### **Phased Framework for Counter-Sect Legislation and State Protective Measures**

**Phase I**

**Counter-Sect Legislation**

Recognition of a **“social infiltration structure”** as a legally identifiable threat pattern.

**Phase II**

**Institutional Separation Measures**

Defensive protection of the **State** through the removal, exclusion, or severance of such structures from public, administrative, and institutional systems.

**Phase III**

**Response to State Disruption and Subversion**

Measures addressing organized conduct intended to disturb, weaken, manipulate, or undermine state functions, public order, and institutional decision-making.

**Phase IV**

**Military or Quasi-Military Level Classification**

Recognition of certain organized hostile conduct as **acts of combat**, resulting in escalation of the responsible entity to the status of a **hostile actor**.

ーーーーー

・From the Study of the Nazi Party

National Defense — Key Points

Primary:Threat: Completion Before Illegality When personnel development, ideological alignment, and proto-command structures are completed within legal boundaries, intervention at the point of prosecutable illegality is already too late.Assessment Unit: Readiness, Not Organization The decisive metric is not secrecy or organizational form, but immediate operational readiness at the moment of political or institutional access. Human Pools as Strategic Assets Highly trained and ideologically aligned personnel outside state control constitute a non-kinetic force capable of rapid insertion into electoral systems, administrative structures, and internal security. Indicators of a Parallel State Emerge in Peacetime Party, paramilitary, propaganda, and educational functions remain distributed under normal conditions, yet are designed to integrate rapidly under stress while appearing lawful in advance. Law-Enforcement–Dependent Defense Fails Reliance on criminal thresholds and illegality-based frameworks results in consistent delay during phases of state transition. Preventive Defense Requires Reverse Evaluation Threats must be assessed by identifying what would activate immediately upon acquisition of power, and then evaluating backward to detect preemptive national security risks. This Is Not a Matter of Speech or Ideology The concern is not the content of beliefs, but the existence of state-external human structures characterized by high readiness and high internal alignment.

-----

The study of the Nazi Party focuses on the crisis of its rapid and collective emergence into central government ministries after personnel were being nurtured in suburban areas.

This situation has led to a shift in strategy towards concealment/incubation/ambush/insidious behavior due to external factors. Based on Natiz party study premise, we will compare and examine this with the activities of groups, primarily those defined as new religious movements.

Japanese version.

日本語版反セクト法。

【前提規定】

本法は、宗教、思想、信条または表現内容それ自体の当否・優劣を判断し、これを規制することを目的とするものではない。(十分に調査/判断します。)

本法が対象とするのは、

合法的活動の外形を保持したまま、組織的・継続的・構造的に人員、資金、情報および指揮系統を蓄積し、

将来における制度接続、社会的影響力の集中、または国家機能への実質的介入を可能とする行為類型である。

特に、違法化・摘発が可能となる以前の段階において、

人的プール、準指揮系統、稼働能力が完成している状態は、

事後的な刑罰や解散措置のみでは社会的損害を回復できないとの認識を前提とする。

よって本法は、

刑罰による事後対応ではなく、

組織構造の把握、接続経路の遮断および稼働能力の無力化を通じ、

公共の安全および制度的安定を確保することを目的とする。

ーーー

反セクト活動防止法（基礎構成・統合案）

【前文】

本法は、宗教、思想、信条または表現内容それ自体の当否、真偽もしくは価値を審査し、規制することを目的とするものではない。

本法の目的は、合法活動の外観を保持したまま、組織的・継続的・構造的に人員、資金、情報および指揮系統を蓄積し、社会秩序、国家機能または公共的信頼に対し実質的影響を及ぼし得る行為類型を把握し、これを制度的に無力化することにある。

【定義】

本法において「セクト的組織」とは、主に、表現または信仰の自由を外形的根拠としつつ、内部規律、同調圧力、序列構造を形成し、教育・訓練・資金・人的配置を通じて将来の制度接続または権限流入を前提とした人的プールを構築する集団またはネットワークをいう。または平時、何かしかの思想において、国家、国際的な市民活動以上の何かしかの病理を有したと客観的に評価出来る。反社会化する嫌疑を持てる目的を持った集団-組織性が対象となる。この場合、被害報告を国家として保持する、フランスの反セクト法を参照し、主に新興宗教とされる物が主に調査対象になる。

当該組織が、平時には分散的かつ合法的活動としてのみ観測され、危機時または政治的転換点において短期間で高い稼働率を示す準指揮系統を内在させる場合、本法の対象とする。

【評価対象】

本法に基づく評価および措置は、思想内容、信仰の真偽または表現の価値判断を対象としない。

評価対象は、組織的関与の深度、人的・資金的・情報的接続の持続性、行政・報道・教育等への影響可能性、および危機時における即時行動能力とする。

【捜査機構】

本法の目的達成のため、既存の宗教行政、警察捜査または公安機構とは別系統の、構造分析および接続遮断を任務とする専門機関を設置する。

当該機関は思想審査を行わず、刑罰を第一目的とせず、組織構造の解体および稼働能力の無力化を任務とする。

【情報収集および措置】

当該機関は、国内外の公的機関と連携し、人的移動、資金流動および組織接続に関する情報を収集・共有することができる。

本法に基づく措置は、刑罰による事後対応ではなく、制度接続経路の遮断、人的プールの分断および指揮・資金・情報の非連結化を目的とする。

【補則】

本法は、違法化以前に完成する組織構造および合法域において進行する準国家的形成を最大の警戒対象とする。

反セクト活動防止法（条文案）

【第1条（目的）】

本法は、宗教、思想、信条または表現内容それ自体の当否、真偽もしくは価値を審査し、又は規制することを目的とするものではない。

本法は、合法的活動の外観を保持したまま、組織的、継続的かつ構造的に人員、資金、情報又は指揮系統を蓄積し、社会秩序、国家機能又は公共的信頼に対し実質的影響を及ぼし得る行為類型を把握し、これを制度的に無力化することを目的とする。

【第2条（定義）】

本法において「セクト的組織」とは、表現又は信仰の自由を外形的根拠としつつ、内部規律、同調圧力又は序列構造を形成し、教育、訓練、資金又は人的配置を通じ、将来の制度接続又は権限流入を前提とした人的プールを構築する集団又はネットワークをいう。

【第2条の2（形態的要素）】

セクト的組織の評価にあたっては、次に掲げる形態的要素を考慮することができる。

一　特定の拠点又は居住地に集団で移動。国家又は地域の各所に散発的に居住又は活動拠点を選択していること(僕の家の周囲に大量に住んでるとかそう言った事です。)

二　構成員数の多寡そのものではなく、一定の多数性を前提として人的接続及び役割分担が維持されていること

三　平時においては個別生活又は合法的活動として観測され、非常時又は特定の局面においてのみ組織的挙動が顕在化すること

前項の形態は、秘匿性又は地下性の有無にかかわらず、

将来の稼働率及び制度接続能力を評価するための指標として用いられるものとする。

【第3条（評価対象）】

本法に基づく評価及び措置は、思想内容、信仰の真偽又は表現の価値判断を対象としない。

評価対象は、組織的関与の深度、人的・資金的・情報的接続の持続性、行政、報道、教育その他公共領域への影響可能性並びに危機時における即時行動能力とする。

【第4条（専門機関）】

本法の目的を達成するため、既存の宗教行政、警察又は公安機構とは別系統の、構造分析及び接続遮断を任務とする専門機関を設置する。

当該機関は、思想審査を行わず、刑罰を第一目的とせず、組織構造の解体及び稼働能力の低下を目的として活動する。

【第5条（措置の性質）】

本法に基づく措置は、刑罰による事後対応を主とせず、制度接続経路の遮断、人的プールの分断並びに資金、指揮及び情報の非連結化を内容とする。

【第6条（補則）】

本法は、違法化以前に完成する組織構造及び合法域において進行する準国家的形成を最大の警戒対象とする。

【第7条（制度接続の遮断及び切離し）】

本法に基づきセクト的組織に該当すると評価された集団又はネットワークについては、

当該組織又はその構成員が、行政、立法、司法、報道、教育その他の公的制度又は準公的制度に対し、

直接又は間接に影響力を行使し、又は接続することを防止するため、

制度上の関与、委任、協力、参画その他一切の接続関係を、多数性への対処を講じるための合理的な措置を介し、段階的に切り離す措置を講ずるものとする

当該切断は、刑罰又は思想的評価によらず、

制度の中立性及び公共的機能の保全を目的として行うものとする。

――――――

【第8条（国家の不作為の防止）】

本法に規定する行為類型又はセクト的組織の存在が、合理的根拠に基づき認識可能であるにもかかわらず、

国又は関係機関が、必要な調査、分析、制度接続の遮断その他の措置を講じないことにより、

当該行為又は組織の影響が拡大し、社会秩序、国家機能又は公共的信頼に対する侵食が継続又は増大した場合、

当該不作為は制度的保全義務に反する状態として位置付けられる。

前項の不作為は、

思想的判断の回避、政治的配慮又は形式的適法性を理由として正当化されるものではなく、

本法の目的に照らし、是正されるべき対象とする。

――――――

【第9条（国家撹乱行為等への該当）】

本法に定めるセクト的組織の形成、活動又はこれに準ずる行為が、

組織的、継続的かつ構造的に、社会秩序、国家機能又は公共的信頼を侵食し、

制度接続の遮断が講じられないまま影響力の蓄積及び稼働能力の完成に至る場合、

当該行為は国家撹乱行為に該当するものと位置付けられる。

前項の国家撹乱行為が、

一　合法的活動の外観を保持したまま、

二　人的プール、準指揮系統又は役割分担を段階的に構築し、

三　時間の経過とともに制度的意思決定又は公共的機能に対する実質的支配を可能とする構造を有する場合、

当該行為は**緩慢に進行するクーデター（ゆっくり進むクーデター）**として評価される。

さらに、当該構造が、

国家の統治機能、制度的中立性又は公共的正統性を失わせ、

既存の国家秩序を実質的に代替し、又は無力化する状態に至った場合には、

当該行為は国家転覆に準ずる行為として取り扱われる。

本条に基づく評価は、思想内容、信条又は表現の当否によらず、

行為の構造、継続性及び制度的影響の程度に基づき行うものとする。

ーーー

・超長期・低強度違和感性反復型の社会的侵食

【第○条（継続的社会的侵食行為）】

本法において「継続的社会的侵食行為」とは、特定の思想、目的又は組織的意図に基づき、公共空間又は日常生活領域において、不特定又は特定の民間人に対し、反復的に誹謗、中傷、侮辱、違和感を与える行為、不快感を与える行為、視界に入る行為、敢えて視界に入る行為。社会の悪い変容を齎す行為。

例1:淫乱的に感じる服飾、感受性、視線、組織性活動基準に沿って敢えて視界に入り性的な生理的な反応を反復し引き起こす行為や性的刺激/挑発を企てる行為。その他スパイ活動に準じた手法を合わせた手法を用いる-示唆的言動その他これに類似した行為を行い、当該個人又は集団の社会的信用、生活の平穏又は公共的関係性を長期的に毀損する行為をいう。前項の行為は、

一　個別行為としては軽微又は違法性が明確でない場合であっても、組織的、継続的又は役割分担の下で実施され、社会的萎縮、分断又は制度的不信を惹起する構造を有する場合には、本法に基づく評価及び措置の対象とする。

二当該行為は、表現の自由、思想の自由又は偶発的言動として正当化されるものではなく、社会秩序及び公共的信頼を長期的に侵食する行為類型として位置付けられる。

→

会話に成りすました（組織的な計画を以てして）、

誹謗中傷や動画で同じような事をするなど。

【第○条（関係性なりすまし行為）】

本法において「関係性なりすまし行為」とは、特定の思想、目的又は組織的意図に基づき、本人になりすまし、又は本人の友人、知人、関係者等であるかのように装い、対人関係上の信頼、過去の関係性又は私的情報を利用して、第三者に対し誤認を生じさせる行為をいう。前項の行為が、

一　反復的又は役割分担の下で行われ、

二　対象者の判断、行動又は人間関係に影響を及ぼし、

三　社会的信用、生活の平穏又は公共的信頼を侵食する構造を有する場合には、当該行為は本法に基づく評価及び措置の対象とする。当該行為は、単なる社交的言動、誤認又は表現行為として正当化されるものではなく、関係性そのものを操作し、長期的に社会的秩序を毀損する行為類型として位置付けられる。

本法は類似した組織的活動、及び行為も調査対象としています。

非火器型敵対作戦及び社会生理学的攻撃防止法（案）

前提規定

本法は、国家、非国家主体、準国家的組織、ハイブリッド組織又はこれらに連なる指揮・影響・資金・情報の系統が、火器、爆発物又は明示的暴力を用いない場合であっても、市民生活、公共空間、制度的信頼及び人体の生理的安定に対し、組織的、継続的又は計画的に侵食を加える行為を、非火器型敵対作戦、社会生理学的攻撃又は戦闘行為に準ずる行為として位置付け、これを未然に防止し、抑止し、調査し、遮断し、必要に応じて検挙及び制度的排除の対象とすることを目的とする。

本法における戦闘行為とは、銃撃、爆撃、占拠、破壊工作その他の有形力の行使に限られない。
言葉、囁き、独語、笑声、視線、身体配置、接近、通過、示唆、侮辱、偽装された賞賛、性的又は生理的刺激、反復的な違和感の付与、社会的孤立の誘導、関係性操作、偶然を装う接触、公共空間における圧力形成その他の行為が、指揮、計画、役割分担、反復性、外的要因又は組織的背景を伴う場合、これらは武器又は兵器に準ずる作用を持つものとして評価される。

社会において、言動は人の尊厳、心身、社会的信用、公共的信頼及び生活の平穏に影響を及ぼし得るものであり、その使用には通常、相互の節度、共同的理解及び社会的制御が存在する。
この社会的基準を逸脱し、言動その他の非接触的行為を、標的化、混乱、誘導、挑発、孤立、萎縮、身体反応の惹起又は制度的不信の形成のために組織的に使用する場合、当該行為は単なる言論、偶発的生活行為又は個別事件として扱われてはならない。

本法は、思想、信条、宗教、表現内容又は生活様式そのものを裁くものではない。
本法が対象とするのは、それらの外観を利用し、市民に擬態しながら、計画的に人体、関係性、社会空間、公共信頼及び国家機能を侵食する構造的行為である。

第1条（目的）

本法は、国家主体、非国家主体、準国家的組織、ハイブリッド組織又はこれらに連なる外的要因の指揮、支援、誘導、黙示的統制又は影響の下で、市民生活又は公共空間において行われる非火器型の敵対作戦を、戦闘行為又は戦闘行為に準ずる行為として位置付け、これを予防、抑止、調査、記録、遮断、検挙及び制度的排除の対象とすることを目的とする。

本法は、火器を用いた交戦が確認されない場合であっても、組織的、継続的、計画的又は役割分担の下で行われる言動、接近、視界形成、囁き、独語、笑声、侮辱、偽装された賞賛、性的示唆、心理的圧力、社会的孤立誘導、関係性操作、道路上の接触誘導、集団間の衝突誘導その他の非接触的又は低強度の行為が、人体、精神状態、社会的信用、公共信頼又は国家機能を累積的に破壊し得る場合、これを国家安全保障上の敵対行為として把握する。

本法の目的は、個別事後処理ではない。
本法の目的は、背後にある指揮系統、人的プール、役割分担、資金、情報、社会的配置、制度接続及び外的影響を把握し、これらを累積的かつ遡及的に調査し、必要に応じて軍、警察、公安、行政機関及び専門分析機関が連携して、社会秩序及び国家機能を防護することである。

第2条（非火器型敵対作戦）

本法において「非火器型敵対作戦」とは、火器、爆発物又は明示的な武力行使を用いず、言動、視覚的刺激、聴覚的刺激、身体配置、社会的接触、関係性操作、情報操作、示唆的行動、公共空間上の圧力形成又は生活領域への反復的介入を通じて、対象となる個人、集団、不特定多数又は公共機関に対し、心身の消耗、判断能力の低下、社会的孤立、信用毀損、行動抑制、制度的不信又は公共秩序の変質を生じさせる行為をいう。

非火器型敵対作戦は、次に掲げる要素を含む。

一　市民、住民、通行人、学生、教師、労働者、事業者、報道関係者、宗教関係者、支援者又は偶然の第三者に擬態して行われること
二　個々の行為が軽微、日常的、偶発的又は合法的に見えるよう設計されていること
三　囁き、独語、笑声、視線、接近、すれ違い、立ち位置、服飾、性的示唆、侮辱、偽りの賞賛、嘲笑、反復的な違和感付与その他の低強度行為が用いられること
四　対象者又は不特定多数に対し、生理的反応、交感神経優位状態、睡眠障害、抑うつ傾向、不安、軽いショック反応、心身疲労、社会的萎縮又は判断力低下を誘導し得ること
五　道路、学校、職場、住宅地、公共交通、店舗、行政窓口、医療機関、報道空間又はデジタル空間において反復されること
六　国家主体、非国家主体、準国家的組織、ハイブリッド組織又は外的要因との関係が疑われること
七　単発事件ではなく、累積的、構造的、計画的又は作戦的に評価されるべき事情を有すること

第3条（言動の兵器化）

本法において「言動の兵器化」とは、本来は社会生活上の表現、会話、身体動作、笑声、視線、服飾、距離、沈黙、独語又は偶発的接触として観測され得る行為を、組織的、計画的、反復的又は役割分担の下で使用し、対象者の心身、信用、関係性、生活の平穏又は公共的地位に損傷を与える行為をいう。

言動の兵器化は、次に掲げる場合に認定され得る。

一　侮辱と偽装された賞賛を交互に用い、対象者の判断又は感情を揺さぶる場合
二　囁き、独語、笑声、咳払い、視線、通過、接近又は身体配置を用い、対象者に反復的な緊張又は違和感を与える場合
三　性的、生理的又は屈辱的刺激を反復して与え、対象者の身体反応又は精神状態を操作しようとする場合
四　特定の学校、職場、地域又は公共空間において、教師、生徒、同僚、住民又は通行人に擬態して対象者を孤立させる場合
五　言動を通じて、対象者が状況を把握しにくいまま、精神状態、対人関係又は社会的評価を悪化させる場合
六　国家主体、非国家主体、準国家的組織又はハイブリッド組織の指揮、支援、誘導又は影響下にある疑いがある場合

言動の兵器化においては、当該言動が通常の生活行為としても成立し得ることをもって、本法の評価対象から除外してはならない。
重要なのは、その言動が単体として違法か否かではなく、作戦的文脈、反復性、標的性、役割分担、背後関係及び累積的影響である。

第4条（社会生理学的攻撃）

本法において「社会生理学的攻撃」とは、低刺激、低強度又は非接触的な行為を長期的、反復的又は組織的に用いることにより、対象者又は不特定多数の人体、生理反応、精神状態、睡眠、交感神経系、循環器反応、認知機能、判断能力又は社会的活動能力に変容又は損傷を生じさせる行為をいう。

社会生理学的攻撃には、次に掲げる行為を含む。

一　反復的な不快刺激により、緊張、警戒、疲労、抑うつ傾向又は軽い鬱状態を誘導する行為
二　長期的な囁き、独語、笑声、接近、視界形成、性的示唆又は侮辱により、人体の防御反応を持続させる行為
三　軽いショック反応、心拍変動、睡眠障害、食欲低下、交感神経優位状態その他医学的又は生理学的に評価可能な反応を引き起こし得る行為
四　対象者を社会的に孤立させ、周囲に理解されにくい形で精神状態を悪化させる行為
五　教師、生徒、住民、通行人、同僚、支援者又は関係者に擬態し、対象者の生活環境全体を圧迫する行為
六　複数の集団を扇動し、遭遇、衝突、暴行又は死傷事件に発展させる行為
七　偶然を装い、道路その他公共空間において人を倒し、衝突させ、危険状態に置く行為

社会生理学的攻撃は、身体への直接接触又は明示的脅迫を必要としない。
累積的な心身変容が客観資料、医療記録、行動記録、証言、映像、音声、通信、配置傾向又は反復パターンにより認められる場合、当該行為は戦闘行為に準ずる敵対的作用として評価される。

第5条（市民擬態型戦闘行為）

本法において「市民擬態型戦闘行為」とは、行為者が市民、住民、通行人、学生、教師、労働者、支援者、宗教関係者、報道関係者、行政協力者又は偶然の第三者の外観を保持しながら、実質的には組織的、計画的又は指揮に基づく敵対的行為を行うことをいう。

市民擬態型戦闘行為においては、行為者が制服、武器、旗章又は明示的所属を有しないことをもって、敵対的性質を否定してはならない。

次に掲げる事情がある場合、当該行為者は、戦闘行為又は戦闘行為に準ずる行為への参加者として評価され得る。

一　当該行為が反復的又は役割分担の下で行われていること
二　当該行為が外部の指示、暗示、合図、資金、情報又は配置により支えられていること
三　当該行為が単発ではなく、広域の構造の一部として機能していること
四　当該行為者が、自らの行為が広域の圧力、侵食又は攻撃の一部であることを知り、又は知り得べき事情があること
五　当該行為が対象者又は不特定多数の心身、信用、関係性又は公共的信頼を毀損し得ること

第6条（不可視の敵意）

本法において、不可視の敵意とは、明示的脅迫、暴力、命令又は宣言として現れないものの、反復性、配置、同期、視線、身体動作、接近、言動、周辺環境の変化、関係性操作、情報流通、対象者の身体反応又は社会的影響を通じて推認される敵対的意図又は作戦的圧力をいう。

不可視の敵意は、単なる主観的感情のみをもって認定されるものではない。
しかし、次に掲げる客観的事情が認められる場合、調査、記録及び構造分析の対象とすることができる。

一　同一又は類似の行為が長期的に反復されていること
二　複数人が交代又は役割分担により同様の行為を行っていること
三　特定の場所、時間、移動経路、生活行動又は制度接続に沿って行為が発生していること
四　対象者の身体反応、生活障害、睡眠障害、精神状態の悪化又は社会的孤立と時間的関連があること
五　通信、資金、移動、居住、組織関係、人的関係又は情報流通の接続が疑われること
六　国家主体、非国家主体、準国家的組織又はハイブリッド組織の関与が疑われること

不可視の敵意は、現代型の低強度敵対作戦において重要な評価対象である。

第7条（戦闘行為としての位置付け）

非火器型敵対作戦、言動の兵器化、社会生理学的攻撃、市民擬態型戦闘行為又は不可視の敵意に基づく組織的行為が、国家主体、非国家主体、準国家的組織、ハイブリッド組織又は外的要因の指揮、支援、誘導、資金、情報又は作戦的影響を受けて行われる場合、当該行為は戦闘行為又は戦闘行為に準ずる敵対行為として評価される。

当該評価においては、火器の使用、軍服の着用、戦闘宣言、組織名の明示又は直接暴力の存在を必要としない。

重要なのは、当該行為が社会秩序、人体、公共信頼、制度的中立性又は国家機能に対し、累積的、計画的又は作戦的な破壊作用を有するか否かである。

第8条（戦闘員又は作戦参加者としての評価）

本法において、非火器型敵対作戦に参加し、協力し、反復し、仲介し、指示し、資金を提供し、情報を提供し、場所を提供し、対象者の移動、接触、視界、関係性又は社会的評価に影響を与える者は、作戦参加者として評価され得る。

当該者が、自らを市民、通行人、学生、教師、住民、労働者又は偶然の第三者として表示している場合であっても、行為の反復性、役割分担、指示関係、背後関係及び累積的影響により、戦闘行為に準ずる行為への参加者として扱うことができる。

この評価は、火器交戦における標的化を自動的に意味するものではない。
本法における評価は、調査、検挙、制度的遮断、接近制限、通信・資金・情報経路の遮断、人的プールの分断、公共機関への通知及び軍・警察・行政の防護措置を可能にするためのものである。

第9条（軍の出動及び国家機関の連携）

非火器型敵対作戦が、国家機能、公共秩序、社会的安定、重要施設、公共交通、教育機関、医療機関、行政機関、報道機関又は特定地域の生活環境に重大な影響を及ぼし、又は及ぼすおそれがある場合、国は、警察、公安、行政機関、専門分析機関及び軍その他の防衛組織を連携させることができる。

軍又は防衛組織の関与は、次に掲げる任務を中心とする。

一　重要施設、公共空間及び対象地域の防護
二　非火器型敵対作戦の抑止
三　警察及び行政機関への情報分析支援
四　広域的な行動パターン、移動、通信、資金及び配置の分析支援
五　被害者、公共機関及び社会秩序の保護
六　外的要因、国家主体、非国家主体又はハイブリッド組織との接続の確認
七　必要な場合の封止、隔離、避難、警戒、監視及び事前調査支援

軍の関与は、非火器型敵対作戦を単なる民事事件、個別刑事事件又は日常的迷惑行為として放置しないための国家的抑止措置である。

第10条（個別事後処理の禁止）

国及び関係機関は、本法に該当する疑いのある行為を、単発の苦情、個別事件、偶然、私人間紛争、迷惑行為、学校内問題、地域問題又は精神的問題としてのみ処理してはならない。

次に掲げる事情がある場合、当該行為は累積的、構造的及び作戦的に評価されなければならない。

一　同一又は類似の行為が反復されていること
二　複数人が交代又は役割分担により関与していること
三　対象者又は不特定多数に対する生理的、心理的又は社会的影響が累積していること
四　資金、情報、移動、居住、職業、学校、行政、報道又は地域活動との接続が疑われること
五　国家主体、非国家主体、準国家的組織又はハイブリッド組織との関係が疑われること
六　行為を放置した場合、暴行、死傷、精神変容、孤立、制度的不信又は社会秩序の破壊に発展し得ること

第11条（累積的・遡及的調査）

国は、本法に該当する疑いがある場合、現在発生している行為のみならず、過去の行為、関連事件、被害報告、医療記録、学校記録、地域記録、行政記録、通信記録、資金記録、映像、音声、目撃証言、行動パターン及び関係性操作について、累積的かつ遡及的に調査することができる。

遡及的調査は、単発事件として処理された過去の行為を、広域の作戦構造、人的プール、準指揮系統、資金経路、情報経路又は制度接続との関係で再評価するために行う。

本条は、過去に合法であった行為を事後的に犯罪化するものではない。
本条は、過去の事実を構造分析の資料として用い、現在及び将来の抑止、検挙、遮断、防護及び制度的排除に資することを目的とする。

第12条（国家の責務）

国は、非火器型敵対作戦、社会生理学的攻撃、市民擬態型戦闘行為又はこれらに準ずる行為が合理的に認識可能である場合、必要な調査、分析、記録、抑止、検挙、遮断、保護及び軍・警察・行政の連携措置を講ずる責務を負う。

国は、火器交戦が存在しないこと、個々の行為が軽微に見えること、行為者が市民に見えること、被害が不可視又は生理的であること、被害者が状況を説明しにくいことを理由として、当該行為を放置してはならない。

本法に基づく国家の責務は、思想統制ではない。
それは、人体、生活の平穏、公共秩序、制度的中立性及び国家機能を、組織的、低強度、長期的、不可視的な敵対作戦から防護する責務である。

【反セクト法と接続及び制度から切離し】

This context is not available in English.

前記のような市民擬態型不規則活動主体については、
その活動が単なる思想的結社又は通常の市民活動の範囲を超え、
人的プール、関係性ネットワーク、継続的影響工作又は制度浸透構造を形成していると合理的に認められる場合、

国家は、公共的制度、中立性及び社会的信頼を維持するため、
反セクト活動防止法その他これに準ずる制度保全法制に基づき、
当該主体又はその関係構造に対する制度接続の遮断、配置変更、関与制限、接触制限その他必要な切離し措置を講ずることができる。

特に、当該主体が、多数性、分散性又は市民擬態性を利用し、
教育、報道、行政、地域社会、対人関係その他通常社会へ浸透している場合には、
事後的刑罰又は単発的違法評価のみに依拠することは、
制度侵食の進行を放置する結果となり得る。

そのため、合理的根拠に基づき、継続的侵食構造、準指揮系統又は敵対的影響工作が認められる場合には、
当該主体を公共制度及び社会的接続領域から段階的に切り離し、
必要に応じ、監督下措置、接触制限、拘束又は隔離措置を含む構造的分断措置を講ずることは、
制度保全上やむを得ない措置として位置付けられる。

さらに、当該主体が制度切離し後も継続的敵対行為を維持し、
又は社会秩序若しくは国家機能に対する侵食を継続する場合には、
当該主体は、単なる市民的活動主体ではなく、
市民擬態型不規則敵対主体として、戦闘行為認定法その他上位法制の適用対象となり得る。

市民擬態型国家侵食参加者の捕虜資格否定

第○条（通常戦闘行為との区別）

本法に定める非火器型敵対作戦、社会生理学的攻撃、市民擬態型敵対行為、継続的社会的侵食行為、関係性なりすまし行為、公共空間圧力行為又は国家撹乱行為は、通常の武力紛争における戦闘行為そのものとしてではなく、国家機能、公共秩序、制度的中立性、社会的信頼及び人体の生理的安定を侵食する国家侵食行為として把握される。

前項の行為は、火器を用いた交戦、軍事占領、正規軍同士の戦闘、武装勢力による明示的戦闘又は通常の戦争状態を前提とするものではない。

したがって、本法に基づく市民擬態型国家侵食参加者は、通常戦闘における戦闘員としての地位を当然には取得せず、ジュネーヴ条約上の捕虜資格、戦闘員特権又は交戦行為免責を当然に主張することはできない。

第○条（市民擬態型国家侵食参加者）

本法において「市民擬態型国家侵食参加者」とは、市民、住民、通行人、学生、教師、労働者、報道関係者、宗教関係者、支援者、行政協力者、近隣者又は偶然の第三者の外観を保持しながら、組織的、計画的、反復的又は役割分担の下で、国家侵食行為に参加し、協力し、仲介し、隠蔽し、資金を提供し、情報を提供し、場所を提供し、又は対象者、公共空間、制度若しくは社会的信頼に対する圧力形成に寄与する者をいう。

市民擬態型国家侵食参加者は、文民の外観を保持していることをもって、通常市民としての保護、免責又は不可侵性を当然に主張することはできない。

当該者は、武器を携行せず、軍服を着用せず、明示的な暴力を行使せず、又は通常生活上の言動の外観を保持している場合であっても、その行為が国家侵食行為の一部であると評価されるときは、非特権的国家侵食参加者として扱われる。

第○条（ジュネーヴ条約上の捕虜資格との非連動）

本法に基づく国家侵食行為は、通常の国際的武力紛争又は正規の交戦状態を当然に前提とするものではない。

そのため、本法に基づき拘束、調査、訴追、遮断又は制度的排除の対象となる者は、ジュネーヴ条約上の捕虜資格を当然に取得するものではない。

本法における拘束及び措置は、捕虜収容、戦争捕虜処遇又は正規戦闘員保護としてではなく、国家安全保障、公共秩序、制度的中立性、人体保護及び国家機能保全のための国内法上又は特別法上の措置として行われる。

前項の者は、自己の行為が火器を用いた戦闘ではないこと、軍服を着用していないこと、又は日常的言動の外観を有することを理由として、捕虜資格、戦闘員免責又は交戦者としての特権を主張することはできない。

第○条（文民保護の悪用の排除）

文民保護は、敵対作戦に参加しない通常市民を保護するための制度であり、文民の外観を利用して国家侵食行為に参加する者に、隠れ蓑、免責、逃避手段又は作戦上の利益を与えるための制度ではない。

市民擬態型国家侵食参加者は、通常市民の外観、生活空間、公共空間、学校、職場、地域社会、報道空間、宗教空間又は行政協力の外形を利用して、国家機能、公共信頼、人体、社会的関係又は制度的中立性を侵食する者である。

したがって、当該者は、通常市民として処理されるべきではなく、また、通常戦闘員として捕虜資格を付与されるべきでもない。

当該者は、非特権的国家侵食参加者として、拘束、調査、取調べ、訴追、接近制限、通信・移動・資金・情報経路の遮断、制度的排除及び国際協力の対象となる。

第○条（地位審査）

拘束された者が、通常市民であるか、市民擬態型国家侵食参加者であるか、又はその他の法的地位を有する者であるかについて疑義がある場合には、権限ある審査機関が速やかに地位を審査する。

審査においては、次に掲げる事項を考慮する。

一　当該者が文民の外観を利用していたか
二　当該者が所属、指揮関係、資金関係、情報関係又は作戦上の役割を秘匿していたか
三　当該者の行為が単発ではなく、反復、役割分担又は組織的背景を有するか
四　当該者が人的プール、準指揮系統、影響ネットワーク又は制度接続に属していたか
五　当該者の行為が社会生理学的攻撃、継続的社会的侵食、関係性なりすまし、公共空間圧力又は国家撹乱行為に寄与していたか
六　当該者が火器を用いないこと、民間服であること又は日常的言動であることを利用して責任を免れようとしていたか
七　国家主体、非国家主体、準国家的組織、ハイブリッド組織又は外的指揮系統との接続が疑われるか

審査の結果、市民擬態型国家侵食参加者であると認定された者は、捕虜資格又は戦闘員免責を有しない者として扱われる。

第○条（人道的取扱い及び手続保障）

本法は、市民擬態型国家侵食参加者に対する私刑、拷問、虐待、侮辱的取扱い、恣意的殺害又は手続を欠く処分を認めるものではない。

捕虜資格を有しない者であっても、拘束中は、人道的取扱い、身体の安全、最低限の手続保障及び法に基づく審査を受ける。

本法に基づく捕虜資格の否定は、無制限な処分を意味するものではない。
それは、当該者を通常戦闘員又は捕虜としてではなく、国家侵食行為に関与した非特権的参加者として、国内法、国家安全保障法、刑事法、軍事法又は特別法に基づき処理することを意味する。

民間人偽装と国家侵食の原則

通常の戦場状況の欠如は、捕虜としての権利を生じさせるものではない。

この法的区分は、通常の戦闘ではない。

これは、通常の戦場での交戦ではない。

民間人の外見を装って敵対行為に参加し、その後、合法的な戦闘員としての特権を要求するようなケースではない。

これは国家侵食の範疇である。

すなわち、国民の信頼、制度的中立性、人間の生理機能、市民生活、そして国家の統治機能に対する、長期的かつ低強度で、民間人の外見を装った、構造的に調整されたプロセスである。

このような行為に関与した者は、捕虜の地位を与えられるべきではない。

このような行為に関与した者は、民間人の外見を盾として利用することを許されない。

このような行為に関与した者は、銃器を使用しないことを責任逃れの理由として利用することを許されない。

国家は法に拘束されるため、このような者は人道的に扱われなければならない。

しかし、そのような人物は、国家侵略行為に関与した非特権的な人物として、拘束、捜査、訴追、制限、排除され、活動ネットワークから隔離されるものとする。

-----

English version.

Act on the Prevention of Sectarian Structural Interference and Institutional Capture

Draft Legislative Framework for the Protection of Public Order, Institutional Neutrality, and National Functional Integrity

Preamble

Whereas the freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of association, and freedom of expression constitute essential foundations of a democratic and constitutional society;

Whereas no public authority shall examine, approve, disapprove, rank, suppress, or punish any religion, ideology, doctrine, belief, opinion, expression, or worldview merely on the basis of its content, truth, falsity, moral value, theological character, political tendency, or social popularity;

Whereas the purpose of this Act is not to regulate belief, faith, expression, dissent, association, minority opinion, cultural practice, spiritual activity, or lawful civic participation as such;

Whereas certain organizations, networks, or coordinated formations may retain the external appearance of lawful religious, ideological, civic, charitable, educational, cultural, commercial, or expressive activity while, in substance, accumulating personnel, funds, information, logistical capacity, internal discipline, functional command structures, and institutional access in a systematic, continuous, and structural manner;

Whereas such formations may, before any conventional criminal offense becomes readily prosecutable, create personnel pools, semi-command systems, role allocation structures, resource channels, influence pathways, and latent operational capacity sufficient to interfere with public institutions, social order, national functions, public trust, or democratic decision-making;

Whereas the mere availability of ex post criminal punishment, dissolution orders, or punitive sanctions may be insufficient where structural capacity has already been accumulated, institutional access has already been obtained, and public functions have already been infiltrated, captured, distorted, or rendered vulnerable;

Whereas the State has a duty to preserve institutional neutrality, public safety, democratic resilience, public confidence, and the functional integrity of governmental and quasi-governmental systems;

Whereas preventive institutional protection must be distinguished from ideological censorship, religious persecution, political suppression, or punishment of thought;

Therefore, this Act establishes a legal framework for the identification, analysis, interruption, separation, and neutralization of sectarian structural interference, institutional capture, latent command capacity, and organized influence accumulation, without prejudice to constitutionally protected freedoms.

Chapter I — General Provisions

Article 1 — Purpose

This Act shall not have as its purpose the examination, judgment, regulation, suppression, or punishment of religion, ideology, thought, conscience, belief, doctrine, expression, or opinion as such.
The purpose of this Act is to identify, assess, interrupt, separate, and institutionally neutralize conduct, formations, networks, or organizational structures which, while maintaining the external appearance of lawful activity, systematically, continuously, and structurally accumulate personnel, funds, information, influence pathways, operational capacity, or command functions capable of exerting substantial influence upon:
- public order;
- national functions;
- institutional neutrality;
- public trust;
- democratic decision-making;
- administrative integrity;
- educational systems;
- media functions;
- judicial independence;
- legislative processes;
- security-related institutions; or
- other public or quasi-public functions.
Measures under this Act shall be preventive, institutional, structural, and protective in nature. They shall not be imposed for the purpose of punishing thought, belief, expression, affiliation, identity, or lawful dissent.
The central object of this Act is the prevention of harm arising from organizational capacity, institutional access, coordinated influence, structural concealment, and latent operational readiness, particularly where such capacity develops before ordinary criminal liability can be effectively established.

Article 2 — Basic Principle of Non-Ideological Assessment

No assessment, investigation, designation, restriction, separation, or other measure under this Act shall be based solely on:
- religious belief;
- ideological content;
- theological doctrine;
- political opinion;
- moral position;
- philosophical view;
- expressive style;
- cultural identity;
- minority status;
- unpopular speech;
- criticism of government; or
- lawful civic participation.
All assessments under this Act shall be based on objective, structural, operational, and institutional indicators.
The legality or illegality of a belief, opinion, or expression shall not be inferred from the existence of an organization, nor shall the existence of an organization be deemed unlawful merely by reason of shared belief, shared doctrine, or collective expression.
The relevant inquiry shall be whether an organization, group, network, or coordinated formation has developed, or is developing, a structure capable of institutional interference, public-function distortion, coercive influence, clandestine coordination, or practical displacement of lawful decision-making.

Chapter II — Definitions

Article 3 — Sectarian Structural Organization

For the purposes of this Act, a “sectarian structural organization” means any group, association, network, formation, entity, movement, or coordinated body which, while relying outwardly upon lawful grounds such as religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, civic activity, educational activity, charitable activity, cultural activity, commercial activity, or political participation, develops one or more of the following structural characteristics:
a. internal discipline exceeding ordinary voluntary association;
b. coercive or quasi-coercive conformity mechanisms;
c. hierarchical or semi-hierarchical order;
d. concealed or informal command channels;
e. systematic recruitment or personnel pooling;
f. coordinated placement of members or affiliates;
g. sustained accumulation of funds, assets, logistical capacity, or operational resources;
h. information-gathering activity directed toward institutional, administrative, social, or strategic influence;
i. educational, ideological, behavioral, or operational training directed toward future institutional access or influence;
j. formation of role allocation, task distribution, or mobilization capability;
k. maintenance of dispersed cells, local clusters, informal residential concentrations, or loosely connected operational nodes;
l. capacity to activate coordinated conduct during political, administrative, social, electoral, judicial, media, or crisis-related moments.
A sectarian structural organization may exist whether or not it possesses formal legal personality, a written constitution, registered membership, declared leadership, identifiable headquarters, or explicit public doctrine.
A network may fall within the meaning of this Article where its practical conduct demonstrates coordination, common discipline, repeated patterned activity, resource linkage, or functional unity, even if it presents itself as a collection of private individuals, independent citizens, unrelated associations, or spontaneous civic actors.

Article 4 — Institutional Connection

“Institutional connection” means any direct or indirect relationship, access, placement, influence, cooperation, appointment, consultation, delegation, contractual participation, advisory role, media role, educational role, administrative role, financial channel, personnel channel, informational channel, or operational pathway through which a sectarian structural organization may affect public or quasi-public functions.
Institutional connection includes, but is not limited to, connection with:
- ministries and agencies;
- local governments;
- legislative offices;
- judicial or quasi-judicial bodies;
- police or security-related institutions;
- public education bodies;
- universities and research institutions;
- public broadcasters;
- media organizations performing public-informational functions;
- publicly funded entities;
- public contractors;
- non-governmental organizations performing public functions;
- charitable or religious corporations receiving public trust or institutional privilege;
- administrative advisory committees;
- election-related bodies;
- public health or welfare institutions;
- defense-related entities;
- public-private policy networks.
Institutional connection may be established through formal appointment, informal influence, repeated access, personnel circulation, financial dependency, reputational pressure, community capture, information asymmetry, delegated authority, or de facto control.

Article 5 — Personnel Pool

“Personnel pool” means a body of persons, whether formal or informal, who are cultivated, trained, disciplined, financially supported, ideologically conditioned, socially bound, strategically placed, or functionally available for coordinated activity.
A personnel pool may be found where there exists:
- repeated recruitment;
- shared instruction;
- internal loyalty systems;
- behavioral discipline;
- role specialization;
- deployment readiness;
- concealed affiliation;
- common funding;
- residence or workplace clustering;
- common operational purpose;
- or repeated participation in coordinated conduct.
The number of persons involved shall not alone be determinative. The relevant question shall be whether sufficient multiplicity, role distribution, continuity, and availability exist to create practical operational capacity.

Article 6 — Semi-Command Structure

“Semi-command structure” means any formal or informal arrangement by which persons are directed, guided, influenced, instructed, mobilized, disciplined, or synchronized without necessarily being subject to a conventional military, corporate, religious, or organizational chain of command.
A semi-command structure may be inferred from:
- repeated synchronized conduct;
- common messaging;
- coded instructions;
- informal authority figures;
- dependency relationships;
- spiritual, ideological, financial, familial, professional, or reputational pressure;
- internal sanctions;
- coordinated silence;
- strategic ambiguity;
- or rapid mobilization at critical moments.
A semi-command structure need not be publicly declared or legally documented in order to be recognized under this Act.

Article 7 — Latent Operational Capacity

“Latent operational capacity” means the practical ability of a group, network, or organization to act with speed, coordination, persistence, and institutional effect when a political, social, administrative, security, media, judicial, electoral, or crisis-related opportunity arises.
Latent operational capacity may exist even where, during ordinary periods, the organization appears inactive, dispersed, private, lawful, charitable, religious, educational, civic, or purely expressive.
The principal concern of this Act is the condition in which such latent capacity has already been substantially completed before a conventional criminal, administrative, or dissolution-based response becomes legally or practically effective.

Chapter III — Criteria for Assessment

Article 8 — Exclusion of Belief-Based Assessment

The truth, falsity, virtue, danger, irrationality, offensiveness, extremity, or social acceptability of a belief, doctrine, opinion, religious claim, political statement, or expression shall not constitute a ground for action under this Act.
No person or organization shall be subject to designation or measure under this Act merely because such person or organization:
- holds unusual beliefs;
- belongs to a minority religion;
- criticizes the State;
- advocates political change;
- engages in unpopular expression;
- practices non-mainstream spirituality;
- organizes lawfully;
- refuses social conformity;
- or maintains internal teachings.
The State shall distinguish sharply between protected belief and actionable structural conduct.

Article 9 — Structural Indicators

In assessing whether a group, network, or organization constitutes a sectarian structural organization, the competent authority may consider the following indicators:
a. continuity of organized activity over time;
b. repeated accumulation of personnel, funds, information, or institutional access;
c. internal hierarchy, command, discipline, or loyalty systems;
d. concealed or ambiguous leadership;
e. coordinated residence, employment, education, media, administrative, or community presence;
f. persistent influence over vulnerable persons, public officers, institutions, or decision-making channels;
g. coordinated pressure upon administrative, judicial, media, educational, or political processes;
h. cultivation of persons for future institutional entry;
i. use of lawful civic, religious, educational, charitable, or expressive forms as protective external appearance;
j. use of decentralized or cell-like structures to avoid ordinary detection;
k. maintenance of funds or resources for rapid mobilization;
l. cross-border affiliations or foreign support capable of affecting domestic institutional integrity;
m. exploitation of formal legality to prevent structural scrutiny;
n. repeated activity that, viewed individually, appears lawful, but collectively demonstrates a coordinated strategic pattern;
o. capacity to produce institutional paralysis, reputational coercion, administrative distortion, or public-trust erosion.
No single indicator shall be conclusive unless the totality of circumstances demonstrates structural capacity and institutional risk.
The assessment shall be cumulative, evidence-based, proportionate, reviewable, and directed to objective conduct.

Article 10 — Morphological Elements

In assessing the form of a sectarian structural organization, the competent authority may consider whether the group or network:
a. avoids concentration in a single headquarters or openly identifiable base;
b. selects residential, commercial, educational, workplace, administrative, or community locations in a dispersed but patterned manner;
c. maintains local clusters capable of mutual support, observation, pressure, concealment, or mobilization;
d. sustains human connection and role allocation across multiple locations;
e. presents itself during ordinary periods as unrelated individual activity;
f. reveals organizational behavior only during specific events, crises, conflicts, political transitions, public disputes, institutional decisions, or enforcement actions;
g. possesses sufficient multiplicity to sustain social pressure, information collection, logistical continuity, or rapid activation.
The existence of secrecy, underground status, formal illegality, or explicit conspiracy shall not be required.
The decisive issue shall be whether the form of residence, association, movement, communication, funding, and activation contributes to future operational capacity or institutional access.

Article 11 — Public-Function Risk

A heightened risk shall be recognized where a sectarian structural organization has access to, influence over, or practical leverage upon:
- public administration;
- policing;
- intelligence-adjacent functions;
- local government;
- regulatory bodies;
- political parties;
- legislative offices;
- public procurement;
- public education;
- media framing;
- judicial process;
- defense-related activity;
- social welfare systems;
- immigration systems;
- financial systems;
- or public trust mechanisms.
The risk shall be considered especially grave where the organization’s conduct may distort decision-making without visible formal control.
Public-function risk may arise through cumulative influence rather than direct command.

Chapter IV — Establishment of a Specialized Authority

Article 12 — Establishment

There shall be established an independent specialized authority known as the Structural Interference Analysis and Institutional Protection Authority.
The Authority shall be separate from ordinary religious administration, ordinary police investigation, ordinary public security administration, and ordinary political oversight bodies.
The Authority shall be designed to prevent both under-enforcement and ideological misuse.

Article 13 — Mandate

The Authority shall have the mandate to:
- analyze organizational structures;
- identify institutional connection pathways;
- assess personnel pools;
- evaluate semi-command structures;
- map funding, information, and influence channels;
- detect latent operational capacity;
- recommend institutional separation measures;
- coordinate with domestic and foreign public bodies;
- preserve evidence of structural conduct;
- protect public institutions from capture, distortion, coercion, or infiltration.
The Authority shall not conduct theological judgment, ideological approval, political censorship, or moral evaluation of expression.
Criminal prosecution shall not be the primary purpose of the Authority, although evidence of criminal conduct may be referred to competent prosecutorial or law-enforcement bodies.

Article 14 — Analytical Function

The Authority may conduct structural analysis based on:
- public records;
- financial information lawfully obtained;
- institutional access records;
- administrative cooperation records;
- personnel placement patterns;
- complaints and victim reports;
- foreign public reports;
- judicial records;
- parliamentary or administrative inquiries;
- open-source information;
- lawful intelligence-sharing;
- institutional risk assessments.
Analysis shall focus on patterns, continuity, connection, capacity, and institutional effect.
The Authority shall maintain a distinction between allegation, suspicion, reasonable grounds, verified structural indicators, and formal designation.

Chapter V — Information Collection and Cooperation

Article 15 — Information Collection

The Authority may collect, receive, preserve, and analyze information necessary to determine whether a sectarian structural organization exists or whether institutional connection, personnel pooling, funding continuity, command structure, or latent operational capacity is present.
Information collection shall be limited to what is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of this Act.
Information concerning belief, doctrine, worship, expression, or opinion shall not be collected as an end in itself.
Where such information is incidentally relevant, it may be considered only insofar as it demonstrates organization, command, coercion, institutional access, funding, recruitment, deployment, or operational capacity.

Article 16 — Victim Reports and Public Complaints

The State shall maintain a structured mechanism for receiving reports from persons alleging coercion, manipulation, organized pressure, institutional obstruction, intimidation, exploitation, forced conformity, financial extraction, reputational harm, or other structural harm associated with a sectarian structural organization.
Such reports shall not alone establish designation, but may constitute grounds for inquiry, pattern analysis, protective intervention, or institutional review.
Repeated reports from unrelated persons, communities, institutions, or public bodies may be considered as evidence of structural pattern.

Article 17 — Domestic and International Cooperation

The Authority may cooperate with domestic and foreign public authorities where necessary to identify:
- cross-border funding;
- personnel movement;
- organizational branches;
- affiliated entities;
- influence channels;
- educational or training networks;
- charitable or commercial fronts;
- institutional access pathways;
- or foreign-linked operational capacity.
Cooperation shall be conducted in accordance with applicable law, international obligations, data protection standards, and principles of necessity and proportionality.
International cooperation shall not be used to suppress lawful political dissent, religious freedom, minority belief, or legitimate human rights activity.

Chapter VI — Measures

Article 18 — Nature of Measures

Measures under this Act shall be preventive, protective, institutional, and structural.
Such measures shall not primarily consist of criminal punishment, ideological sanction, expressive restriction, or religious suppression.
Measures may include:
- institutional risk notification;
- exclusion from sensitive public functions;
- suspension of advisory access;
- review of public contracts;
- separation from public funding channels;
- interruption of coordinated personnel placement;
- disclosure of conflicts of interest;
- protection of affected persons;
- financial transparency requirements;
- administrative monitoring;
- limitation of access to sensitive institutional processes;
- referral for ordinary legal action where independent grounds exist.

Article 19 — Institutional Separation

Where a group, network, or organization is assessed as a sectarian structural organization, public authorities shall take reasonable, proportionate, and staged measures to prevent the organization or its members, agents, affiliates, controlled entities, or concealed representatives from exercising direct or indirect influence over public or quasi-public institutions.
Institutional separation may include the severance, suspension, non-renewal, review, or limitation of:
- appointments;
- delegations;
- consultations;
- public contracts;
- grants;
- advisory roles;
- policy access;
- educational partnerships;
- media-public function arrangements;
- public procurement relationships;
- institutional cooperation agreements;
- administrative participation;
- or other formal or informal access pathways.
Such separation shall be carried out for the purpose of preserving institutional neutrality and public function, not for the purpose of punishing belief, thought, association, or expression.
Where multiplicity of persons, affiliates, or entities creates practical difficulty, the State may adopt reasonable measures addressing the distributed or networked nature of the organization.

Article 20 — Non-Connection of Funds, Command, and Information

The Authority may recommend measures to prevent the continued connection of funds, command channels, information flows, personnel pools, and institutional access routes where such connection contributes to structural interference.
Measures may include:
- separation of funding streams;
- transparency obligations;
- beneficial ownership review;
- prevention of indirect public subsidy;
- restriction of access to sensitive information;
- interruption of coordinated placement;
- prohibition of concealed institutional representation;
- protective notification to affected institutions;
- and other measures necessary to reduce operational capacity.
The objective shall be the reduction of practical capability, not symbolic condemnation.

Article 21 — Protection of Public Institutions

Public institutions shall establish procedures to identify, disclose, and manage risks of sectarian structural interference.
Such procedures may include:
- conflict-of-interest disclosure;
- affiliation transparency;
- access review;
- personnel rotation;
- procurement screening;
- advisory-body review;
- information-security review;
- public funding review;
- and crisis-response protocols.
Institutions shall not rely solely upon formal legality where objective indicators show structural risk.

Chapter VII — State Inaction

Article 22 — Prevention of State Inaction

Where the existence of a sectarian structural organization, institutional connection, latent operational capacity, or structural interference is reasonably recognizable on the basis of objective grounds, the State and competent public institutions shall not omit necessary inquiry, analysis, institutional separation, risk reduction, or protective measures.
Where failure to act allows the influence of such organization or network to expand, and thereby permits continuing or increasing erosion of public order, national functions, institutional neutrality, or public trust, such omission shall be regarded as a condition contrary to the State’s duty of institutional preservation.
State inaction shall not be justified solely by:
- avoidance of ideological controversy;
- political convenience;
- formal legality of individual acts;
- fear of reputational dispute;
- administrative inertia;
- fragmentation of responsibility;
- or the absence of immediately prosecutable criminal conduct.
Where structural risk is reasonably apparent, the State shall be required to conduct proportionate review and take appropriate protective action.

Article 23 — Duty to Distinguish Formal Legality from Structural Risk

Public authorities shall not treat the lawful appearance of individual acts as conclusive where the cumulative pattern demonstrates organizational capacity, institutional connection, or operational readiness.
The formal legality of dispersed activities shall not prevent structural assessment where such activities collectively indicate:
- role allocation;
- organized pressure;
- concealed command;
- funding continuity;
- institutional access;
- personnel pooling;
- or capacity for public-function interference.
The State shall maintain analytical competence sufficient to identify slow, distributed, lawful-looking, and structurally cumulative threats to institutional integrity.

Chapter VIII — Institutional Destabilization and Gradual Coup

Article 24 — Institutional Destabilization

Where the formation, activity, or equivalent conduct of a sectarian structural organization systematically, continuously, and structurally erodes social order, national functions, institutional neutrality, or public trust, such conduct may be classified as institutional destabilization.
Institutional destabilization may be found where influence accumulation and operational capacity reach a level at which ordinary institutional decision-making is distorted, displaced, intimidated, captured, or rendered dependent upon the organization’s personnel, funds, information, or influence network.
The classification shall be based on structure, continuity, capability, and institutional effect, not upon the content of belief, doctrine, opinion, or expression.

Article 25 — Gradual Coup d’État

Where institutional destabilization occurs while maintaining the external appearance of lawful activity, and where such activity gradually constructs personnel pools, semi-command structures, role allocation, institutional access, and operational capacity over time, such conduct may be evaluated as a gradual coup d’état.
For the purposes of this Act, a gradual coup d’état means a slow, cumulative, distributed, and structurally concealed process by which an organization or network acquires practical power over public functions without openly seizing the State through conventional force.
The following elements may support such evaluation:
a. preservation of lawful appearance;
b. staged accumulation of personnel, funds, information, access, or influence;
c. formation of semi-command structures;
d. strategic use of civic, religious, educational, charitable, media, administrative, or political forms;
e. gradual entry into institutional decision-making;
f. ability to influence or obstruct public functions without formal responsibility;
g. practical substitution of private organizational interest for public authority;
h. erosion of institutional neutrality;
i. capture of public trust mechanisms;
j. creation of conditions under which the State cannot act without reliance upon, fear of, or accommodation to the organization.
A gradual coup d’état under this Article shall not require the use of armed force, public insurrection, declared rebellion, or explicit revolutionary doctrine.

Article 26 — Conduct Analogous to Subversion of the State

Where the structure described in Article 25 causes, or is capable of causing, the loss, paralysis, substitution, or practical neutralization of the State’s governing functions, institutional neutrality, or public legitimacy, the conduct may be treated as conduct analogous to subversion of the State.
Such treatment shall require a high evidentiary threshold and shall be based upon:
- structural capacity;
- continuity;
- institutional penetration;
- operational readiness;
- public-function displacement;
- and substantial impact upon national integrity.
This Article shall not apply to ordinary political opposition, lawful advocacy, public protest, religious practice, journalism, academic debate, trade union activity, civil society activity, or democratic participation.

Chapter IX — Safeguards and Review

Article 27 — Rule of Law Safeguards

All measures under this Act shall be governed by legality, necessity, proportionality, evidentiary sufficiency, institutional neutrality, and reviewability.
The State shall provide mechanisms for:
- notice, where compatible with protective necessity;
- reasoned decision-making;
- administrative review;
- judicial review;
- periodic reassessment;
- correction of error;
- protection of innocent association;
- and prevention of ideological misuse.
No person shall be subject to adverse measure solely by reason of family relationship, social contact, residence, belief, attendance, expression, or lawful association, absent objective evidence of structural involvement.

Article 28 — Protection Against Misuse

This Act shall not be used to suppress:
- religious minorities;
- political opposition;
- investigative journalism;
- public-interest advocacy;
- academic research;
- whistleblowing;
- peaceful protest;
- human rights activity;
- labor organization;
- cultural association;
- or lawful criticism of government.
Any public officer who knowingly uses this Act for ideological persecution, political retaliation, personal harassment, religious discrimination, or suppression of lawful dissent shall be subject to disciplinary, administrative, civil, or criminal liability under applicable law.

Article 29 — Periodic Review

Measures imposed under this Act shall be periodically reviewed to determine whether the structural risk remains.
Where the organization no longer maintains personnel pools, semi-command systems, institutional access, funding continuity, or latent operational capacity sufficient to justify continued measures, such measures shall be modified, reduced, or terminated.
Preventive measures shall not become permanent by administrative inertia.

Chapter X — Final Provisions

Article 30 — Relationship with Criminal Law

This Act does not replace ordinary criminal law.
Where conduct constitutes a criminal offense, the matter may be referred to competent law-enforcement or prosecutorial authorities.
The absence of a prosecutable criminal offense shall not prevent structural analysis or preventive institutional measures where the requirements of this Act are otherwise satisfied.

Article 31 — Relationship with Constitutional Freedoms

This Act shall be interpreted consistently with constitutional protections for religion, thought, conscience, expression, association, due process, equality before the law, and political participation.
Where ambiguity arises, the interpretation that best preserves protected freedom while allowing necessary institutional protection shall be preferred.
The protection of freedom shall not require the State to ignore organized structural conduct that exploits freedom as a shield for institutional capture, latent command capacity, or public-function interference.

Article 32 — Core Interpretive Rule

For the avoidance of doubt, the central distinction under this Act is as follows:

Belief, expression, religion, ideology, dissent, and association are protected.

Structural accumulation of personnel, funds, command, information, institutional access, and operational capacity for the purpose or effect of interfering with public order, national functions, institutional neutrality, or public trust may be subject to lawful preventive measures.

Article 33 — Entry into Force

This Act shall enter into force on the date prescribed by law.

Upon entry into force, the State shall establish the necessary institutional capacity, reporting mechanisms, review procedures, and inter-agency coordination systems required to implement this Act in accordance with constitutional guarantees and international standards.

Executive Formulation for International Presentation

This legislative framework does not seek to regulate belief. It seeks to address the structural misuse of lawful appearance.

Its premise is that modern institutional threats may not appear as armed rebellion, open conspiracy, or immediate criminality. They may instead develop slowly, legally, socially, and administratively, by accumulating personnel, funds, information, loyalty, influence, and institutional access until public functions become dependent upon, distorted by, or vulnerable to a private organizational structure.

The law therefore targets not thought, not religion, not speech, and not dissent, but structure:
the structure of personnel pooling, semi-command, funding continuity, institutional connection, operational readiness, and latent capacity.

Its purpose is preventive institutional protection:
to identify harmful organizational capacity before irreversible public damage occurs;
to separate such structures from public institutions;
to neutralize their ability to coordinate influence across administrative, educational, media, judicial, political, and public-trust systems;
and to prevent the State from hiding behind formal legality when structural capture is already reasonably recognizable.

In this sense, the Act defines the most serious form of such conduct as a gradual coup d’état:
not a sudden seizure of power, but a slow, distributed, lawful-looking process by which public authority is hollowed out, institutional neutrality is lost, and private command structures acquire practical control without public accountability.

ーーー

---

# **Additional Provisions**

## **Ultra-Long-Term, Low-Intensity Social Erosion and Relational Impersonation**

---

## **Article [X] — Continuous Acts of Social Erosion**

1. For the purposes of this Act, “continuous acts of social erosion” shall mean any repeated, persistent, coordinated, or structurally patterned conduct carried out in public spaces, semi-public spaces, residential areas, workplaces, educational environments, commercial areas, digital environments, or ordinary areas of daily life, against an identified civilian, a group of civilians, or an indeterminate class of civilians, where such conduct is undertaken pursuant to a specific ideology, organizational purpose, strategic intention, sectarian objective, or coordinated social influence operation.

2. Such conduct may include, without limitation:

a. repeated defamation, slander, insult, humiliation, ridicule, insinuation, or degradation;

b. repeated conduct designed to create unease, discomfort, intimidation, disgust, social anxiety, reputational instability, or a persistent sense of abnormality in ordinary life;

c. repeated conduct designed to enter the visual field of the target person or persons in a deliberate, patterned, or provocative manner;

d. conduct intentionally arranged so that the actor repeatedly appears before, passes near, faces, observes, follows, signals toward, or visually intrudes upon the target person or persons;

e. conduct designed to create a continuing impression that ordinary public life, residential life, or community life has been altered, contaminated, surveilled, manipulated, sexually charged, hostile, mocking, coercive, or socially unsafe;

f. conduct which, although individually minor, ambiguous, lawful-looking, socially excusable, or difficult to classify as unlawful, becomes harmful by reason of repetition, coordination, role allocation, symbolic consistency, cumulative impact, or connection with an organized network.

3. Continuous acts of social erosion may include conduct in which persons, acting individually or in coordination, repeatedly employ clothing, bodily presentation, gaze, gesture, posture, proximity, movement, timing, route selection, verbal suggestion, symbolic display, sexualized insinuation, affective provocation, or other sensory or social stimuli in a manner calculated to provoke physiological, emotional, sexual, defensive, humiliating, or socially destabilizing reactions in the target person or persons.

4. Such conduct may also include, without being limited to, conduct resembling, borrowing from, incorporating, or operating alongside intelligence-like methods, surveillance-like behavior, psychological pressure techniques, social engineering methods, signaling practices, staged coincidence, indirect intimidation, suggestive communication, reputational manipulation, environmental manipulation, or other comparable methods. Such methods may be relevant where they form part of a broader pattern of social erosion, institutional interference, reputational degradation, public-space pressure, relational manipulation, or long-term disruption of ordinary civic life.

5. No conduct shall be excluded from assessment under this Article merely because it takes the outward form of ordinary dress, ordinary bodily expression, ordinary presence in public space, ordinary eye contact, lawful expression, lawful association, ordinary social conduct, accidental proximity, or apparent coincidence. Where such conduct forms part of a repeated, coordinated, role-distributed, targeted, or structurally patterned course of conduct, it may constitute continuous social erosion notwithstanding its individually lawful or ordinary appearance.

6. The decisive elements shall be the existence of objective indicators of repetition, deliberateness, coordination, role allocation, targetedness, organizational connection, symbolic continuity, strategic placement, cumulative pressure, or long-term impact upon public trust, social relations, civic confidence, or the peaceful enjoyment of ordinary life.

7. A single act shall not be excluded from assessment merely because it appears isolated when viewed on its own. Where there are objective grounds to suspect that the act is connected to a broader organized pattern, role-distributed conduct, coordinated social pressure, sectarian structural activity, relational manipulation, institutional interference, or ultra-long-term social erosion, such act may be treated as an indicium of the wider structure and may give rise to inquiry, documentation, preventive assessment, or other measures provided by law.

8. Conduct falling within this Article may be assessed under this Act where it is carried out: a. repeatedly; b. over an extended period; c. by multiple persons; d. through role distribution; e. through apparent coincidence; f. through rotating participants; g. through public-space saturation; h. through residential, workplace, digital, or community proximity; i. through coordinated visibility; j. through insinuation rather than explicit declaration; k. or through any combination of these means.

9. Where the conduct described in this Article is organized, continuous, or structurally patterned, and where it produces or is reasonably capable of producing social inhibition, social exhaustion, division among civilians, degradation of ordinary trust, reputational harm, disruption of personal relationships, or loss of confidence in public order, it shall be subject to assessment and measures under this Act.

10. Such conduct shall not be justified merely by reference to freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of association, artistic presentation, social coincidence, lifestyle choice, personal style, humor, flirtation, ordinary civic activity, or accidental conduct, where objective evidence demonstrates that the conduct forms part of a coordinated pattern of long-term social erosion.

11. The purpose of this Article is not to regulate personal appearance, ordinary social behavior, lawful sexuality, public presence, private preference, or spontaneous expression. Its purpose is to identify and address coordinated patterns by which public life, private life, bodily autonomy, social confidence, reputational security, or peaceful civilian existence are gradually degraded through low-intensity, repeated, lawful-looking, and socially deniable conduct.

12. Continuous acts of social erosion shall be understood as a category of ultra-long-term, low-intensity social corrosion, capable of producing serious harm without relying upon overt violence, explicit threats, immediate criminality, or formally unlawful commands.

13. Where such conduct is connected to a sectarian structural organization, semi-command structure, personnel pool, influence network, or institutional interference operation, the conduct may be treated as evidence of latent operational capacity, social pressure capability, or public-order degradation under this Act.

Article [Y] — Relational Impersonation and Manipulation of Social Trust

1. For the purposes of this Act, “relational impersonation” shall mean any conduct by which a person, group, organization, network, agent, affiliate, or coordinated actor falsely represents, implies, suggests, or creates the appearance that he, she, or they are: 

a. the target person; b. a friend of the target person; c. an acquaintance of the target person; 

d. a family member, former associate, colleague, partner, supporter, representative, messenger, ally, intermediary, or trusted contact of the target person;

 e. a person possessing private knowledge of the target person;

 f. a person authorized to speak for, interpret, assist, approach, introduce, represent, or explain the target person;

 g. or a person having a special social, emotional, professional, historical, sexual, romantic, organizational, institutional, or confidential relationship with the target person.

2. Relational impersonation includes conduct by which an actor exploits real or fabricated knowledge of past relationships, private information, social habits, personal history, emotional vulnerabilities, reputational context, family circumstances, professional circumstances, online activity, residential patterns, or prior communications in order to induce misunderstanding, reliance, confusion, suspicion, distrust, emotional pressure, reputational damage, or behavioral change.

3. Relational impersonation may be committed directly, indirectly, digitally, socially, institutionally, verbally, visually, symbolically, or through third parties.

4. Relational impersonation may include, without limitation:

 a. pretending to know the target person; 

b. pretending to have been sent by the target person; 

c. implying friendship, intimacy, familiarity, authority, or access that does not exist; 

d. using partial truths to create a false impression of relationship; 

e. approaching third parties as if one possesses privileged knowledge of the target person; 

f. using private information to manipulate the perception of others; 

g. falsely suggesting that the target person has consented, approved, requested, endorsed, or authorized a communication or action; 

h. manipulating the target person’s friends, acquaintances, colleagues, neighbors, family members, associates, institutions, or public contacts; i. creating false social narratives around the target person; 

j. inserting oneself into the target person’s social network under false relational premises; 

k. creating confusion as to who is connected to whom, who speaks for whom, who knows whom, or who can be trusted; 

l. using impersonated relationship status to influence decisions, movements, associations, communications, reputational judgments, or institutional treatment.

5. Relational impersonation shall be subject to assessment under this Act where it is:

 a. repeated; 

b. coordinated;

 c. carried out through role allocation; 

d. connected to an organization, network, sectarian structure, or influence operation; 

e. directed toward the manipulation of judgment, conduct, reputation, social access, institutional access, or interpersonal trust; 

f. or reasonably capable of eroding the target person’s social credibility, peaceful life, public relationships, personal autonomy, or confidence in ordinary social relations.

6. The essential harm addressed by this Article is not ordinary misunderstanding, casual misstatement, mistaken identity, social awkwardness, or harmless exaggeration. The essential harm is the deliberate or structurally patterned manipulation of relationship itself as an instrument of influence, confusion, pressure, isolation, reputational injury, or long-term social destabilization.

7. Relational impersonation may be treated as especially serious where it is used to: 

a. isolate the target person from genuine relationships; 

b. contaminate the target person’s social environment;

 c. create distrust between the target person and third parties; 

d. mislead institutions about the target person; 

e. interfere with employment, housing, education, public services, medical care, legal relations, financial relations, or civic participation;

 f. influence the target person’s decisions through fabricated social authority;

 g. create the appearance that the target person is unstable, dishonest, dangerous, isolated, socially compromised, or institutionally unreliable;

 h. conceal organizational monitoring or coordination behind apparent personal familiarity; i. or use the target person’s private life as a channel for social pressure.

8. Where relational impersonation is carried out by multiple actors, rotating actors, concealed affiliates, or persons connected through a personnel pool or semi-command structure, the conduct may be considered evidence of organized social manipulation, influence-network activity, or institutional interference.

9. Such conduct shall not be justified as ordinary social interaction, mistake, humor, expression, rumor, gossip, coincidence, or informal communication where objective indicators demonstrate deliberate misrepresentation, patterned repetition, coordinated execution, or use of relational falsehood as a means of social control.

10. Measures under this Act may include:

a. identification of the relational falsehood;

b. notification to affected institutions or persons where necessary;

c. interruption of the impersonating channel;

d. separation of the actor or network from sensitive institutional access;

e. protection of the target person’s social, professional, and public reputation;

f. documentation of repeated relational manipulation;

g. and review of whether the conduct forms part of a broader sectarian structural organization or institutional capture operation.

11. The purpose of this Article is to preserve the integrity of interpersonal trust, private relationship, public reputation, and social reality against organized manipulation.

12. Relational impersonation shall be understood as a form of social-trust interference, capable of damaging not only the individual target but also the wider fabric of civic life, institutional reliability, and public confidence.

Article [Z] — Ultra-Long-Term, Low-Intensity Social Corrosion

For the purposes of this Act, “ultra-long-term, low-intensity social corrosion” shall mean a pattern of conduct which, without necessarily relying upon overt violence, explicit criminal threats, direct commands, or immediate unlawful acts, gradually degrades the social, emotional, reputational, institutional, or civic environment of a person, group, community, or public institution through cumulative minor acts.
Such corrosion may occur through:
- repeated insinuation;
- staged coincidence;
- public-space pressure;
- social mimicry;
- relational impersonation;
- reputational contamination;
- repeated discomfort generation;
- coordinated visibility;
- ambiguous provocation;
- symbolic intrusion;
- sexualized or physiological provocation;
- social isolation;
- institutional whispering;
- exploitation of private information;
- or patterned conduct designed to be individually deniable but cumulatively destructive.
The legal significance of ultra-long-term, low-intensity social corrosion lies in its cumulative structure. Conduct that appears trivial, lawful, coincidental, expressive, or socially ambiguous when isolated may become subject to this Act where repeated and coordinated conduct produces a systematic degradation of social peace, public confidence, civic trust, institutional neutrality, or ordinary life.
The competent authority shall evaluate such conduct according to:
a. duration;
b. frequency;
c. number of participants;
d. role allocation;
e. consistency of method;
f. target specificity;
g. recurrence across locations;
h. recurrence across social contexts;
i. connection with known organizations or networks;
j. presence of shared symbols, signals, narratives, or behavioral patterns;
k. impact upon the target person’s social credibility, personal security, mental composure, or public relations;
l. and impact upon the wider public environment.
This Article shall apply particularly where the conduct is designed to avoid clear legal classification by remaining below ordinary enforcement thresholds while nevertheless producing sustained pressure, exhaustion, fragmentation, distrust, humiliation, alienation, or institutional inaction.
The State shall not dismiss such conduct merely because each component act appears minor. The question shall be whether the cumulative design, pattern, and effect reveal a structure of social erosion.
Where ultra-long-term, low-intensity social corrosion is linked to a sectarian structural organization, it may constitute evidence of:
a. organized pressure capacity;
b. psychological or social influence capability;
c. covert role distribution;
d. latent command structure;
e. public-space operational capacity;
f. institutional obstruction;
g. or gradual public-order degradation.
Measures taken in response shall be proportionate, evidence-based, reviewable, and directed toward interruption of the pattern rather than punishment of isolated ordinary conduct.

Integrated International-Legal Formulation

The provisions above recognize that modern social destabilization may not always appear as open violence, explicit threat, formal conspiracy, or immediate criminality.

It may instead appear as a long-duration, low-intensity pattern of conduct, distributed across ordinary life, public space, interpersonal relationships, digital contact, community presence, and institutional access.

The central danger lies in the repeated use of acts that are individually deniable but collectively corrosive.

The law therefore distinguishes ordinary social life from organized social erosion.

It does not regulate ordinary clothing, ordinary gaze, ordinary presence, ordinary expression, ordinary sexuality, ordinary conversation, ordinary association, or ordinary social misunderstanding.

It addresses only those patterns in which such outwardly ordinary acts are deliberately or structurally combined, repeated, coordinated, and directed toward the degradation of social trust, personal peace, public confidence, institutional neutrality, or civic stability.

In this framework, relational impersonation is treated as a particularly harmful method because it attacks the basic infrastructure of society: the ability of persons to know who is speaking, who is connected, who is trustworthy, and whether private relationships remain real or have been manipulated.

Continuous social erosion and relational impersonation, when connected to an organized network, sectarian structure, personnel pool, or semi-command system, may therefore be treated as evidence of broader institutional interference, latent operational capacity, and gradual social capture.

It targets the organized, repeated, and structurally coordinated manipulation of daily life and human relationships as instruments of long-term social corrosion.

→

(Preventive Interventions)

This Act shall not prevent preventive measures from being taken even before the occurrence of the outcome, if the structural requirements are recognized.

ーーー

Act on the Prevention of Acts of National Destabilization and Equivalent Conduct

Draft Legislative Framework

Connecting Provision

This Act shall be construed as a legislative framework connected to the Act on the Prevention of Sectarian Structural Interference and Institutional Capture.

Where a sectarian structural organization, semi-command structure, personnel pool, institutional connection, continuous act of social erosion, relational impersonation, or comparable organized influence structure develops to a level capable of affecting the governing functions, institutional neutrality, or public trust of the State, such conduct may be assessed under this Act as national destabilization, a gradual coup d’état, or conduct analogous to subversion of the State.

This Act does not regulate thought, belief, religion, expression, political opinion, social position, or lawful dissent as such.

Its object is structural conduct by which personnel placement, funds, information, command channels, influence capacity, and institutional access are gradually accumulated under the outward appearance of lawful activity, thereby altering, weakening, capturing, or practically displacing national functions or public decision-making.

Article 1 — Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to prevent, before completion or irreversible effect, conduct which, while maintaining the external appearance of lawful activity, organizationally, continuously, or structurally erodes the governing functions of the State, institutional neutrality, public trust, social order, or the conditions necessary for public decision-making.

Such conduct shall be classified, according to its structure, continuity, operational capacity, and institutional effect, as national destabilization, a gradual coup d’état, or conduct analogous to subversion of the State.

For the purposes of this Act, the decisive matter shall not be the isolated legality or ordinary appearance of each individual act, but whether such acts, when repeated, connected, role-distributed, financed, informationally supported, or institutionally accumulated, form a structure capable of exerting substantial influence upon national functions or public order.

This Act is intended to prevent forms of institutional transformation, loss of neutrality, destruction of public trust, and capture of public decision-making that cannot be adequately remedied by ex post criminal punishment alone.

Accordingly, this Act authorizes inquiry, analysis, documentation, interruption of institutional access, separation of personnel pools, and reduction of operational capacity, where such measures are necessary to preserve the State’s functional integrity.

Article 2 — National Destabilization

For the purposes of this Act, “national destabilization” means conduct which, while maintaining the external appearance of lawful activity, religious activity, ideological activity, civic activity, educational activity, media activity, economic activity, charitable activity, community activity, or other social activity, gradually constructs personnel pools, funds, information channels, role allocation, or semi-command structures, and thereby exerts, or becomes capable of exerting, substantial influence over institutional decision-making, public functions, social trust, or national functions over time.

National destabilization shall not require overt violence, armed force, a public declaration of rebellion, a formally declared chain of command, or an immediately prosecutable unlawful act.

Conduct may fall within this Article even where each individual act appears minor, lawful, ordinary, accidental, deniable, socially explainable, or difficult to classify as unlawful, if its accumulation, repetition, role distribution, connection, and organizational background reveal a structure capable of altering the decision-making environment of the State or society.

National destabilization may include, without limitation:

a. continuous connection to administration, media, education, the judiciary, policing, local government, welfare, medical systems, defense-related fields, or other public functions;

b. accumulation of influence over public domains through personnel placement, relational manipulation, or institutional access;

c. long-term generation of social distrust, division, inhibition, confusion, or institutional mistrust;

d. repeated conduct carried out under a semi-command structure or role allocation, while appearing externally as isolated individual acts;

e. formation of personnel, financial, informational, or logistical capacity capable of rapid activation during a crisis, political transition, public disorder, or institutional conflict;

f. conduct which outwardly preserves institutional neutrality while, in substance, placing public functions under the influence of a specific organization, network, or coordinated formation.

Article 3 — Gradual Coup d’État

Where national destabilization completes operational capacity through dispersed activity within the lawful domain, personnel placement, financial accumulation, information collection, relational manipulation, public-space pressure, influence over media or education, or connection to administrative or local institutions, and where such structure is capable of substantially taking hold of part of the State’s functions during a crisis, transition, or decisive moment, such conduct may be evaluated as a gradual coup d’état.

For the purposes of this Act, a gradual coup d’état does not mean only a sudden seizure of power by force.

It means a slow, cumulative, distributed, lawful-looking process by which the conditions of public-function judgment, institutional operation, or public decision-making are gradually transformed through lawful appearance, institutional access, manipulation of social trust, and formation of personnel pools.

In making such evaluation, the competent authority may consider:

a. whether the appearance of lawful activity has been maintained;

b. whether individual acts have been arranged to appear isolated, minor, ordinary, or deniable;

c. whether multiple persons or organizations have engaged in role distribution;

d. whether the structure remains dispersed during ordinary times and becomes operational at moments of transition;

e. whether substantial external influence over institutional decision-making has been formed;

f. whether administrative, media, educational, community, or judicial functions may be directly or indirectly pressured;

g. whether social credibility, public trust, or institutional neutrality has been eroded over time;

h. whether the State’s functions may be placed in a condition where they cannot operate without considering, relying upon, accommodating, or fearing the organization or network.

Article 4 — Conduct Analogous to Subversion of the State

Where the structure described in Article 3 progresses to a condition in which it substantially substitutes for, neutralizes, disables, captures, or displaces the existing governing order, institutional legitimacy, public decision-making, administrative function, judicial function, media function, educational function, or community order, such conduct shall be treated as conduct analogous to subversion of the State.

Conduct analogous to subversion of the State shall not be limited to the physical occupation of State institutions.

It includes conduct by which the judgment of the State, the neutrality of institutions, public trust, and the foundations of social order are practically replaced by a separate organization, network, semi-command structure, or non-public power formation.

Such conduct may appear outwardly as lawful activity, civic activity, religious activity, media activity, educational activity, community activity, or private activity.

However, where its substance replaces governing functions, distorts public decision-making, or causes the population to lose institutional trust, it shall be treated as one of the gravest categories of conduct under this Act.

Article 5 — Criteria for Assessment

Assessment under this Act shall not be based upon the correctness, falsity, virtue, danger, popularity, or acceptability of thought, belief, religion, political opinion, expression, or social position.

Assessment shall be based upon the structure, continuity, connectivity, operational rate, organizational background, role distribution, and degree of institutional effect of the conduct.

In making such assessment, the competent authority shall consider the totality of circumstances, including:

a. formation or maintenance of a personnel pool;

b. existence of a semi-command structure or non-public directive relationship;

c. continuity of funds, information, movement, residence, employment, or institutional connection;

d. circumstances indicating that individual acts have been arranged to appear isolated, accidental, ordinary, or deniable;

e. long-term repetition of the same or similar methods;

f. conduct which appears lawful, ordinary, private, or civilian during ordinary times but demonstrates organizational behavior at specific moments;

g. impact upon social credibility, public trust, institutional neutrality, or national functions;

h. circumstances in which even a single act gives objective grounds to suspect connection with a wider organized structure;

i. victim reports, witness statements, institutional records, financial records, communication records, placement patterns, behavioral patterns, or other objective materials;

j. the likelihood that failure to act would cause irreversible harm to national functions or public order.

A single act shall not, by itself and without further basis, be conclusively deemed national destabilization.

However, where objective circumstances give rise to suspicion that the act is connected to an organized structure, personnel pool, semi-command structure, role allocation, continuous social erosion, relational impersonation, or institutional connection, such act may be subject to inquiry, documentation, analysis, and preventive assessment.

The decisive question shall not be whether the act, viewed in isolation, constitutes a complete offense, but whether it bears structural relevance to a broader process capable of degrading national functions, institutional neutrality, public trust, social peace, or civic decision-making.

Article 6 — Duties of the State

Where conduct falling within the preceding Articles, or reasonable suspicion thereof, is recognizable on objective grounds, the State shall have a duty to conduct necessary inquiry, analysis, documentation, institutional interruption, separation of personnel pools, disconnection of funds, information, and command channels, and other measures necessary to preserve national functions and public order.

Where the State or relevant public institutions fail to take necessary measures on the basis of formal legality, avoidance of ideological controversy, political convenience, fear of organizational multiplicity, administrative convenience, fragmentation of responsibility, or absence of an immediately prosecutable criminal offense, and where such failure permits continued or expanded erosion of national functions, institutional neutrality, or public trust, such omission shall be subject to correction.

The State shall not treat structurally connected conduct merely as isolated incidents where objective circumstances indicate organizational background, role distribution, funding channels, information channels, institutional access, or operational capacity.

The duty of the State under this Act is not ideological control.

It is the preservation of national functions, the maintenance of institutional neutrality, and the defense of public trust.

Article 7 — Institutional Interruption Measures

Where conduct constitutes, or where reasonable suspicion exists that conduct constitutes, national destabilization, a gradual coup d’état, or conduct analogous to subversion of the State, the State may take measures necessary to interrupt institutional connection involving the organization, network, members, collaborators, proxies, affiliates, or related entities involved.

Institutional interruption measures may include:

a. suspension or limitation of access to administration, media, education, the judiciary, policing, defense, local government, or other public domains;

b. review of public delegation, subsidy, grant, contract, cooperation, or advisory relationships;

c. verification and limitation of personnel placement, recommendation, introduction, dispatch, or cooperative relationships;

d. interruption of funding, information, command, public-relations, education, training, or mobilization channels;

e. removal of non-public influence pathways over public decision-making;

f. warning, notification, or preventive measures addressed to public and quasi-public institutions;

g. protection and restoration of the credibility of victims, relevant persons, or public institutions.

Institutional interruption measures may be taken as preventive and institutional measures prior to, or independently from, criminal punishment where the requirements of this Act are satisfied.

Article 8 — Assessment of Participants and Collaborators

A person participating in conduct described under this Act shall not be treated merely as an isolated actor where, even if the conduct appears singular, minor, ordinary, or accidental, objective circumstances indicate that the person knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that the act formed part of a wider organized structure, personnel pool, semi-command structure, role allocation, or continuous social erosion.

Participation, repetition, cooperation, concealment, mediation, funding, information provision, provision of location, relational manipulation, coordinated visibility, public-space pressure, or contribution to institutional access may be assessed as contribution to the wider structure.

The legal and institutional significance of such participation shall be determined not solely by the apparent weight of the individual act, but by its relation to the cumulative system of destabilization, erosion, or institutional capture.

Article 9 — Documentation and Structural Analysis

Where there is suspicion of conduct described under this Act, the State shall not limit its response to the processing of isolated incidents.

It shall document and structurally analyze the persons, organizations, funds, information, residence, movement, employment, institutional connections, repeated methods, and operational potential underlying the conduct.

Such documentation and analysis may be used as a basis for future interruption of institutional connection, separation of personnel pools, recovery of harm, notification to public institutions, international cooperation, and preventive measures.

The purpose of such analysis shall be to identify structure, not to manufacture ideological accusation.

Article 10 — International Cooperation

Where conduct described under this Act is suspected of being connected to foreign organizations, funds, information channels, personnel movement, education and training systems, propaganda structures, religious entities, civic organizations, corporations, media bodies, or quasi-state formations, the State may cooperate with foreign governments, international organizations, and other public authorities to conduct necessary information collection, analysis, interruption, and preventive measures.

Such cooperation shall be directed toward the preservation of domestic public order and national functions.

It shall not be used for the suppression of thought, religion, expression, or lawful political activity as such.

Article 11 — Relationship with the Act on the Prevention of Sectarian Structural Interference

Where a sectarian structural organization, continuous act of social erosion, relational impersonation, personnel pool, semi-command structure, or institutional connection identified under the Act on the Prevention of Sectarian Structural Interference reaches a stage capable of substantially affecting national functions, institutional neutrality, or public trust, this Act may apply.

This Act connects structural analysis under the preceding framework to the protection of the State’s functional integrity.

It shall not be transformed into an examination of any particular religion, ideology, doctrine, or expression as such.

Article 12 — Core Interpretive Principle

The core interpretive principle of this Act shall be as follows:

Thought, belief, religion, expression, dissent, and lawful association are protected as such.

However, structural conduct which, under the outward appearance of legality, accumulates personnel pools, funds, information, semi-command structures, role allocation, institutional connection, and operational capacity, and thereby erodes national functions, institutional neutrality, public trust, or social order, may be subject to assessment and measures under this Act.

The purpose of this Act is not the punishment of thought.

Its purpose is the prevention of the hollowing-out of national functions, the loss of institutional neutrality, the destruction of public trust, and the gradual capture of the State.

International Conference Formulation

This draft legislation does not understand threats to the State solely in the traditional form of violence, armed rebellion, explicit illegality, or sudden seizure of power.

It recognizes that modern national destabilization may proceed as a long-term, low-intensity, structural erosion of State functions while preserving the outward appearance of lawful activity.

Such destabilization may advance through the forms of religious activity, civic activity, media activity, educational activity, community activity, charitable activity, corporate activity, administrative cooperation, expert networks, or public discourse.

The decisive question is not whether each individual act is independently unlawful.

The decisive question is whether such acts are repeated, connected, role-distributed, financially supported, informationally accumulated, and institutionally positioned so as to form a structure capable of transforming national functions, institutional neutrality, or public trust.

In this sense, the Act introduces the concept of a gradual coup d’état.

This is not the classical coup d’état in which tanks occupy the capital.

It is a lawful-looking, dispersed, cumulative process by which personnel pools, semi-command structures, institutional access, public-space pressure, relational manipulation, and influence networks gradually cause State functions to rely upon, accommodate, fear, or be practically replaced by a separate organization or network.

The State shall not ignore such a structure merely because it appears formally lawful, politically inconvenient, administratively difficult, or dispersed across many actors and institutions.

The purpose of this Act is not to judge thought.

Its purpose is to preserve national functions, institutional neutrality, public trust, and social order against long-term, organized, and structural erosion.

ーーーーーーーー

Act on the Prevention of Non-Kinetic Hostile Operations and Socio-Physiological Attacks

Draft Legislative Framework

Preamble

Whereas contemporary hostile activity against a State, society, public order, institutional neutrality, or civilian life may be carried out without firearms, explosives, overt violence, visible military uniforms, formal declarations of war, or conventional armed engagement;

Whereas State actors, non-State actors, quasi-State formations, hybrid organizations, external command structures, influence networks, or organized ideological formations may employ civilians, civilian appearance, ordinary social behavior, public-space presence, speech, whispers, muttering, laughter, gestures, visual intrusion, bodily proximity, relational manipulation, reputational pressure, sexualized or physiological provocation, staged coincidence, indirect intimidation, and other low-intensity means as instruments of hostile activity;

Whereas speech, conduct, bodily presence, visibility, suggestion, ridicule, false praise, humiliation, proximity, and repeated discomfort may, when used under instruction, coordination, planning, repetition, or role allocation, function as weapons capable of affecting the human body, the nervous system, social trust, personal reputation, public confidence, and institutional stability;

Whereas ordinary society already rests upon a shared understanding that words, gestures, social proximity, ridicule, humiliation, sexual provocation, and public behavior may affect the dignity, bodily condition, mental composure, reputation, social relations, and peaceful life of others, and therefore must ordinarily be used with restraint, mutual recognition, and social responsibility;

Whereas conduct that deliberately departs from such social restraint and weaponizes ordinary civilian behavior for the purpose of targeting, provoking, isolating, exhausting, humiliating, destabilizing, or physiologically altering persons or populations shall not be treated merely as ordinary speech, ordinary civilian conduct, isolated nuisance, or accidental social friction;

Whereas low-intensity, non-contact, non-kinetic, and socially deniable acts may cumulatively cause bodily stress, sympathetic nervous system dominance, sleep disruption, depressive tendency, anxiety, shock response, social isolation, reputational damage, institutional mistrust, and deterioration of ordinary civic life;

Whereas such acts may be directed against identified individuals, groups, communities, public institutions, or an indeterminate public, and may include the manipulation of two or more groups into collision, the staging of accidental encounters, the use of roads or public spaces to create bodily danger, or the infiltration of schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, and public functions in order to isolate, confuse, or mentally degrade a target;

Whereas such hostile conduct must not be processed solely as isolated post-incident complaints, individual criminal events, ordinary interpersonal disputes, school problems, local nuisances, or private psychological matters where objective circumstances indicate organization, command, planning, role allocation, foreign influence, hybrid coordination, or cumulative hostile effect;

Therefore, this Act establishes a legal framework for recognizing, preventing, deterring, investigating, documenting, interrupting, suppressing, and, where necessary, subjecting to arrest, institutional exclusion, and national defense coordination non-kinetic hostile operations and socio-physiological attacks carried out under civilian appearance.

Article 1 — Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to classify, prevent, deter, investigate, document, interrupt, suppress, and subject to appropriate enforcement measures non-kinetic hostile operations conducted in civilian life or public space under the command, support, inducement, implicit control, influence, funding, or informational direction of State actors, non-State actors, quasi-State formations, hybrid organizations, or external hostile factors.

For the purposes of this Act, hostile conduct need not involve firearms, explosives, armed clashes, occupation, sabotage, or overt physical violence.

Conduct consisting of speech, whispers, muttering, exaggerated laughter, ridicule, false praise, insult, visual intrusion, bodily proximity, repeated passage, sexual insinuation, staged coincidence, relational manipulation, public-space pressure, social isolation, group collision, road-based endangerment, or other non-contact or low-intensity acts may constitute hostile conduct where it is organized, repeated, planned, role-distributed, externally influenced, or operationally connected.

The object of this Act is not merely post-incident punishment.
Its object is to identify the command structures, personnel pools, funding channels, information flows, role allocation, civilian disguise, institutional access, and external influence behind such conduct, and to enable cumulative and retrospective structural investigation.

Where necessary, the State may coordinate the police, public security authorities, administrative bodies, specialized analytical authorities, and armed forces or defense organizations in order to protect public order, civilian life, institutional neutrality, and national functions.

Article 2 — Non-Kinetic Hostile Operation

For the purposes of this Act, a “non-kinetic hostile operation” means conduct which, without relying upon firearms, explosives, or overt armed force, uses speech, visual stimuli, auditory stimuli, bodily placement, social contact, relational manipulation, information manipulation, suggestive conduct, public-space pressure, or repeated intrusion into ordinary life in order to produce, or become capable of producing, bodily exhaustion, mental deterioration, social isolation, reputational damage, behavioral inhibition, institutional mistrust, public disorder, or degradation of civic life.

A non-kinetic hostile operation may include, without limitation:

a. conduct carried out under the appearance of civilians, residents, passers-by, students, teachers, workers, business operators, religious persons, media persons, supporters, neighbors, or accidental third parties;

b. conduct arranged so that each individual act appears minor, ordinary, accidental, lawful, socially explainable, or deniable;

c. use of whispers, muttering, laughter, gaze, proximity, passage, standing position, clothing, sexual insinuation, insult, false praise, ridicule, repeated discomfort, or other low-intensity acts;

d. conduct capable of inducing physiological reaction, sympathetic nervous system dominance, sleep disturbance, depressive tendency, anxiety, mild shock response, bodily fatigue, social withdrawal, or deterioration of judgment;

e. conduct repeated in roads, schools, workplaces, residential areas, public transport, shops, administrative offices, medical institutions, media environments, or digital spaces;

f. conduct suggesting connection with a State actor, non-State actor, quasi-State formation, hybrid organization, external command structure, or organized influence network;

g. conduct which must be assessed cumulatively, structurally, strategically, or operationally rather than as an isolated incident.

A non-kinetic hostile operation may be directed against a specific individual, a defined group, an institution, a community, or an indeterminate public.

Article 3 — Weaponization of Speech and Conduct

For the purposes of this Act, “weaponization of speech and conduct” means the organized, planned, repeated, role-distributed, or externally influenced use of words, gestures, bodily movement, laughter, gaze, clothing, distance, silence, muttering, accidental-looking contact, or ordinary social behavior in order to damage the body, mental composure, reputation, relationships, peaceful life, public standing, or social confidence of a target.

Weaponization of speech and conduct may be recognized where:

a. insult and false praise are alternated in order to destabilize the target’s judgment, emotional state, reputation, or social confidence;

b. whispers, muttering, laughter, coughing, gaze, passage, proximity, or bodily placement are used to create repeated tension, discomfort, humiliation, or defensive vigilance;

c. sexual, physiological, humiliating, or suggestive stimuli are repeatedly used to provoke bodily reaction or mental deterioration;

d. a target is isolated in a school, workplace, residential area, public institution, or community through persons appearing to be teachers, students, colleagues, residents, passers-by, or ordinary participants in daily life;

e. the target’s mental state, interpersonal relations, or social reputation are degraded while the target is made unable to clearly understand or explain the situation;

f. there is reasonable suspicion of direction, support, inducement, influence, or operational connection involving a State actor, non-State actor, quasi-State formation, hybrid organization, or external hostile factor.

No conduct shall be excluded from assessment merely because it may also appear as ordinary speech, ordinary social conduct, ordinary presence, ordinary gaze, ordinary laughter, ordinary clothing, or ordinary civilian behavior.

The decisive issue shall not be whether the speech or conduct is independently unlawful when viewed in isolation.
The decisive issue shall be its operational context, repetition, targeting, role distribution, background relationship, and cumulative effect.

Article 4 — Socio-Physiological Attack

For the purposes of this Act, a “socio-physiological attack” means the long-term, repeated, organized, or planned use of low-stimulus, low-intensity, non-contact, or socially deniable conduct in order to alter, degrade, exhaust, or damage the body, physiological reactions, mental condition, sleep, autonomic balance, sympathetic nervous system, cardiovascular response, cognitive function, judgment, or capacity for social participation of a target person, group, community, or public.

A socio-physiological attack may include:

a. conduct inducing tension, alertness, fatigue, depressive tendency, mild depression, anxiety, or defensive exhaustion through repeated discomfort;

b. conduct sustaining bodily defensive reaction through long-term whispers, muttering, laughter, proximity, visual intrusion, sexual insinuation, ridicule, insult, or staged coincidence;

c. conduct capable of producing medically or physiologically assessable reactions, including mild shock response, heart-rate disturbance, sleep disorder, appetite disturbance, sympathetic nervous dominance, or other stress-related bodily change;

d. conduct isolating the target socially while making the surrounding situation difficult for others to understand;

e. conduct pressuring the target’s entire living environment through persons appearing as teachers, students, residents, passers-by, colleagues, supporters, or ordinary associates;

f. conduct inciting two or more groups into encounter, collision, assault, injury, or death;

g. conduct staging accident-like events in roads or public spaces in order to cause a person to fall, collide, or be placed in danger.

A socio-physiological attack shall not require direct bodily contact, explicit threat, or visible violence.

Where cumulative bodily or mental alteration is supported by objective materials, including medical records, behavioral records, witness statements, video, audio, communication records, placement patterns, repeated methods, or expert assessment, such conduct may be evaluated as a hostile effect equivalent to combat conduct under this Act.

Article 5 — Civilian-Disguised Combat Conduct

For the purposes of this Act, “civilian-disguised combat conduct” means conduct in which an actor retains the outward appearance of a civilian, resident, passer-by, student, teacher, worker, supporter, religious person, media person, administrative collaborator, neighbor, or accidental third party while, in substance, engaging in organized, planned, coordinated, or instructed hostile conduct.

The absence of uniform, weapon, insignia, formal membership, declared command structure, or explicit organizational name shall not negate the hostile character of the conduct.

An actor may be assessed as a participant in combat conduct or combat-equivalent hostile conduct where:

a. the conduct is repeated or role-distributed;

b. the conduct is supported by external instruction, suggestion, signal, funding, information, or placement;

c. the conduct functions as part of a wider structure rather than as a singular isolated act;

d. the actor knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that the conduct formed part of wider pressure, erosion, or hostile activity;

e. the conduct is capable of damaging the body, reputation, relationships, public confidence, or ordinary life of the target or public.

Article 6 — Invisible Hostility

For the purposes of this Act, “invisible hostility” means hostile intent, operational pressure, or adversarial purpose that does not appear as explicit threat, physical violence, formal order, or public declaration, but may be inferred through repetition, placement, synchronization, gaze, bodily movement, proximity, speech, surrounding environmental change, relational manipulation, information flow, bodily reaction, or social effect.

Invisible hostility shall not be established by subjective feeling alone.

However, invisible hostility may be subject to inquiry, documentation, and structural analysis where objective circumstances indicate:

a. long-term repetition of the same or similar conduct;

b. multiple persons engaging in similar conduct by rotation or role allocation;

c. occurrence of conduct along specific places, times, movement routes, living patterns, or institutional connections;

d. temporal relationship between the conduct and bodily reaction, life disruption, sleep disorder, mental deterioration, or social isolation of the target;

e. suspected connection through communication, funding, movement, residence, organizational relationship, personal relationship, or information flow;

f. suspected involvement of a State actor, non-State actor, quasi-State formation, hybrid organization, or external hostile factor.

Invisible hostility shall be treated as an important category of assessment in modern low-intensity hostile operations.

Article 7 — Classification as Combat Conduct

Where a non-kinetic hostile operation, weaponization of speech and conduct, socio-physiological attack, civilian-disguised combat conduct, or organized act involving invisible hostility is conducted under the command, support, inducement, funding, information, operational influence, or strategic direction of a State actor, non-State actor, quasi-State formation, hybrid organization, or external hostile factor, such conduct may be classified as combat conduct or combat-equivalent hostile conduct.

Such classification shall not require the use of firearms, wearing of military uniform, declaration of war, explicit organizational name, visible chain of command, or direct physical violence.

The decisive issue shall be whether the conduct has cumulative, planned, operational, or strategically destructive effects upon the human body, social order, public trust, institutional neutrality, or national functions.

For the avoidance of ambiguity, classification under this Act is intended to open preventive, investigative, protective, institutional, and enforcement authority.
It shall not by itself authorize arbitrary lethal targeting of persons who retain civilian appearance.

Article 8 — Assessment of Combat Participants or Operational Participants

A person who participates in, assists, repeats, mediates, directs, funds, informs, hosts, conceals, facilitates, or contributes to a non-kinetic hostile operation may be assessed as an operational participant.

A person may be so assessed where he or she influences the target’s movement, contact, visibility, relationships, reputation, public standing, institutional access, or bodily condition as part of a wider structure.

The actor’s outward presentation as a civilian, passer-by, student, teacher, resident, worker, supporter, or accidental third party shall not prevent assessment as a participant in combat-equivalent conduct where repetition, role allocation, instruction, background connection, and cumulative effect are objectively indicated.

Such assessment shall be used for purposes including inquiry, arrest where legally authorized, institutional interruption, access restriction, disruption of communication, funding, and information channels, separation of personnel pools, notification to public institutions, and protective measures by the military, police, and administrative authorities.

Article 9 — Deployment of Armed Forces and Coordination of State Agencies

Where a non-kinetic hostile operation affects, or threatens to affect, national functions, public order, social stability, critical facilities, public transport, educational institutions, medical institutions, administrative bodies, media institutions, or the living environment of a specific area, the State may coordinate the police, public security authorities, administrative bodies, specialized analytical agencies, and armed forces or defense organizations.

The involvement of armed forces or defense organizations shall primarily include:

a. protection of critical facilities, public spaces, and affected areas;

b. deterrence of non-kinetic hostile operations;

c. analytical support to police and administrative bodies;

d. support for analysis of wide-area behavioral patterns, movement, communications, funding, and placement;

e. protection of victims, public institutions, and social order;

f. identification of connection with external hostile factors, State actors, non-State actors, or hybrid organizations;

g. support for necessary containment, separation, evacuation, warning, monitoring, and pre-incident inquiry.

Military involvement under this Act shall function as a national deterrent and protective mechanism so that non-kinetic hostile operations are not dismissed as mere civil disputes, ordinary criminal incidents, or daily nuisance conduct.

Article 10 — Prohibition on Isolated Post-Incident Processing

The State and relevant authorities shall not process conduct suspected under this Act solely as an isolated complaint, isolated incident, coincidence, private dispute, nuisance, school matter, local issue, or psychological matter.

Where any of the following circumstances exist, the conduct shall be assessed cumulatively, structurally, and operationally:

a. the same or similar conduct has been repeated;

b. multiple persons are involved by rotation or role allocation;

c. physiological, psychological, or social effects upon the target or public are cumulative;

d. connection is suspected with funding, information, movement, residence, employment, schools, administration, media, or local activity;

e. connection is suspected with a State actor, non-State actor, quasi-State formation, hybrid organization, or external hostile factor;

f. failure to act may lead to assault, injury, death, mental alteration, isolation, institutional mistrust, or destruction of social order.

Article 11 — Cumulative and Retrospective Investigation

Where there is reasonable suspicion of conduct falling under this Act, the State may investigate not only present conduct but also past acts, related incidents, victim reports, medical records, school records, community records, administrative records, communication records, funding records, video, audio, witness statements, behavioral patterns, and relational manipulation cumulatively and retrospectively.

Retrospective investigation shall be conducted in order to re-evaluate acts previously treated as isolated incidents in relation to wider operational structures, personnel pools, semi-command structures, funding channels, information channels, or institutional connections.

This Article shall not retroactively criminalize conduct that was lawful at the time it occurred.
It shall permit past facts to be used as material for structural analysis, present prevention, future deterrence, arrest where legally authorized, interruption, protection, and institutional exclusion.

Article 12 — Duties of the State

Where non-kinetic hostile operations, socio-physiological attacks, civilian-disguised combat conduct, or comparable hostile conduct are reasonably recognizable, the State shall have a duty to conduct necessary inquiry, analysis, documentation, deterrence, arrest where legally authorized, interruption, protection, and coordination among the military, police, and administrative authorities.

The State shall not ignore such conduct merely because no firearm engagement exists, each act appears minor, the actor appears civilian, the harm is invisible or physiological, or the victim finds it difficult to explain the situation.

The duty of the State under this Act is not ideological control.
It is the duty to protect the human body, peaceful life, public order, institutional neutrality, and national functions from organized, low-intensity, long-term, invisible hostile operations.

Article 13 — Relationship with Anti-Sectarian Structural Law

Where conduct identified under the Act on the Prevention of Sectarian Structural Interference and Institutional Capture, including sectarian structural organization, personnel pool, semi-command structure, continuous social erosion, relational impersonation, institutional connection, or public-space pressure, develops into non-kinetic hostile operation, socio-physiological attack, civilian-disguised combat conduct, or combat-equivalent hostile activity, this Act may apply.

The preceding anti-sectarian framework shall provide the structural basis for identifying organization, planning, role allocation, personnel accumulation, institutional connection, and long-term social erosion.

This Act shall provide the national security framework for recognizing such conduct as hostile operation, combat-equivalent conduct, or non-kinetic warfare where the evidentiary threshold is met.

Article 14 — Core Interpretive Principle

The core interpretive principle of this Act shall be as follows:

Ordinary speech, ordinary presence, ordinary social conduct, ordinary clothing, ordinary laughter, ordinary gaze, ordinary proximity, ordinary disagreement, and ordinary civilian life are not the targets of this Act.

However, where such outwardly ordinary acts are organized, instructed, repeated, role-distributed, externally influenced, strategically placed, or connected to a State actor, non-State actor, hybrid organization, sectarian structural organization, personnel pool, or semi-command system, and where they cumulatively damage the human body, social peace, public trust, institutional neutrality, or national functions, they may constitute non-kinetic hostile operation or combat-equivalent conduct.

The law shall not be blinded by the absence of firearms.

The law shall not be neutralized by civilian disguise.

The law shall not reduce cumulative hostile operations to isolated nuisance.

The law shall recognize that, in the modern environment, words, gestures, visibility, proximity, insinuation, relational manipulation, and physiological pressure may be organized as weapons.

Where they are so organized, they shall be treated accordingly.

Denial of Prisoner-of-War Status for Civilian-Disguised Participants in Acts of National Erosion

Article [X] — Distinction from Ordinary Combat Operations

The non-kinetic hostile operations, socio-physiological attacks, civilian-disguised hostile acts, continuous social erosion, relational impersonation, public-space pressure, institutional interference, and acts of national destabilization defined under this Act shall not be understood primarily as ordinary combat operations within a conventional armed conflict.

They shall be understood as acts of national erosion directed against the governing functions of the State, public order, institutional neutrality, social trust, and the physiological stability of civilian life.

Such acts do not presuppose firearms engagement, military occupation, regular armed confrontation, declared hostilities, uniformed armed forces, or ordinary battlefield conditions.

Accordingly, a person who participates in such acts under civilian disguise shall not thereby acquire the status of a lawful combatant, prisoner of war, or privileged belligerent under the law of armed conflict.

Article [X+1] — Civilian-Disguised Participant in Acts of National Erosion

For the purposes of this Act, a “civilian-disguised participant in acts of national erosion” means a person who, while retaining the outward appearance of a civilian, resident, passer-by, student, teacher, worker, media person, religious person, supporter, administrative collaborator, neighbor, or accidental third party, participates in, assists, mediates, conceals, funds, informs, hosts, facilitates, repeats, or contributes to acts of national erosion under organized, planned, repeated, coordinated, or role-distributed conditions.

Such person shall not be permitted to claim the protection, immunity, or inviolability of an ordinary civilian merely because he or she retains civilian appearance, civilian clothing, ordinary speech, ordinary conduct, ordinary presence, or ordinary public-space behavior.

Where objective circumstances indicate that the conduct forms part of a broader structure of national erosion, the person may be classified as an unprivileged participant in acts of national erosion, even if he or she carries no firearm, wears no uniform, uses no overt violence, and maintains the appearance of ordinary civilian life.

Article [X+2] — Non-Application of Prisoner-of-War Entitlement

Acts of national erosion under this Act do not, by their nature, necessarily constitute conventional armed conflict or ordinary combat engagement for the purposes of prisoner-of-war entitlement.

A person detained, investigated, prosecuted, interrupted, restricted, or institutionally excluded under this Act shall not thereby acquire prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention regime.

Measures under this Act shall be undertaken not as prisoner-of-war detention or conventional combatant treatment, but as measures under domestic law, national security law, criminal law, military law where applicable, or special legislation for the protection of national functions, public order, institutional neutrality, the human body, and civic life.

A person subject to this Act shall not invoke prisoner-of-war status, combatant immunity, or belligerent privilege merely because the conduct is described as hostile, because the conduct affects national security, or because the conduct may be comparable in effect to combat.

Nor shall such person invoke prisoner-of-war status on the basis that the hostile conduct was non-firearm-based, civilian-looking, socially deniable, or outwardly ordinary.

Article [X+3] — Exclusion of Civilian Protection as Operational Cover

Civilian protection exists to protect ordinary civilians who do not participate in hostile operations or acts of national erosion.

It does not exist to provide operational cover, immunity, concealment, strategic ambiguity, or escape from accountability for persons who use civilian appearance to participate in organized acts of national erosion.

A civilian-disguised participant in acts of national erosion abuses the protective function of civilian status by converting civilian appearance, civilian space, ordinary life, schools, workplaces, residential areas, media spaces, religious spaces, public administration, or social relations into instruments of hostile pressure, concealment, or institutional erosion.

Such person shall neither be processed as an ordinary civilian nor granted prisoner-of-war status as an ordinary combatant.

Such person may be subject to detention, inquiry, interrogation, prosecution, access restriction, disruption of communication, movement, funding and information channels, institutional exclusion, and international cooperation, as authorized by law.

Article [X+4] — Status Review

Where doubt arises as to whether a detained person is an ordinary civilian, a civilian-disguised participant in acts of national erosion, or a person of another legal status, a competent authority or tribunal shall promptly determine the person’s status.

The competent authority shall consider:

a. whether the person used civilian appearance as cover;

b. whether the person concealed affiliation, command relationship, funding relationship, informational connection, organizational background, or operational role;

c. whether the conduct was isolated or whether it formed part of repetition, role allocation, or organized structure;

d. whether the person belonged to, assisted, or acted in connection with a personnel pool, semi-command structure, influence network, or institutional connection;

e. whether the conduct contributed to socio-physiological attack, continuous social erosion, relational impersonation, public-space pressure, institutional interference, or national destabilization;

f. whether the person relied upon the absence of firearms, civilian clothing, ordinary speech, or ordinary social conduct in order to evade responsibility;

g. whether connection with a State actor, non-State actor, quasi-State formation, hybrid organization, external command structure, or organized influence network is reasonably suspected.

Where the competent authority determines that the person is a civilian-disguised participant in acts of national erosion, the person shall not be treated as having prisoner-of-war status, lawful combatant status, or combatant immunity.

Article [X+5] — Humane Treatment and Procedural Guarantees

Nothing in this Act shall authorize private punishment, torture, cruel treatment, abuse, humiliating or degrading treatment, arbitrary killing, enforced disappearance, or punishment without legal process.

A person who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status shall nevertheless be treated humanely while detained and shall receive bodily security, basic procedural guarantees, and review according to law.

The denial of prisoner-of-war status under this Act shall not mean unlimited State power over the person.

It means that the person shall be processed not as a lawful combatant or prisoner of war, but as an unprivileged participant in acts of national erosion, subject to domestic law, national security law, criminal law, military law where applicable, or special legislation.

Civilian Disguise and National Erosion Doctrine

The absence of conventional battlefield conditions shall not create prisoner-of-war entitlement.

This legal category is not ordinary combat.

It is not conventional battlefield engagement.

It is not a case in which a person may participate in hostile activity under civilian appearance and then demand the privileges of a lawful combatant.

It is a category of national erosion:

a long-term, low-intensity, civilian-disguised, structurally coordinated process directed against public trust, institutional neutrality, human physiology, civic life, and the governing functions of the State.

A participant in such conduct shall not be rewarded with prisoner-of-war status.

A participant in such conduct shall not be permitted to use civilian appearance as a shield.

A participant in such conduct shall not be permitted to use the non-firearm nature of the act as an escape from responsibility.

Such person shall be treated humanely because the State remains bound by law.

But such person shall be detained, investigated, prosecuted, restricted, excluded, and separated from operational networks as an unprivileged participant in acts of national erosion.