Pacifism in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries

Introduction

Pacifism, the principled opposition to war and violence as means of settling disputes, has emerged as one of the most significant moral and political philosophies of the modern era. While its roots extend deep into human history through religious traditions and philosophical thought, the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have witnessed an unprecedented evolution in pacifist theory and practice. The term “pacifism” itself was coined by French peace campaigner Émile Arnaud and adopted by other peace activists at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901, marking a formalization of what had previously been a more diffuse set of peace-oriented beliefs and practices (1, 2). From the mechanized horror of World War I to contemporary debates about humanitarian intervention and drone warfare, pacifism has continuously adapted to address new forms of violence while maintaining its core commitment to nonviolence and peace.

This essay examines the comprehensive landscape of modern pacifism, exploring its historical development, philosophical foundations, practical applications, and contemporary relevance. The analysis encompasses both the strongest arguments supporting pacifist positions and the most challenging critiques raised against them. Through examination of key organizations like the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), influential figures from Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr., and contemporary movements addressing issues from nuclear disarmament to climate change, this study reveals pacifism as a complex, evolving philosophy that continues to shape global discourse on war, peace, and human dignity.

The significance of studying pacifism extends beyond academic philosophy to practical questions of international relations, social justice, and individual ethics. As global military expenditures exceeded $1.7 trillion annually by 2011 while basic human needs remain unmet, and as new technologies create unprecedented capabilities for both destruction and surveillance, the pacifist critique of militarism and its alternatives deserve serious scholarly attention (3). This essay provides that attention through systematic analysis of pacifism’s theoretical frameworks, historical impact, and future prospects.

Listen to our Deep Dive into the essay content, Pacifism’s Paradox: From Conscience to Global Impact

Historical Development of Pacifism in the Twentieth Century

The Emergence of Modern Pacifism (1900-1914)

The twentieth century opened with remarkable optimism about the possibility of achieving lasting peace through international cooperation and legal mechanisms. The coining of the term “pacifism” by Émile Arnaud and its official adoption at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow reflected a broader institutionalization of peace advocacy, as middle-class peace societies, women’s organizations, and socialist movements converged around the belief that war could be eliminated through rational reform of international relations (4, 5). This linguistic development marked a crucial transition from scattered peace sentiments to organized movements with clear ideological frameworks.

The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 embodied this legalistic approach to peace, attempting to establish international frameworks for arbitration and limits on warfare. These conferences, attended by representatives from dozens of nations, produced conventions on the laws of war and established the Permanent Court of Arbitration (6). While their practical impact proved limited, they represented the high-water mark of pre-war optimism about achieving peace through international law and diplomacy. During the summer of 1900, formal notification of the ratification of the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes was given by the United States, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Persia, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands, with Japan subsequently joining (7).

Women’s participation in the early twentieth-century peace movement introduced new dimensions to pacifist thought and activism. By the 1890s, feminist societies had joined peace organizations in significant numbers, arguing that women’s full participation in civic life would naturally lead to more peaceful societies (8). The formation of groups like the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, which would emerge during World War I under the leadership of Jane Addams, demonstrated how gendered analysis of war and peace would continue to influence pacifist movements throughout the century (9).

World War I and the Transformation of Pacifism (1914-1918)

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 shattered the optimistic internationalism of the pre-war peace movement and forced pacifists to confront the reality of mechanized warfare on an unprecedented scale. The war’s impact on pacifism was paradoxical: while it demonstrated the apparent failure of legalistic peace efforts, it also catalyzed a more radical and committed pacifist movement grounded in absolute moral opposition to war rather than pragmatic calculations about its prevention (10).

Conscientious objection emerged as the defining issue for wartime pacifists. In Britain, approximately 16,000 men registered as conscientious objectors following the introduction of conscription in 1916 (11). Their treatment varied widely: over 4,500 were assigned to work of national importance, while 6,000 were handed over to the army, where many faced brutal treatment including imprisonment and hard labor. The harshness of this treatment—73 conscientious objectors died in prison or shortly after release—would lead to significant reforms in how democratic societies handled conscientious objection in future conflicts (12).

In the United States, approximately 4,000 men refused all participation in the war effort, with roughly 90 percent coming from historic peace churches—Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren (13). The experiences of these objectors, documented in memoirs and organizational records, reveal both the personal cost of pacifist conviction and the development of more sophisticated arguments for conscientious objection that would influence later movements.

The No-Conscription Fellowship in Britain and the Fellowship of Reconciliation, founded in 1914 by English Quaker Henry Hodgkin and German Lutheran Friedrich Siegmund-Schultze, exemplified the new organizational forms that emerged during the war (14). These groups moved beyond the genteel lobbying of pre-war peace societies to embrace direct resistance to military service and develop theological and philosophical arguments for absolute pacifism that would profoundly influence subsequent peace movements.

The Interwar Period: Institutionalization and Challenge (1919-1939)

The horror of World War I’s mechanized slaughter—with over 17 million deaths—created unprecedented popular support for pacifist ideas in the 1920s and early 1930s (15). The period witnessed both the institutionalization of pacifist organizations and the development of more sophisticated theoretical frameworks for understanding war and peace. The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, officially the “General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy,” represented the apotheosis of legalistic pacifism, with 62 nations including Germany and Japan pledging to renounce war as a tool of foreign policy (16, 17).

New organizations proliferated during this period. The War Resisters League, founded in 1923 as a secular alternative to religious peace groups, brought together socialists, anarchists, and humanitarian pacifists around a shared commitment to war resistance (18). In Britain, the Peace Pledge Union, established in 1934, gained significant membership through its simple pledge: “I renounce war and will never support or sanction another.” At its peak, the organization claimed over 100,000 members, suggesting the broad appeal of pacifist ideas in the aftermath of World War I (19).

However, the rise of fascism in the 1930s created profound challenges for pacifist movements. The question of how to respond to aggressive totalitarian regimes that explicitly rejected peaceful resolution of conflicts divided pacifists between those maintaining absolute opposition to war and those who reluctantly accepted the need for collective security against fascist aggression (20). This division would become even more acute with the revelation of the Holocaust and the full extent of Nazi atrocities.

World War II: The Ultimate Test (1939-1945)

World War II presented what many considered the ultimate challenge to pacifist philosophy. The Nazi regime’s systematic genocide, aggressive expansionism, and explicit rejection of humanitarian constraints seemed to demonstrate the inadequacy of nonviolent resistance against absolute evil. Even Albert Einstein, a committed pacifist throughout the 1920s and 1930s, abandoned his pacifist position when confronted with the Nazi threat, declaring that military force had become necessary for stopping Hitler (21).

Despite these challenges, significant numbers maintained pacifist convictions during World War II. In the United States, an estimated 43,000 men registered as conscientious objectors—a substantial increase from World War I (22). Of these, approximately 25,000 served in the military in non-combatant roles, 12,000 participated in Civilian Public Service camps, and 6,000 went to prison, including 4,400 Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused any cooperation with the war effort (23).

The Civilian Public Service program, operated jointly by the historic peace churches (Brethren, Quakers, and Mennonites), represented a significant innovation in how democratic societies could accommodate conscientious objection while requiring alternative service. Operating 150 camps across the United States and Puerto Rico from 1941 to 1947, CPS workers contributed to forestry, soil conservation, and agricultural projects (24). Perhaps most significantly, many were assigned to work in state mental hospitals, where they exposed horrific conditions and became instrumental in post-war mental health reforms (25).

The experiences of pacifists during World War II, including figures like Desmond Doss (the first conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor for his service as a combat medic) and civil rights pioneers like Bayard Rustin and David Dellinger who spent the war years in prison, demonstrated both the personal costs of maintaining pacifist convictions in wartime and the potential for pacifist principles to inspire broader social reform movements (26).

The Nuclear Age and Cold War Pacifism (1945-1991)

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 fundamentally transformed the nature of pacifist argument and activism. The devastating power of nuclear weapons—capable of destroying entire cities and potentially ending human civilization—gave new urgency to peace movements and created what might be called “nuclear pacifism” among many who had previously accepted conventional warfare as sometimes necessary (27).

The early nuclear age saw the emergence of new peace organizations focused specifically on nuclear disarmament. The Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy (SANE), founded in 1957, brought together liberals and religious leaders around opposition to nuclear testing and the arms race (28). In Britain, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), established in 1958, became one of the largest peace movements in British history, organizing annual Aldermaston Marches that attracted tens of thousands of participants throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s (29).

The 1980s witnessed the largest peace demonstrations in human history as fears of nuclear war reached new heights during the renewed Cold War tensions of the Reagan era. On June 12, 1982, approximately one million people demonstrated in New York’s Central Park against nuclear weapons—the largest political demonstration in American history (30). The Nuclear Freeze movement in the United States and the European Nuclear Disarmament movement mobilized millions around the seemingly modest goal of freezing nuclear weapon development at existing levels, demonstrating how pragmatic goals could mobilize broader support than absolute pacifist positions (31).

Women played particularly prominent roles in 1980s anti-nuclear activism, most notably through the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp in Britain, where women maintained a protest encampment outside a U.S. Air Force base housing cruise missiles from 1981 to 2000 (32). The camp’s emphasis on feminist analysis of militarism and creative nonviolent protest tactics influenced peace movements globally.

Vietnam War Resistance and the New Left (1964-1975)

The Vietnam War created the largest anti-war movement in American history and fundamentally transformed both pacifist practice and broader political culture. Unlike previous anti-war movements dominated by religious pacifists and older peace organizations, Vietnam War resistance drew heavily from student movements, civil rights activists, and New Left organizations that combined opposition to war with broader critiques of American society (33).

The evolution of anti-war sentiment during the Vietnam era demonstrated how pacifist ideas could move from marginal to mainstream positions. Early opposition from 1964 to 1967 came primarily from traditional pacifist organizations and civil rights activists who saw connections between racism at home and imperialism abroad. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Beyond Vietnam” speech on April 4, 1967, explicitly linked the civil rights struggle to opposition to the war, arguing that the United States was “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” (34).

By 1967, anti-war activism had expanded dramatically, with 300,000 marching in New York and 50,000 attempting to “levitate” the Pentagon in October of that year (35). The movement’s tactics evolved from peaceful demonstrations to include draft resistance, with approximately 570,000 men committing draft violations and 210,000 accused of draft offenses. The sanctuary movement that helped 30,000 to 40,000 draft resisters flee to Canada demonstrated international solidarity in war resistance (36).

The Vietnam anti-war movement’s lasting impact extended beyond ending American involvement in Southeast Asia. It normalized protest as a form of political participation, developed sophisticated analyses linking militarism to other forms of oppression, and created networks of activists who would continue working for peace and justice in subsequent decades (37). The movement also demonstrated both the potential and limitations of mass protest in affecting foreign policy in democratic societies.

Late Twentieth Century Developments (1975-2000)

The final quarter of the twentieth century saw significant evolution in pacifist thought and practice, even as the end of the Cold War in 1989-1991 reduced the salience of peace issues in mainstream politics. The period witnessed a diversification of peace activism to address regional conflicts, nuclear testing, and connections between militarism and other global issues (38).

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, pacifist organizations adapted to address new forms of conflict and violence. The Nevada Test Site protests maintained pressure against nuclear weapons testing, while groups focused on local manifestations of militarism (39). The brief Gulf War of 1991 demonstrated that peace movements could still mobilize rapidly, though the war’s quick conclusion limited sustained activism.

The decade also saw increased attention to conflict resolution and peace-building as practical applications of pacifist principles. Organizations began developing sophisticated frameworks for addressing the root causes of conflict, training mediators, and building institutions for nonviolent conflict resolution (40). This practical turn reflected both the successes and limitations of protest-based activism and the need for constructive alternatives to military solutions.

Evolution of Pacifism in the Twenty-First Century

Responding to the War on Terror

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks created unprecedented challenges for pacifist philosophy and activism. The attacks’ deliberate targeting of civilians, their basis in religious extremism, and their use of asymmetric tactics raised fundamental questions about whether traditional pacifist responses remained relevant in an age of non-state terrorism (41). The immediate aftermath saw even some longtime peace activists struggle with how to respond to an attack that seemed to demand some form of response.

Christian pacifist theologian Stanley Hauerwas exemplified the sophisticated grappling with these challenges, maintaining pacifist principles while acknowledging the complexity of responding to terrorism (42). The debate within pacifist communities revealed tensions between absolute principled positions and pragmatic responses to new security threats. Traditional peace churches maintained their historic testimonies while acknowledging that simplistic applications of nonresistance might not address the nature of terrorist threats.

The anti-Iraq War movement of 2003 demonstrated both the continued vitality and evolving nature of peace activism. The February 15, 2003 global protests against the impending invasion involved between 12 and 14 million people in over 600 cities worldwide, earning recognition in the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest protest in human history (43). Major demonstrations in Rome (3 million), London (1 million), Barcelona (1 million), and New York (300,000) showed that peace movements could still mobilize massive numbers, even if they ultimately failed to prevent the war (44).

Contemporary Challenges and Adaptations

The twenty-first century has presented pacifist movements with novel challenges requiring creative adaptations of traditional principles. Drone warfare, with its ability to conduct remote killing while minimizing risk to operators, raises new questions about the ethics of violence and the nature of warfare itself (45). Cyber warfare blurs traditional distinctions between military and civilian targets while potentially causing massive harm without traditional kinetic violence.

The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), adopted unanimously at the 2005 UN World Summit, created particular tensions within pacifist communities (46). While many pacifists supported R2P’s emphasis on prevention and international assistance (Pillars I and II), the doctrine’s acceptance of military intervention as a last resort (Pillar III) conflicted with absolute pacifist principles. The implementation of R2P in Libya in 2011, which many saw as exceeding its humanitarian mandate, reinforced pacifist skepticism about humanitarian justifications for military action (47).

Climate activism has emerged as a new frontier for pacifist engagement, with increasing recognition of connections between militarism, environmental destruction, and social justice. Organizations like the International Fellowship of Reconciliation now explicitly include climate change among their key concerns, while youth climate movements often adopt nonviolent direct action tactics pioneered by earlier peace movements (48). The framework of “climate peace” recognizes that environmental degradation and resource scarcity can drive conflict, making environmental protection a form of conflict prevention.

Digital Age Transformations

The digital revolution has fundamentally transformed both the practice of pacifist activism and the nature of conflict itself. Social media platforms enable rapid mobilization for protests and real-time international solidarity, as demonstrated during the Arab Spring movements and subsequent global protests (49). However, these same technologies create new vulnerabilities through surveillance, disinformation campaigns, and cyber attacks that complicate traditional pacifist responses.

The emergence of “cyber peace” as a concept reflects attempts to apply pacifist principles to digital conflicts. Organizations like the CyberPeace Institute work to protect vulnerable populations in cyberspace, while recognizing that cyber attacks can cause civilian harm comparable to conventional warfare (50). These developments require pacifist theorists and activists to develop new frameworks for understanding violence and nonviolence in digital contexts.

Current Organizational Landscape

Contemporary pacifist organizations demonstrate both continuity with historical movements and adaptation to twenty-first century realities. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), launched in 2007 and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017, successfully promoted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons through focusing on humanitarian consequences rather than traditional security arguments (51). With 661 partner organizations in 110 countries as of 2022, ICAN demonstrates how contemporary peace movements can achieve global reach through networked organizing (52).

Traditional organizations continue to evolve while maintaining core principles. The American Friends Service Committee, with an annual budget exceeding $30 million and operations in 22 countries, combines service delivery with advocacy on issues ranging from immigration to criminal justice reform (53). War Resisters’ International maintains its focus on supporting conscientious objectors globally while adapting to address new forms of militarism including military recruitment in schools and the militarization of police forces (54).

Philosophical Frameworks and Justifications

Religious Foundations of Pacifist Thought

Religious pacifism represents the oldest and most deeply developed tradition within pacifist philosophy. Christian pacifism grounds itself fundamentally in the teachings and example of Jesus, particularly the Sermon on the Mount’s injunctions to “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies” (55). This theological foundation provides absolute pacifists with a framework that transcends consequentialist calculations about effectiveness, instead focusing on faithful witness to divine commands regardless of worldly outcomes.

The Quaker tradition exemplifies how religious pacifism can develop into comprehensive social philosophy. The Quaker testimony of peace, based on the belief in “that of God in everyone,” extends beyond mere opposition to war to encompass positive peace-building, social justice, and transformative approaches to conflict (56). The approximately 377,000 Quakers worldwide continue to influence peace movements far beyond their numbers through institutions like the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the Quaker United Nations Office (57).

Eastern religious traditions contribute distinctive perspectives to pacifist philosophy through the concept of ahimsa or non-harm. In Hinduism, Buddhism, and especially Jainism, violence is understood as stemming from attachment and ignorance about the fundamental interconnectedness of all beings (58). This philosophical framework provides a naturalistic rather than theistic foundation for nonviolence, emphasizing the self-defeating nature of violence given the interdependence of all life.

Islamic pacifism, though less prominent in Western discourse, draws on Quranic teachings about peace (salaam) and the greater jihad of internal spiritual struggle. Figures like Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the “Frontier Gandhi,” demonstrated how Islamic principles could support nonviolent resistance to oppression, challenging stereotypes about Islam and violence while providing theological resources for Muslim peace activists (59).

Secular and Philosophical Arguments

Secular pacifism develops from various philosophical traditions that ground opposition to war in rational rather than religious arguments. Kantian-influenced pacifists draw on the categorical imperative’s demand to treat humanity “always as an end and never as a means only” to argue that war inevitably violates human dignity by treating people as expendable resources for political goals (60). This deontological approach provides absolute principles that prohibit war regardless of consequences.

Utilitarian pacifists make empirical arguments about war’s consequences, arguing that historical evidence demonstrates wars typically produce more harm than good when all effects are considered (61). This consequentialist approach allows for more nuanced positions, including rule-utilitarian arguments that a general prohibition on war produces the best outcomes even if particular wars might theoretically be justified. The massive expenditure on military preparations—over $1.7 trillion globally by 2011—that could address pressing human needs provides contemporary utilitarian arguments against militarism (62).

Virtue ethics approaches to pacifism focus on the character traits and moral development fostered by commitment to nonviolence. From this perspective, pacifism involves cultivating virtues like compassion, patience, and forgiveness while avoiding the corrupting effects of violence on individual and social character (63). This approach links personal transformation to social change, arguing that peaceful societies require peaceful individuals.

Theoretical Frameworks and Distinctions

The distinction between absolute and conditional pacifism remains fundamental to understanding pacifist philosophy. Absolute pacifists maintain unconditional opposition to all war and violence, typically grounded in religious or strong deontological commitments (64). This position faces challenges in scenarios involving self-defense or protection of innocent third parties but maintains moral clarity and consistency.

Conditional or contingent pacifism allows for more nuanced positions based on specific circumstances or empirical assessments. Just war pacifists use traditional just war criteria to conclude that modern warfare, with its inevitable civilian casualties and disproportionate destruction, can never meet moral standards (65). Nuclear pacifists may accept conventional military defense while absolutely opposing nuclear weapons as inherently indiscriminate and disproportionate.

The development of nonviolent resistance theory, particularly through figures like Gene Sharp, has provided practical frameworks for achieving political goals without violence. Sharp’s analysis of power as dependent on consent and cooperation, combined with his catalog of 198 methods of nonviolent action, offers strategic rather than purely moral arguments for pacifism (66). This approach has influenced successful nonviolent movements from Serbia to Tunisia, demonstrating empirical support for pacifist methods.

Arguments Supporting Pacifism

Empirical Evidence for Nonviolent Effectiveness

The most compelling contemporary arguments for pacifism often focus on empirical evidence of nonviolent methods’ effectiveness rather than purely moral arguments. The groundbreaking research of Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, analyzing resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006, found that nonviolent campaigns succeeded 53 percent of the time compared to only 26 percent for violent campaigns (67, 68). This finding challenges assumptions about violence as necessary for achieving political change and provides strategic rather than merely ethical arguments for pacifist approaches.

Nonviolent movements demonstrate several strategic advantages that contribute to their higher success rates. They face lower barriers to participation, allowing involvement from demographics unable or unwilling to engage in violent resistance, including women, elderly people, and children (69). This broader participation creates legitimacy and makes repression more difficult for regimes to justify. Nonviolent movements also prove more likely to trigger defections from security forces, as soldiers and police find it harder to justify violence against peaceful protesters than against armed opponents (70).

The economic arguments against militarism provide additional empirical support for pacifist positions. Military expenditures represent massive opportunity costs, diverting resources from education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other productive investments. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s calculation that just 5 percent of global military spending could achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals illustrates how militarism perpetuates the very conditions of poverty and injustice that often lead to conflict (71).

Historical Success Stories

The historical record provides numerous examples of successful nonviolent movements achieving major political and social transformations. The Indian independence movement, led by Mahatma Gandhi, demonstrated how nonviolent resistance could challenge and ultimately defeat colonial power (72). Through methods including the 1930 Salt March, nationwide non-cooperation campaigns, and economic boycotts, the movement achieved independence while maintaining moral authority and avoiding the cycles of violence that characterized many other decolonization struggles (73).

The American civil rights movement exemplified how pacifist principles could achieve domestic social transformation. The Montgomery Bus Boycott’s 381-day campaign of economic pressure, the sit-in movements’ dignified resistance to segregation, and the broader strategy of nonviolent direct action successfully challenged entrenched racial oppression (74). The movement’s maintenance of nonviolent discipline despite violent provocation demonstrated both the moral power and practical effectiveness of pacifist methods.

More recent examples continue to demonstrate nonviolent effectiveness. The “people power” movement in the Philippines (1986), the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia (1989), and the overthrow of Milošević in Serbia (2000) show how nonviolent movements can successfully challenge even authoritarian regimes (75). While not all nonviolent movements succeed, their track record compares favorably to violent insurgencies while avoiding the destruction and cycles of revenge that often follow violent conflicts.

Moral and Philosophical Strengths

Beyond practical effectiveness, pacifism offers compelling moral arguments about the nature of violence and human dignity. The principle of the sanctity of life, whether grounded in religious or secular philosophy, provides clear moral guidance that avoids the complex calculations and rationalizations often used to justify violence (76). This moral clarity can provide powerful motivation for activists and create moral pressure on opponents.

The unity of means and ends represents another philosophical strength of pacifist approaches. Gandhi’s insight that “the means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree” recognizes that violent methods inevitably shape the outcomes they produce (77). Peaceful societies cannot be built through violence; justice cannot be achieved through injustice. This philosophical coherence contrasts with the contradictions inherent in using violence to achieve peace.

Pacifism’s holistic approach to peace addresses not just direct violence but also structural violence—the systematic inequalities and oppressions that create conditions for conflict. By linking peace to justice, environmental protection, and human rights, pacifist philosophy provides frameworks for addressing root causes rather than symptoms of conflict (78). This comprehensive vision offers more sustainable approaches to creating peaceful societies than narrow focus on preventing or winning wars.

Critiques and Counterarguments

The Protection of Innocents Problem

The most challenging critique of pacifism concerns scenarios where violence might prevent greater harm to innocent people. Critics argue that pacifists’ refusal to use force even to stop genocide, mass rape, or other atrocities represents a moral failure that prioritizes their own moral purity over the lives of victims (79). The examples of Rwanda in 1994 or ongoing atrocities by groups like ISIS present stark challenges to pacifist positions.

The philosophical critique, articulated forcefully by philosophers like Elizabeth Anscombe, argues that pacifism fails to distinguish between legitimate defense of innocents and unjustified aggression (80). From this perspective, the use of force to protect victims from aggressors represents not violence but justified defense that upholds rather than violates human dignity. The pacifist’s refusal to make such distinctions appears to critics as moral absolutism that ignores contextual factors and competing moral obligations.

Pacifist responses to these critiques vary in sophistication and persuasiveness. Some absolute pacifists accept that their position may result in greater immediate harm while maintaining that violence inevitably creates cycles of retaliation that produce even greater long-term suffering (81). Others focus on prevention, arguing that resources devoted to military intervention could more effectively prevent atrocities through early warning systems, economic development, and conflict resolution. Still others point to examples of nonviolent intervention, such as Peace Brigades International’s accompaniment programs, that provide protection without violence (82).

The Effectiveness Challenge

Critics argue that pacifism’s effectiveness depends on opponents having some moral constraints or vulnerability to public opinion. President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech articulated this view clearly: “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms” (83). This critique suggests that pacifism works only against opponents who already accept some moral limitations on their behavior.

Recent scholarship has begun to complicate the narrative of nonviolent effectiveness. Research shows that success rates for nonviolent campaigns have declined in recent decades, particularly as authoritarian regimes have developed more sophisticated methods for countering peaceful protests (84). The failure of movements like the Arab Spring to achieve lasting democratic transformation in most countries raises questions about whether early optimism about nonviolent revolution was overstated.

The free-rider problem presents another effectiveness challenge. Pacifist individuals and nations often benefit from military protection provided by others, raising questions about whether pacifism is sustainable as a universal principle or depends on others’ willingness to use force (85). This critique suggests that pacifism may be a luxury available only to those protected by others’ violence, rather than a practical approach to security in an anarchic international system.

Realist International Relations Critiques

International relations realists argue that pacifism fundamentally misunderstands the nature of international politics. In an anarchic system without overarching authority, states must provide for their own security or risk conquest by less scrupulous neighbors (86). From this perspective, pacifism represents dangerous naivety that could lead to subjugation by aggressive powers.

The security dilemma—whereby one state’s defensive preparations appear threatening to neighbors, triggering arms races and increasing conflict risks—suggests that even well-intentioned states cannot unilaterally adopt pacifist policies without endangering their survival (87). Historical examples of neutral states invaded during World War II despite their peaceful intentions reinforce realist skepticism about pacifism’s viability in international politics.

Realists also critique pacifism’s alleged failure to distinguish between just and unjust causes in international conflicts. By opposing all wars equally, pacifists may inadvertently support aggressors by opposing efforts to stop them (88). This moral equivalence, critics argue, undermines international law and efforts to maintain peaceful international order through collective security arrangements.

Key Organizations and Individuals

The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

The Religious Society of Friends stands as perhaps the most influential and consistent pacifist organization in modern history. Founded in mid-seventeenth century England by George Fox, Quakers base their peace testimony on the belief in “that of God in everyone”—a theological principle that makes violence against any person an affront to the divine (89). With approximately 377,000 adult members worldwide as of 2017, Quakers have influenced peace movements far beyond their numerical strength through both organizational innovation and individual witness (90).

The Quaker approach to pacifism extends beyond mere opposition to war to encompass comprehensive peace-building through social reform, economic justice, and conflict resolution. Quaker-founded businesses like Cadbury and Rowntree pioneered worker welfare programs based on principles of fairness and mutual respect (91). Quaker involvement in the Underground Railroad, prison reform, and mental health advocacy demonstrates how pacifist principles translate into broader social transformation.

The 1947 Nobel Peace Prize awarded jointly to the British Friends Service Council and American Friends Service Committee recognized Quakers’ humanitarian work during and after both world wars (92). Through programs providing relief to all sides in conflicts without discrimination, Quakers demonstrated practical alternatives to military solutions while maintaining principled neutrality. Contemporary Quaker organizations continue this tradition through conflict resolution training, legislative advocacy, and grassroots peace-building in conflict zones worldwide.

Transformational Individual Leaders

Mahatma Gandhi’s development of satyagraha—often translated as “truth force” or “soul force”—revolutionized both the theory and practice of nonviolent resistance. Drawing from Hindu concepts of ahimsa, Christian ideas about suffering love, and practical political strategy, Gandhi created a comprehensive philosophy that linked personal transformation to social change (93). His successful leadership of the Indian independence movement through methods including the 1930 Salt March and Quit India campaign demonstrated nonviolence’s capacity to challenge colonial power (94).

Martin Luther King Jr. adapted Gandhian methods to the American context, creating a synthesis of Christian theology, democratic ideals, and strategic nonviolence that transformed American society (95). King’s philosophical sophistication—evident in works like “Letter from Birmingham Jail”—combined with practical organizing skills demonstrated through campaigns in Montgomery, Birmingham, and Selma, showed how pacifist principles could achieve concrete social change. His expansion from civil rights to economic justice and anti-war activism in his final years illustrated pacifism’s comprehensive critique of interconnected systems of oppression (96).

Thich Nhat Hanh’s development of “Engaged Buddhism” provided new frameworks for understanding the relationship between inner peace and social action. Through teachings on mindfulness, interbeing, and compassionate action, he influenced millions worldwide while demonstrating how contemplative practices support rather than escape from social engagement (97). His establishment of monastic communities and peace organizations created institutions for transmitting pacifist principles across generations and cultures.

Contemporary Organizational Landscape

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) exemplifies how contemporary pacifist organizations adapt traditional principles to modern contexts. By focusing on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons rather than technical arms control negotiations, ICAN mobilized global civil society to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (98). Their 2017 Nobel Peace Prize recognized both the urgency of nuclear disarmament and the effectiveness of citizen-led initiatives in international politics (99).

Traditional organizations continue evolving to address contemporary challenges. War Resisters’ International, founded in 1921, maintains its focus on supporting conscientious objectors while expanding to address militarism in education, police militarization, and connections between militarism and environmental destruction (100). The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the world’s oldest women’s peace organization, applies feminist analysis to contemporary conflicts while maintaining its foundational commitment to women’s participation in peace-building (101).

New organizations emerging in the twenty-first century reflect evolving understandings of peace and violence. Groups focusing on cyber peace, climate justice, and economic inequality as peace issues demonstrate how pacifist principles apply to novel challenges (102). The integration of indigenous perspectives through organizations promoting traditional conflict resolution methods and land-based peace-building represents another evolution in pacifist thought and practice.

Contemporary Relevance and Future Directions

Addressing Twenty-First Century Conflicts

Contemporary conflicts increasingly involve non-state actors, asymmetric warfare, and blurred distinctions between combatants and civilians, creating new challenges for pacifist approaches. The rise of terrorist organizations deliberately targeting civilians challenges traditional nonviolent resistance strategies designed for confronting state power (103). However, pacifist organizations have developed sophisticated analyses linking terrorism to root causes including poverty, injustice, and historical grievances that military approaches fail to address.

Climate change emerges as perhaps the greatest threat to peace in the twenty-first century, with potential for resource conflicts, mass displacement, and societal breakdown. Pacifist organizations increasingly recognize climate action as peace work, developing frameworks for “just transition” that address both environmental and social justice (104). The intersection of environmental and peace movements creates new coalitions and strategies for addressing interconnected global challenges.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated both the fragility of existing systems and possibilities for rapid global cooperation on shared challenges. Pacifist organizations drew parallels between pandemic response and potential approaches to other global threats, arguing for redirecting military spending toward health infrastructure and international cooperation (105). The pandemic’s disruption of military activities and demonstrations of non-military security threats reinforced pacifist arguments about redefining security.

Technological Challenges and Opportunities

Emerging technologies create both new forms of violence and new possibilities for nonviolent resistance. Artificial intelligence in weapons systems raises questions about human agency and accountability in warfare, while cyber attacks blur traditional distinctions between war and peace (106). Pacifist thinkers work to develop ethical frameworks for these technologies while advocating for international agreements preventing their weaponization.

Digital platforms enable new forms of nonviolent organizing and solidarity across borders. Social movements can rapidly share tactics, coordinate actions, and build international support in ways impossible for previous generations (107). However, these same technologies enable surveillance, repression, and disinformation campaigns that complicate traditional protest tactics. Pacifist organizations must continually adapt to changing technological landscapes while maintaining core principles.

The development of virtual reality and immersive technologies creates new possibilities for building empathy and understanding across conflict lines. Peace organizations experiment with using these technologies for conflict resolution training, trauma healing, and creating shared narratives that transcend traditional divisions (108). These innovations suggest how pacifist principles might guide technological development toward peaceful rather than destructive applications.

Building Cultures of Peace

The concept of “cultures of peace” represents an evolution from focusing solely on preventing war to creating societies where peaceful conflict resolution becomes normative. This involves transforming education systems to teach conflict resolution skills, creating economic systems based on cooperation rather than competition, and developing media that promote understanding rather than division (109). UNESCO’s Culture of Peace program and similar initiatives demonstrate institutional recognition of these broader approaches.

Restorative justice movements apply pacifist principles to criminal justice systems, focusing on healing and reconciliation rather than punishment and retribution. These approaches, drawing from indigenous traditions and modern conflict resolution theory, demonstrate practical alternatives to punitive systems that perpetuate cycles of violence (110). The growing adoption of restorative practices in schools, communities, and even post-conflict societies shows how pacifist principles can transform institutional responses to harm.

Peace education emerges as crucial for sustaining pacifist movements across generations. From teaching conflict resolution in elementary schools to establishing peace studies programs in universities, educational initiatives create frameworks for understanding and practicing nonviolence (111). The challenge lies in competing with military recruitment in schools and pervasive cultural messages glorifying violence, requiring creative approaches to making peace as compelling as war in popular imagination.

Conclusion

The evolution of pacifism through the twentieth and twenty-first centuries reveals a philosophy of remarkable resilience and adaptability. From its formalization at the dawn of the twentieth century through the challenges of two world wars, the nuclear age, and contemporary asymmetric conflicts, pacifism has continuously evolved while maintaining core commitments to nonviolence and human dignity. Far from being merely oppositional, pacifist movements have developed sophisticated theoretical frameworks, practical methodologies, and institutional forms that offer genuine alternatives to militaristic approaches to human conflict.

The philosophical richness of pacifist thought encompasses diverse religious and secular traditions united by shared recognition that violence ultimately fails to create genuine security or justice. From Quaker testimonies to Gandhi’s satyagraha to contemporary frameworks for “just peace,” pacifist philosophy provides resources for addressing fundamental questions about human nature, social organization, and moral obligation. These philosophical contributions deserve recognition alongside the practical achievements of nonviolent movements in achieving social transformation.

The empirical evidence supporting pacifist approaches continues to accumulate, from Chenoweth and Stephan’s findings about nonviolent effectiveness to successful contemporary movements achieving political change without violence. While critics raise important challenges about protecting innocents and responding to ruthless opponents, pacifist responses demonstrate increasing sophistication in addressing these concerns through preventive approaches, nonviolent intervention strategies, and comprehensive frameworks linking peace to justice.

Key organizations from the Religious Society of Friends to contemporary groups like ICAN demonstrate how pacifist principles translate into sustained institutional action. Individual leaders from Gandhi to King to Thich Nhat Hanh show how personal commitment to nonviolence can catalyze broader social transformation. These examples provide models and inspiration for continued pacifist activism while demonstrating the diversity of approaches within the broader pacifist tradition.

Contemporary relevance appears in pacifist engagement with challenges from climate change to cyber warfare to pandemic response. By developing frameworks for understanding these issues through lenses of peace and nonviolence, pacifist movements contribute essential perspectives often marginalized in mainstream security discourse. The integration of pacifist insights into fields from education to criminal justice to international development suggests growing recognition of nonviolence as practical necessity rather than utopian ideal.

Future directions for pacifism likely involve continued adaptation to technological change, deeper engagement with indigenous and non-Western peace traditions, and more sophisticated integration of insights from psychology, neuroscience, and other fields advancing understanding of human behavior. The challenge lies in maintaining principled commitment to nonviolence while developing practical responses to evolving forms of conflict and violence.

The study of pacifism ultimately raises fundamental questions about human possibility. Can societies transcend the cycles of violence that have characterized human history? Can nonviolent methods effectively address injustice and aggression? Can individuals and communities develop capacities for peaceful conflict resolution that make violence truly obsolete? The historical record provides grounds for both skepticism and hope. What remains clear is that pacifist philosophy and practice offer essential resources for those seeking to create more peaceful and just societies. In an age of unprecedented destructive capacity alongside unprecedented possibilities for global cooperation, the pacifist tradition deserves serious engagement from scholars, policymakers, and citizens committed to human survival and flourishing.

Bibliography

1. “Pacifism.” Wikipedia. Accessed July 27, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism.
2. Ceadel, Martin. “Pacifism and Peace Activism in Modern Britain: A History of the ‘Peace Studies Problem.'” History Compass 22, no. 7 (July 2024). https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12816.
3. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. SIPRI Yearbook 2012: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
4. Arnaud, Émile. “Proceedings of the Tenth Universal Peace Congress.” St. Andrew’s Hall, Glasgow, September 10-13, 1901. Bern: International Peace Bureau, 1902.
5. “Universal Peace Congress (10th: 1901: Glasgow, Scotland).” The Online Books Page. Accessed July 27, 2025. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Universal+Peace+Congress+(10th+:+1901+:+Glasgow,+Scotland).
6. Durand, André. History of the International Committee of the Red Cross: From Sarajevo to Hiroshima. Geneva: Henry Dunant Institute, 1984.
7. “Peace Congress.” Wikipedia. Last modified May 24, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_congress.
8. Cooper, Sandi E. Patriotic Pacifism: Waging War on War in Europe, 1815-1914. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
9. Addams, Jane. Peace and Bread in Time of War. New York: Macmillan, 1922.
10. Chickering, Roger. Imperial Germany and a World Without War: The Peace Movement and German Society, 1892-1914. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.
11. Rae, John. Conscience and Politics: The British Government and the Conscientious Objector to Military Service, 1916-1919. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.
12. Boulton, David. Objection Overruled: Conscription and Conscience in the First World War. London: Duckworth, 1967.
13. Peterson, H. C., and Gilbert C. Fite. Opponents of War, 1917-1918. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1957.
14. The Fellowship of Reconciliation. “History.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.for.org.uk/history.
15. Winter, Jay, and Antoine Prost. The Great War in History: Debates and Controversies, 1914 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
16. U.S. Department of State. “The Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928.” Office of the Historian. Accessed July 27, 2025. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/kellogg.
17. Ferrell, Robert H. Peace in Their Time: The Origins of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952.
18. Bennett, Scott H. Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Nonviolence in America, 1915-1963. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2003.
19. Ceadel, Martin. Pacifism in Britain, 1914-1945: The Defining of a Faith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.
20. Lynch, Cecelia. Beyond Appeasement: Interpreting Interwar Peace Movements in World Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.
21. American Museum of Natural History. “Einstein and the Rise of Nazism: Rethinking Pacifism.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/the-nazis-and-wwii.
22. The National WWII Museum. “Alternative Service: Conscientious Objectors and Civilian Public Service in World War II.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/conscientious-objectors-civilian-public-service.
23. Keim, Albert N. The CPS Story: An Illustrated History of Civilian Public Service. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 1990.
24. Gingerich, Melvin. Service for Peace: A History of Mennonite Civilian Public Service. Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee, 1949.
25. NPR. “WWII Pacifists Exposed Mental Ward Horrors.” December 30, 2009. https://www.npr.org/2009/12/30/122017757/wwii-pacifists-exposed-mental-ward-horrors.
26. Boozer, Jack S. “The Political and Social Thought of Charles A. Beard.” American Political Science Review 42, no. 5 (1948): 849-857.
27. Boyer, Paul. By the Bomb’s Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age. New York: Pantheon, 1985.
28. DeBenedetti, Charles. The Peace Reform in American History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980.
29. “Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.” Wikipedia. Accessed July 27, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament.
30. Museum of the City of New York. “Nuclear Disarmament.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.mcny.org/exhibition/nuclear-disarmament.
31. Wittner, Lawrence S. The Struggle Against the Bomb, 3 vols. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993-2003.
32. Harford, Barbara, and Sarah Hopkins, eds. Greenham Common: Women at the Wire. London: Women’s Press, 1984.
33. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. “The US Anti-Vietnam War Movement (1964-1973).” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/us-anti-vietnam-war-movement-1964-1973/.
34. King Jr., Martin Luther. “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.” Speech, Riverside Church, New York, NY, April 4, 1967.
35. Wells, Tom. The War Within: America’s Battle over Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
36. Baskir, Lawrence M., and William A. Strauss. Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War, and the Vietnam Generation. New York: Knopf, 1978.
37. Hall, Simon. Peace and Freedom: The Civil Rights and Antiwar Movements in the 1960s. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.
38. Cortright, David. Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
39. Taylor, Richard. Against the Bomb: The British Peace Movement, 1958-1965. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
40. Galtung, Johan. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1996.
41. Fiala, Andrew. The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
42. Hauerwas, Stanley. “September 11, 2001: A Pacifist Response.” Duke Today, September 2001. https://today.duke.edu/showcase/mmedia/features/911site/hauerwas.html.
43. Institute for Policy Studies. “February 15, 2003: The Day the World Said No to War.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://ips-dc.org/february_15_2003_the_day_the_world_said_no_to_war/.
44. Walgrave, Stefaan, and Dieter Rucht, eds. The World Says No to War: Demonstrations against the War on Iraq. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
45. Chamayou, Grégoire. A Theory of the Drone. New York: New Press, 2015.
46. Evans, Gareth. The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008.
47. Kuperman, Alan J. “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya Campaign.” International Security 38, no. 1 (2013): 105-136.
48. International Fellowship of Reconciliation. “Climate Justice.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.ifor.org/climate-justice.
49. Howard, Philip N., and Muzammil M. Hussain. Democracy’s Fourth Wave?: Digital Media and the Arab Spring. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
50. CyberPeace Institute. “About Us.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://cyberpeaceinstitute.org/about.
51. International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. “About ICAN.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.icanw.org/.
52. ICAN. “Partner Organizations.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.icanw.org/partners.
53. American Friends Service Committee. “Annual Report 2023.” Philadelphia: AFSC, 2024.
54. War Resisters’ International. “About WRI.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://wri-irg.org/en/about.
55. Matthew 5:38-44. New International Version.
56. Brinton, Howard. Friends for 350 Years. Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Publications, 2002.
57. Friends World Committee for Consultation. Finding Quakers Around the World. London: FWCC, 2017.
58. Chapple, Christopher Key. Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.
59. Easwaran, Eknath. Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man to Match His Mountains. Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press, 1999.
60. Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay. Translated by M. Campbell Smith. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1917.
61. Holmes, Robert L. On War and Morality. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
62. SIPRI. SIPRI Yearbook 2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
63. MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. 3rd ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.
64. Yoder, John Howard. Nevertheless: The Varieties and Shortcomings of Religious Pacifism. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1992.
65. Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. 5th ed. New York: Basic Books, 2015.
66. Sharp, Gene. The Politics of Nonviolent Action. 3 vols. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973.
67. Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria J. Stephan. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
68. Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria J. Stephan. “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.” International Security 33, no. 1 (2008): 7-44.
69. Schock, Kurt. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.
70. Nepstad, Sharon Erickson. Nonviolent Revolutions: Civil Resistance in the Late 20th Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
71. SIPRI. “The Opportunity Cost of World Military Spending.” SIPRI Fact Sheet, April 2019.
72. Gandhi, M. K. An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.
73. Dalton, Dennis. Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power in Action. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.
74. Carson, Clayborne, ed. The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. 7 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992-2014.
75. Ackerman, Peter, and Jack DuVall. A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000.
76. Schweitzer, Albert. Reverence for Life. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.
77. Gandhi, M. K. Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha). New York: Schocken Books, 1961.
78. Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (1969): 167-191.
79. Coady, C. A. J. “Pacifism and the Problem of Deadly Force.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War, edited by Seth Lazar and Helen Frowe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
80. Anscombe, G. E. M. “War and Murder.” In Nuclear Weapons: A Catholic Response, edited by Walter Stein. London: Merlin Press, 1961.
81. Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.
82. Mahony, Liam, and Luis Enrique Eguren. Unarmed Bodyguards: International Accompaniment for the Protection of Human Rights. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1997.
83. Obama, Barack. “A Just and Lasting Peace.” Nobel Lecture, Oslo, Norway, December 10, 2009.
84. Chenoweth, Erica. “The Future of Nonviolent Resistance.” Journal of Democracy 31, no. 3 (2020): 69-84.
85. Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.
86. Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001.
87. Jervis, Robert. “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 30, no. 2 (1978): 167-214.
88. Niebuhr, Reinhold. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
89. Fox, George. The Journal of George Fox. Edited by John L. Nickalls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952.
90. Friends World Committee for Consultation. 2017 Friends World Census. London: FWCC, 2018.
91. Wagner, Gillian. The Chocolate Conscience. London: Chatto & Windus, 1987.
92. Nobel Prize. “The Nobel Peace Prize 1947.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1947/summary/.
93. Gandhi, M. K. Satyagraha in South Africa. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1928.
94. Brown, Judith M. Gandhi’s Rise to Power: Indian Politics, 1915-1922. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
95. King Jr., Martin Luther. Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. New York: Harper & Row, 1958.
96. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute. “Martin Luther King Jr. and the Global Freedom Struggle.” Stanford University. Accessed July 27, 2025. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/.
97. Hanh, Thich Nhat. Being Peace. Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1987.
98. Minor, Elizabeth. “Changing the Discourse on Nuclear Weapons: The Humanitarian Initiative.” International Review of the Red Cross 97, no. 899 (2015): 711-730.
99. Nobel Prize. “The Nobel Peace Prize 2017.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2017/summary/.
100. War Resisters’ International. Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns. 2nd ed. London: WRI, 2014.
101. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. “Our History.” Accessed July 27, 2025. https://www.wilpf.org/history/.
102. Dorn, A. Walter. Keeping Watch: Monitoring, Technology and Innovation in UN Peace Operations. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2011.
103. Cronin, Audrey Kurth. How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
104. Parenti, Christian. Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence. New York: Nation Books, 2011.
105. Klare, Michael T. “From Scarcity to Security: A Common Security Approach to Water, Energy, and Climate Challenges.” Current History 119, no. 821 (2020): 333-339.
106. Scharre, Paul. Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. New York: W. W. Norton, 2018.
107. Tufekci, Zeynep. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017.
108. Bailenson, Jeremy. Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do. New York: W. W. Norton, 2018.
109. UNESCO. Culture of Peace Programme. Paris: UNESCO, 1999.
110. Zehr, Howard. The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Rev. ed. New York: Good Books, 2015.
111. Harris, Ian M., and Mary Lee Morrison. Peace Education. 3rd ed. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2013.