PACIFISM. — Pacifism is both a doctrine and a movement. In the first sense, it presents itself as the most open antithesis to militarism, whose apology of war—considered a natural, necessary, and beneficial event according to the Darwinian conception of international relations—is countered by the exaltation of peace and the unconditional condemnation of the use of violence. In the second sense, it encompasses all those currents that aim to instill the theoretical principles of doctrinal pacifism into common consciousness and thereby create the psychological and political conditions for achieving perpetual peace among nations. Its formation has been influenced to varying degrees by humanitarianism—particularly of Anglo-Saxon stamp—romantic cosmopolitanism, and internationalism.
Theoretical pacifism proceeds from the concept of the fundamental unity of the human race and the inviolability of individual life, from which it deduces the absolute prohibition of the killing of humans and war as collective homicide. Applying this principle, it condemns not only offensive or conquest-driven war but also defensive war, since, like the former, it equally obliges the taking of human life. In this stance, the influence of humanitarianism—tinged with vague sentimentalism, whose secret of worship lies in humanity—is particularly evident. Pacifism, however, does not fail to employ other arguments to reinforce its conceptual positions. It insists, first and foremost, on the real evils produced by armed conflict, the humanization of which proves utopian. Just as private vengeance has long been prohibited in the internal life of states, so too in international life must states be prohibited from dispensing justice through the use of violence. This is further demanded by the inadequacy of force to resolve pending issues between states. Victory does not always favor the just, nor does war resolve international political problems. Under the influence of cosmopolitanism, some pacifist currents advocate the disappearance of national and religious divisions—sources of most state rivalries—and dream of a humanity united in a universal society without barriers or differences of creed, as the surest means to achieve perpetual peace.
The theoretical foundations of pacifism are not without a kernel of truth. There can be no doubt about the sacred character of human life and the respect owed to II. Nonetheless, this does not preclude the application of norms of justice, which require the punishment of the wrongdoer and permit legitimate defense against an unjust aggressor, both in domestic social life and in the broader sphere of international relations. The wholesale acceptance of the pacifist premise would lead to universal immunity for crimes committed by states and the consecration of fait accompli, for which no remedy could be sought if the use of force is intrinsically immoral. The evils that war produces are indeed real; yet this does not negate that law is the highest good of social coexistence and that society must possess the means necessary to defend it or compel reparation once it has been violated by the actions of utopia. In the international arena, self-defense can only be surpassed through the establishment of an organic society possessing coercive means to enforce respect for justice. It is, finally, simply utopian to imagine a community of nations in which national and religious divisions have disappeared, especially the former, which are an insurmountable effect of the associative tendencies of human nature, essential to harmony and progress. Despite these observations, it must be acknowledged that pacifism embodies an earnest striving for a noble ideal: the establishment of perpetual peace among peoples and the abolition of war, toward which other currents also aspire with equal enthusiasm, though without succumbing to its exaggerations.
For this theoretical stance, pacifism must be distinguished both from Christian thought and from true internationalism. No doctrine has nourished in men the sentiment of universal brotherhood, uniting them in a single family, and instilled mutual love beyond all ethnic barriers as Christianity has. Yet its proclamation of peace is already joined in St. Paul with a realistic vision of the necessity of the sword for the punishment of evildoers. Nor did the Fathers of the Church, in developing the Gospel message, find any incompatibility between the use of arms and the Christian profession. St. Augustine, continuing their tradition, condemned unjust wars, calling them "great robberies," but admitted the legitimacy of those waged for the defense of right, as did the Fathers who followed him.
Sound internationalism also distances itself from pacifism. While the latter, yielding to the allure of humanitarian cosmopolitanism, would suppress fatherlands and states, the former recognizes the natural necessity of their existence and admits their legitimate defense in cases of grave threat. To this fundamental distinction, it adds only the indispensable need for a suitable international organization with appropriate institutions to ensure the peaceful coexistence of nations, grounded in the solidarity of the human race and the economic interdependence of peoples, whose prosperity requires collaboration and lasting peaceful relations.
Pacifism may be described as a rather modern phenomenon. In its vague form as an aspiration for peace and liberation from war, it is found in all ages. In Greco-Roman antiquity, historians such as Xenophon deplored the evils of war; poets such as Virgil dreamed of an age in which weapons would be turned into instruments of labor; philosophers, particularly of the Stoic school—such as Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius—proclaimed a cosmopolitanism hastening the unity of mankind. Yet true pacifism is not encountered in this period, nor is it found in Christianity, which permeated the subsequent age. Founded on religious motives and thus termed ascetic, it appears instead among certain sects, among which the followers of Wyclif and Huss distinguished themselves, as did later the Mennonites and Quakers, who, like them, upheld the absolute inviolability of human life and the illegitimacy of the use of force, even against evil and wrongdoers. To this current, modern pacifism is sentimentally linked; it has grown stronger until it became a vast international movement after the appearance of Enlightenment humanitarianism and Romantic cosmopolitanism.
Projects for the organization of perpetual peace already appear in the 17th century. Notable are those of Crucé (1623) and the Duke of Sully (1638). They flourished further in the 18th century, during which appeared the memoirs for rendering perpetual peace in Europe by Charles-Irénée Castel, Abbé de Saint-Pierre (1712), the treatises of Rousseau (1760)—criticized sharply by Voltaire—of Bentham (1789), which occasioned Emmanuel Kant’s pamphlet on perpetual peace (1793). In these works, pacifism deepened its ideal motives and aligned itself with internationalism, which pursued the same goal by advocating the creation of international institutions.
In the following century, independently of this systematic effort, the pacifist movement was born. Its country of origin was the United States of America, where, in 1815, David L. Dodge founded the New York Peace Society, followed by the proliferation of other similar associations, which in 1828 merged into the American Peace Society. The movement soon crossed the seas and spread across the Old Continent, giving rise to various and repeated international congresses. To its credit must be partly ascribed some institutions created by States for the peaceful resolution of their disputes, such as arbitration and the international court of justice. The founding of the League of Nations after the First World War was promoted by the moral pressure of pacifists on American public opinion, which reacted upon President Wilson, whose first declarations were made at a meeting of the Association for the Peace Movement. The new international body had as its main purpose the development of cooperation and the defense of peace and collective security, an aim substantially unchanged in the more recent United Nations Organization, which succeeded the League of Nations. The Kellogg Pact of 1928 seemed to crown the aspirations of the pacifist movement with the renunciation, enshrined in it by the contracting States, of recourse to war as an instrument of national policy. But it was an illusion of short duration: perpetual peace remains even today an aspiration to which reality refuses to conform.