«Collaboration», «Collaborationism», «Cooperation», «Collaborative Activity»: Historical and Criminal Legal Dimensions of Terminological Pluralism

The article is devoted to the analysis of historical and law origins of terminological pluralism in the reflection of the cooperation of the population with the occupier. The relevance of the presented material is due to the addition of Article 1111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on collaborative activities, the presence of terminological diversity in historical, law, sociological research and legislative work, as well as the ongoing occupation of part of the territories of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.. The aim of the article is to shed light on the genesis of the terminological pluralism that refer to various forms and types of interaction between the population and the occupier (cooperation, collaboration, collaborationism, collaborative activity) and to study the possibility and expediency of their projection on the law dimension. The research strategy involves the use, first of all, of general scientific methods of cognition. The main role in achieving the goal of the article was played by a special historical method and methods of linguistic research. In the process of research, it was established that the main reason for terminological pluralism is the attempt to distinguish different types of interaction with the occupier depending on their ideological and motivational characteristics, circumstances and context of interaction. This, in turn, is connected with the "hellish" complexity of the problem of collaboration with the occupier. It is concluded that the term "collaborative activity" introduced in criminal law is not successful in view of the existing historical approaches and linguistic aspects of borrowing foreign words. The need to consider collaborationism as a generalized concept denoting the natural phenomenon of cooperation with the occupier is substantiated. Determining the breadth of collaborationism is a matter for lawyers. This phenomenon should be considered primarily in the legal sphere. Everything that is beyond legal condemnation cannot be recognized as a component of collaborationism.