Pacifism: The Future of
Interstate Conflict Resolution
The just war tradition has attempted to regulate war in an effort to make it less
devastating. However, even in a just war, the price that is paid to reach the necessary end
is usually extraordinarily high. The protection of people, ideas, and political systems is a
noble cause, but can this end not be achieved without war? Even with regulation, there is
no such thing as a war without a terrible price. The most obvious and most devastating
price is the loss of life. Other prices could include economic and political collapse as
well as environmental disaster. Pacifism rejects war all together, promoting alternative
ways of resolving interstate conflict. In this paper, I will first establish a working
definition of pacifism and explore some of the different varieties of pacifism. Second, I
will give a brief description of just war theory. Third, I will argue for the consideration
and use of pacifism over just war theory in conflict resolution between and within states.
Fourth, I will explore objections to pacifism. Fifth, I will respond to these objections.
Ultimately, I will show that pacifism is preferable to the just war tradition both in
principle and in outcome.
Pacifism: A Practical Definition
The relevant definition of pacifism pertains to conflict between and within state.
Some pacifists are committed to the idea that even defense of one’s self or others is not
justification for violence. This, however, is not the type of pacifism that is at hand here;
the right of individuals to defend themselves and those close to them against true threats
is not being questioned. What is being questioned, however, is the use of force by states
during conflict. On this distinction, Jenny Teichman argues that we should reject the
notion that pacifism is a wholesale rejection of violence. First, she says that “the very
word pacifism was coined to mean anti-war-ism: as such it is a useful word with a
relatively precise meaning which it is best not to blur or abolish.”1 Also, “the groups of
people who are retrospectively described as pacifists, or who today describe themselves
as pacifists, are not by any means all committed to a rejection of every possible type of
violence.”2 This understanding of pacifism, or “anti-war-ism,” will be used hereafter.
There are two types of secular pacifism to consider: consequentialist and deontic.
The consequentialist pacifist “maintains that the benefits accruing from war can never
outweigh the costs of fighting it.”3 When one looks at war in terms of outcome, it is clear
that the price is never conceivably less than the benefits. All other consequences
notwithstanding, the utilization of war as conflict resolution perpetuates and accepts the
existence of future war. In addition, the main cost of warfare is the loss of human life. It
is truly impossible to say how much any single life is worth; it would be impossible to
even find a unit of measurement that is appropriate. The deontic pacifist “contends that
the very activity of war is intrinsically wrong, since it violates the foremost duties of
justice, such as not killing human beings.”4 An example of this type of pacifism would
be liberal-democratic pacifism, which argues that “modern warfare runs counter to the
values of liberal democracy. Thus, those who are committed to liberal values should not
support war. Essential for this claim is the idea that ‘no one has a right to command
1
Jenny Teichman, Pacifism and the Just War: A Study in Applied Philosophy (New York: Basil
Blackwell, 1986), 2.
2
Ibid
3
Brian Orend, Michael Waltzer on War and Justice (Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press,
2000), 71.
4
Ibid
others to kill, and no one is justified in killing on command’.”5 Both consequential and
deontic pacifism will play a role in the defense of pacifism.
It should be noted here that the two types of pacifism compliment one other as
they share the goal of ending war. The consequentialist rejection of war works with the
deontic variety of pacifism, which, again, is against war for reasons pertaining to duties
of justice. Though consequential and deontic forms of pacifism have different values,
both are working towards the same end. There is no reason why the values of both
cannot contribute to the same goal: an end to war.
There are also many religious reasons to be pacifistic. The classic examples of
these types of pacifism are Gandhi or Jesus Christ. Religious brands of pacifism are, of
course, valuable to the ideal. However, this paper will be using the secular brands of
pacifism due to the fact that not everyone finds religious arguments compelling. What
the secular varieties of pacifism provide this discussion are basic assumptions and
arguments that most people can relate to regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
The Just War Tradition
According to the just war tradition, states may respond as individuals when they
are attacked: they may exercise their right to self-defense and fight back. The tradition
establishes just causes of going to war, just methods of practicing war, and just ways of
ending the war. However, this practice creates a bigger problem than it solves: namely,
the continuation of war as an accepted method of conflict resolution.
5
Andrew Fiala, The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War (Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008) 167.
The acceptance of war as a necessary evil comes in different degrees. There are
the just war theorists and subscribers to the just war tradition, but there are also others,
known as “realists,” who see no point in attempting to make war just or moral. Though
they are very different in their approaches to the issue of warfare, at the end of the day
both of these groups accept war as a necessary evil.
The just war tradition posits that there can be a just, or morally sound, war. In
order to make war governed by morality in some way, there are jus ad bellum and jus in
bello norms; that is, justice to war and justice during war. “These grammatical
distinctions point to deep issues. Jus ad bellum requires us to make judgments about
aggression and self-defense; jus in bello about the observance or violation of the
customary and positive rules of engagement.”6 Just war theory has used these norms to
regulate war and provide laws of warfare.
Pacifism: A Legitimate Alternative
Morality and the consequences of war
Pacifism must be considered as an alternative to the just war tradition. Although
just war theory has regulated war for the better, it has not and will not remove hell from
warfare. Though it is true that war has resolved conflicts in the past, it is quite possible
that these resolutions could have been accomplished without war through nonviolent
means. It would be ludicrous to accept the continuation of such a practice as war without
serious question due to the horrible consequences that have been suffered from war.
6
Michael Waltzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977), 21.
While some forms of pacifism denounce all types of violence as immoral, “antiwar-ism” objects to violence of the kind that is found in war. “An extreme version
eschews any kind of violence (especially killing) as an intrinsic wrong, whereas a more
moderate version contends that it is the kind and scale of violence (especially killing)
which war involves that cannot be justified.”7 Imagine two scenarios. In the first, a
woman is in a dark parking lot and is attacked by a rapist. Fortunately, she is highly
trained in martial arts. It makes good sense to say that she is fully within her rights to
self-defense and that she should exercise her skills against her attacker, thereby rescuing
herself. The violence in this scenario is very small in scale. In the second scenario, we
need only consider any major war. There would be many deaths, including innocents.
Entire communities, countries, or even continents would be devastated. The sheer
magnitude of the violence that is occurring in these situations may not always justify the
ends to which it is aimed. Though just war theory tries to deal with this issue through the
proportionality requirement, the fact of the matter is, again, that it is unrealistic to attempt
to establish the worth of human life with a cost-benefit analysis.
Another reason that the woman is justified in defending herself against her
attacker is that it is absolutely certain that the he had committed a wrong: attempted rape.
In war, however, it is not clear that the soldiers involved committed such a wrong. It is
much more difficult to connect the actions of a state to a single soldier than it is to
connect the actions of attempted rape back to the attacker, as that process is direct.
However, when soldiers meet one another on the battlefield, it can rightfully be presumed
that neither individual has committed any act that makes them deserving of death or
7
Brian Orend, Michael Waltzer on War and Justice (Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press,
2000), 69.
injury. In fact, it is likely that these soldiers are only two unlucky pawns in a conflict
bigger than they can imagine. Just war theory accepts this injustice, and refuses to
recognize the inherent immorality that is connected with any war, including those that are
considered just.
The true logical end
Walzer spent only a few pages on pacifism at the end of his Just and Unjust Wars,
though he did admit that the topic deserved to have an entire book devoted to it. Despite
the lack of attention that he has given to pacifism, it poses some excellent questions to his
theory. “It seems easier for him to point out that our socially constructed idealism is at
odds with realism than it is for him to show that such idealism does not commit us to a
total ban on warfare.”8 In the beginning of Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer attacks
Realism, saying that war can be a rule-governed practice that is based on morality and
law. To defend this position, he says that “the realist either misunderstands the nature of
our shared discourse on war or understands it, yet prefers to subvert it.”9 What is this
shared discourse on war? Walzer posits that we still commit ourselves to morality. “The
truth is that one of the things most of us want, even in war, is to act or to seem to act
morally. And we want that, most simply, because we know what morality means.”10 If
humanity is committed to morality in such a way that allows adherence to just war norms,
then it can and should be committed to pacifism as the logical end of that initial
commitment to morality.
8
Brian Orend, Michael Waltzer on War and Justice (Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press,
2000), 69.
9
Ibid, 64-5.
10
Michael Waltzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977), 20.
The environmental benefits of pacifism
One consequence of war that is often overlooked is environmental damage. This
damage has largely been considered to be collateral in the past, and it has been regarded
as something that must happen in order to attain broader military goals. However, as
understanding of the importance of the environment grows, as will concern for the
environmental consequences of war.
“A partial list of these consequences includes the following: (1) the
compaction, erosion, and contamination of soils by bombs and missiles
and their hazardous and toxic residues and by the passage of military
vehicles, (2) other forms of land pollution ranging from latrines and
garbage dumps to landmines, unexploded ordinance, and radioactive dust,
(3) defoliation, deforestation, and land degradation, (4) contamination of
surface waters and groundwater, (5) atmospheric emissions and resulting air
pollution from military equipment and vehicles, (6) direct and collateral killing
of animals and plants and loss of habitat, (7) degradation and destruction of
protected natural areas, and (8) noise pollution.”11
The environmental impact of armed conflict is an important addition to previous
consequences. Keeping a standing army also has negative effects on the environment.
“Although clear data do not exist – largely because of national security secrecy practiced
by many nation-states – collectively the world’s militaries are estimated to be the largest
single polluter on Earth, accounting for as much as 20 percent of all global environmental
11
Mark Woods, “The Nature of War and Peace: Just War Thinking, Environmental Ethics, and
Environmental Justice,” Rethinking the Just War Tradition, Ed. Michael W. Brough, John W.
Lango, and Harry van der Linden, (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007), 19.
degradation.”12 Currently, though environmental concerns are becoming more prominent,
it is accepted that the goals of the military are ultimately more important than the
protection of the environment; this is not likely to change soon.
The end of environmental destruction by militaries and war would be a great
benefit in a pacifistic international community. Environmental concerns are becoming
much more prevalent in communities all over the world, as well as in the global
community as a whole. It seems clear that ridding the world of the environmental
devastation that militaries bring, both in wartime and in peacetime, may prove to be one
of the largest benefits of pacifism overall.
Objections to Pacifism
That it is too optimistic
Walzer does not thoroughly defend his position against pacifism. “We remain
committed to morality even in the midst of war. But, he insists, these moral rules do not
commit us to pacifism.”13 Walzer believes that pacifism is unreasonably optimistic.
While he commits himself to acting morally, he argues that this can be done while also
engaging in just war. Though a pacifistic world order might be ideal, Walzer assumes it
is an unrealistic concept. “More precisely, the ideals contained in our shared discourse
on war presuppose that the non-violent world imagined by the pacifist is not actually
attainable, at least for the foreseeable future.”14 His position puts him between realists on
12
Mark Woods, “The Nature of War and Peace: Just War Thinking, Environmental Ethics, and
Environmental Justice,” Rethinking the Just War Tradition, Ed. Michael W. Brough, John W.
Lango, and Harry van der Linden, (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007), 20.
13
14
Michael Waltzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977), 20.
Ibid
the one side and pacifists on the other. Realists accuse just war theory of being too
optimistic about human nature while pacifism accuses it of being too pessimistic.
That it rewards aggression and fails to protect people
This objection says that pacifism should be rejected because it has no viable
means to stand up to aggressive states or protect people. “Walzer appears to agree with
this, suggesting obliquely that pacifists ‘have to recognize and accept the nonpacific
results of trying to accommodate states like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq’.”15 The outcome of
pacifism on this view would be quite apocalyptic; for example, all of the “aggressive”
states of the world would have nothing to stop them from entering a pacifist country or
group of countries and taking them down one by one. All it would take to make pacifism
dysfunctional in the international system is one aggressive, non-pacifistic state that is
armed. This objection sees a Hitler-esque personality being the downfall of the free
world due to the lack of force to stop him and his pillaging military.
That it prevents humanitarian interventions
Another objection to pacifism is that it leaves no recourse when it comes to
humanitarian intervention. Realists and just war theorists are both able to address this
issue directly, and it is possible for them to resolve the possibility of humanitarian
intervention within the realm of their own core values. With pacifism, however, the idea
of not intervening to help stop grave human rights abuses seems to be counter to the
positive peace that they are for achieving. States that are content with not bothering their
15
Brian Orend, Michael Waltzer on War and Justice (Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press,
2000), 70.
neighbors, therefore, could possibly get away with severe human rights abuses and even
genocide. Without war, there would be nothing to prevent these occurrences.
That it prevents the protection of the environment
Though we have already seen the damage that war can and does contribute to the
environment, it should not be overlooked that war can also be used to protect
environmental degradation if necessary. “In terms of the environmental ethics of war and
peace, the environment needs military protection to prevent wars and solve
environmental security problems rather than the environment needing protection from
wars and military activities.”16 Therefore, this objection posits that the absence of
militaries and the possibility of armed defense of the environment leave it vulnerable to
attack.
A Defense of Pacifism
Pacifism is realistic
The objection that pacifism is an unrealistic ideal is becoming less viable as time
goes on. Maybe five hundred or even fifty years ago this would have been a major
concern, but we have seen the development of other ways of dealing with conflict
between states. Today, there are diplomatic, economic, and judicial solutions. The states
of the world are more integrated with one another than they ever have been in the past,
and intergovernmental organizations are helping to make a war-free world a possibility
through increasing this integration. These organizations make war between member
16
Mark Woods, “The Nature of War and Peace: Just War Thinking, Environmental Ethics, and
Environmental Justice,” Rethinking the Just War Tradition, Ed. Michael W. Brough, John W.
Lango, and Harry van der Linden, (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007), 21.
states extremely unlikely. As they grow larger and more developed, they gain more
leverage over non-member states. World government is not necessary to make pacifism a
realistic option. Intergovernmental organizations, when fully developed, provide
structures that allow for a measure of state autonomy as well as order in the international
realm. Though membership in these organizations is voluntary, all that is necessary to
make them grow is to make it advantageous to states to be members. This can easily be
done, for example, through trade agreements and integrated economic systems.
Furthermore, democracy continues to spread. The democratic peace thesis posits
less war in general as this happens, as democracies do not seem to go to war with one
another. Intergovernmental organizations generally promote or require democratic
characteristics in their member states. As it becomes more beneficial for countries to join
these organizations, they will necessarily become more democratic; as the world becomes
more democratic, it is quite likely that it will automatically become more pacifistic as
well.
Walzer seems to think that the more moderate, “just war” viewpoint of war is
correct. However, when it comes to this topic, the center position risks trying to do too
many things at once. As he asserts morality and ideals as the basis of just war theory,
Walzer fails to defend his choice to settle where he did. If he is going to be idealistic, he
must have a goal in mind. This goal can be advanced towards as progress is made. In the
case of Waltzer and just war theory in general, the goal was to minimize the negative
effects of war. However, Walzer, along with other just war theorists, have failed to see
that it is now time to recognize the progress that has been made and to strive, not for
more just war, but for an end to war all together. As humanity evolves socially, this
option will become more viable.
Walzer necessarily has a measure of faith in human decency and moral agency,
for it is essential to the success of just war theory. To the realist, Walzer’s expectations
are unrealistic due to his reliance on human morality and ability. To Walzer, pacifism is
unrealistic due to its higher reliance on these things. However, history has shown that
humanity is capable of social evolution. Norms can be created and adapted in large part
by humanity, as has been shown by the success of the just war tradition. It is time that
just war theory recognized the next step in human social evolution: pacifism.
Pacifism can check aggression and protect people as needed
It is possible to achieve the important ends of responding appropriately to
aggressive states and protecting people without resorting to warfare. There are many
options available for defense and the countering of that aggression besides war. Not only
are these options available, but they could also be effective.
“In the event of an armed invasion by an aggressor state,
an organized and committed campaign of non-violent civil
disobedience – perhaps combined with international diplomatic
and economic sanctions – would be just as effective as war in
expelling the aggressor, with much less destruction of lives and
property.”17
17
Brian Orend, Michael Waltzer on War and Justice (Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press,
2000), 70.
An example of this type of action would be India during its occupation by the British.
Without the cooperation towards and acceptance of the occupation by the native
population, it is costly and extremely unbeneficial to occupy a foreign country. Consider
the occupation of a country where the native population refuses to work or contribute in
any way to the continuation of the new regime. This would mean that the occupiers
would be forced to bring in a whole new work force just to sustain themselves. This is
costly and not likely to be continued successfully for very long. Furthermore, the
international community would be alerted by the native population’s non-cooperation in
this situation, making things very difficult for the occupiers in the international realm as
well.
This idea of suppressing aggression sans violent conflict has become even more
tangible lately. Again, the interconnectedness between states has grown much closer
through the development of intergovernmental organizations. This organization and
cooperation of the societies of the world make it less likely that there would be
aggressive states in the first place. Even without the threat of war, the soft power of
institutions like the European Union has grown dramatically in the past few decades.
This power relies, not on militaristic might, but on economic and political might.
Though nonviolent resistance seems plausible when it comes to events like the
British invasion and occupation of India, there is a stronger version of this objection
which points out that the British are not even comparable to the worst types of
occupations. These objections are usually phrased as a variation of the following: “But
what could pacifism do about Hitler?” That is, in a world of pacifistic states, it would be
too easy for a charismatic and influential dictator with his or her military to sweep the
globe. This dictator and military would most likely have no regard to the native
populations of occupied territories as anything other than mere complications. Because
they would not be seen as necessary, the protestors would just be mowed down by the
advancing war machine.
In these types of desperate times, the pacifistic world would need to respond with
desperate measures. However, it is possible to prevent these types of military conquests
without betraying pacifism. This type of prevention would require a strong network of
communication between states and a flow of information. Today, even in our warist
world, these things already exist. Since the objections of the strongest type involve an
important, charismatic leader, it would make sense to simply assassinate this leader
whenever it was demonstrated that he or she made their state dangerous to the
international, pacifistic community. Though assassination is regarded as being against
just war principles, it is pivotal to the existence of a pacifistic world.
Had Hitler been assassinated after he demonstrated aggression and invaded
Poland in the beginning of World War II, the outcome would not have been as
devastating. At-whim murder is not being proposed here; aggression would have to take
place in order for assassination to be considered and carried out. Ultimately, this
argument is pragmatic. The benefits of ending war justify the assassination of leaders
who threaten the pacifistic international community. This is akin to the supreme
emergency exception that is proposed by Walzer and others in just war theory, which
posits that actions such as the targeting of civilians can be justified if an entire just polity
is in danger of annihilation. In this case, the entire pacifistic world would be in danger of
annihilation, and thus it would be acceptable to carry out assassinations.
Ideally, this policy of assassination would also prevent aggression by causing
leaders like Hitler to fear for their lives. Since they would presumably know that they
would be targeted for assassination after aggressive action, they would be much less
likely to attempt such a maneuver. This acceptance of assassination as a policy forces
leaders to think in ways that just war theory does not, since just war theory does not
accept assassination as a policy.
Pacifist responses to humanitarian intervention
Pacifists hold that nonviolence is and was the only thing that is successful when it
comes to humanitarian intervention. “For pacifists, the goal is positive peace; social and
political order arising from within groups by cooperation. A policy or technique works if
it creates and sustains such conditions.”18 This is a very positive conception of peace, as
contrasted with the warist conception. “Warists, on the other hand, are included to
understand peace as status quo social and political arrangements in the absence of war.
They are caught in a negative conception of peace.”19 According to pacifists, the way
that warists go about humanitarian intervention undermines the overall outcome: peace.
The structure of a nonviolent humanitarian intervention is as follows: 1)
cooperative discussion and negotiation, 2) non-cooperation, and 3) nonviolent invasion.
Cooperative discussion and negotiation are the beginning point because, obviously, they
are the least coercive. This could be formal, like World Court hearings, or informal such
as the use of a neutral state arbitrator. Non-cooperation includes cultural and economic
18
Robert L. Phillips and Duane L. Cady, Humanitarian Intervention: Just War vs. Pacifism
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996), 60-1.
19
Ibid, 61.
boycotts, freezing assets, and other kinds of political and economic sanctions. If this
fails, the next step is a nonviolent invasion. This occurs when “nonviolent direct-action
volunteers put themselves between hostile groups or amass themselves in territory in
order to protect it and its inhabitants from military invasion and shelling.”20 This last
option is largely unexplored, but provides a hypothetical alternative to war.
Pacifism is capable of environmental protection
Pacifism can protect the environment without warfare in the same way that it can
protect people and ideas. First, environmental protection can be incorporated into
intergovernmental organizations to a fuller extent as they grow. Certain types of
regulations can be applied to all member states, and nonmember states that commit or
consider committing grave environmental offenses can be sanctioned in ways that do not
rely upon violence. For example, economic and political sanctions could be used to
convince these states to abide by sound environmental practices. Also, environmental
regulation can be further developed into international law through treaties between states
as well as custom. These ways of dealing with environmental problems would be
effective and much less devastating than resorting to warfare to resolve them.
Conclusion
Pacifism has yet to receive wide support as a viable alternative to just war theory.
In general, this is due to skepticism regarding its abilities to adequately defend the things
that are traditionally defended by war. However, both principled and pragmatic reasons
20
Robert L. Phillips and Duane L. Cady, Humanitarian Intervention: Just War vs. Pacifism
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996), 62.
are available that necessitate a pacifistic international community. Furthermore, the
social evolution of humankind has shown that progress can be made in terms of war. The
realists, for example, have sustained heavy challenges to their point of view through the
development and expansion of intergovernmental organization. Pacifism is simply the
next step in this social evolution; instead of focusing efforts towards making war more
just and less devastating, it is time to focus on eliminating war entirely as a method of
conflict resolution between and within states. If humanity is capable of committing to
just war, then humanity is also capable to committing to pacifism.
Bibliography
Fiala, Andrew. The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008.
Orend, Brian. Michael Walzer on War and Justice. Cardiff, UK: University of Wales
Press, 2000.
Phillips, Robert L. and Duane L. Cady. Humanitarian Intervention: Just War vs.
Pacifism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996.
Teichman, Jenny. Pacifism and the Just War: A Study in Applied Philosophy. New
York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1986.
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
Woods, Mark. “The Nature of War and Peace: Just War Thinking, Environmental Ethics,
and Environmental Justice.” Rethinking the Just War Tradition. Ed. Michael W.
Brough, John W. Lango, and Harry van der Linden. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 2007.