Anarchy, pacifism and realism: building a path to a non-violent international law

In anarcho-pacifist thought it is argued that a consistent pacifism could only accord with anarchism, as the establishment and enforcement of any sovereign legal order necessitates the use of violence that is anathema to pacifist ethics. Yet little work has been done to think about how this relation between pacifism and anarchism might be of value in thinking about international relations and international law, where anarchical conditions are broadly recognised as prevailing. The purpose of this paper is to explore the connections between pacifism and anarchism in relation to international law, through an examination of realist claims regarding the role of violence in law. It will consider the realist critiques of international law put forward by (amongst others) Schmitt and Morgenthau, as well as the realist-based normative propositions of Gerhart Niemeyer’s Law Without Force and the ‘weak pacifism’ offered by Danilo Zolo. The tentative argument will be advanced that perhaps it is the anarchical condition of international politics that might allow the development of a pacifist international law in the future. Such law would necessarily remain ‘weak and decentralized’, as Morgenthau put it, but might also avoid the pitfalls of great power exploitation inherent in current international law