In addition, al-Ansari develops a quite original argument on the relationship between spies and their dispatchers, with special reference to the psychological attentiveness between the two parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
145317
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In wartime, border controls on the movements of individuals increase tremendously, because national authorities become additionally concerned that spies from an enemy state might seek to enter the country to gather information or conduct other covert operations. Historically, the need to identify potential enemies has led states to adopt instruments by which to associate a certain name with a place of origin. The best known of these tools is the passport. That a rudimentary form of passport was introduced as early as during the French Revolution to prevent counter-revolutionary agents from mingling with other travelers in order to safely cross borders is no coincidence. A similar control method was put in place during the Napoleonic Wars.1 Interestingly, serious passport control almost fell into disuse all throughout the 19th century, when economic prosperity and overall political stability positively encouraged free movement of individuals as a driving force for further development, only to be resumed as late as during the First World War, remaining permanent since then.2 In conflict zones, such controls are more stringent than in areas of the world where two or more states have created strong political and economic bonds. Europe's Schengen area, giving almost unlimited access across borders, is the most obvious example of discrepancy in the mobility of European and non-European citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|