It is unquestionable that pacifism has occupied a marginal place in mainstream International Relations (IR) scholarship for many decades. It has only very rarely been the basis for normative theorising about the use of force, and has rarely been drawn upon as a theoretical resource for thinking about issues related to war, security, peacebuilding, national defence planning, humanitarian intervention, political institutions, and the like. Terms, concepts and theories related to pacifism are rarely if ever mentioned, much less discussed seriously, within IR’s main conferences, journals, books or teaching programmes. In the political arena, pacifism has such a poor reputation that politicians go to great lengths to dissociate themselves or their opinions from any hint that they are pacifist, as Olivia Reeves-O’Toole’s article in this special issue clearly demonstrates. In part, such active suppression of this approach is due to the unquestioned dominance of just war theory as the common sense approach for thinking about war, violence, security, protection and ethics in IR, despite its major flaws and criticisms. It is also due to the persistence of a number of widely-held misconceptions, including that pacifism represents a single homogenous position which rejects any and all forms of force and violence, that pacifism is politically naïve, and that it is potentially dangerous because it entails passivity in the face of aggression. Other misconceptions revolve around the utility and necessity of force for civilian protection, and the nature of anarchy which purportedly necessitates defensive and offensive capabilities by states. This marginalised status is a puzzling state of affairs, given the historic successes of pacifist activists and initiatives over many decades in relation to disarmament, international organisation and international law, the noted insights and advantages of pacifist theory in relation to dominant IR and political theories, and the recent robust empirical findings documenting the success and positive effects of nonviolent movements for political change compared to violent movements. Notwithstanding this historical and continuing condition of subjugation, recent years have seen something of a revival of pacifism in IR, and a new openness to engaging with it as a serious analytical and ethical approach. There have been a growing number of papers and articles in the core conferences and journals of IR, including this and other recent special issues, as well as a growing number of new books, conferences and seminars, which engage

中文翻译：

---

简介：和平主义回归国际关系

毫无疑问，几十年来，和平主义在主流国际关系 (IR) 学术中一直处于边缘地位。它很少成为关于使用武力的规范理论的基础，也很少被用作思考战争、安全、建设和平、国防规划、人道主义干预、政治机构和政治机构等相关问题的理论资源。类似。在 IR 的主要会议、期刊、书籍或教学计划中，与和平主义相关的术语、概念和理论很少被提及，更不用说认真讨论了。在政治舞台上，和平主义声名狼藉，以至于政治家们竭尽全力地将自己或他们的观点与任何暗示他们是和平主义者的暗示分离开来，正如 Olivia Reeves-O'Toole 在本期特刊中的文章清楚地表明的那样。对这种方法的这种积极压制部分是由于正义战争理论作为思考国际关系中战争、暴力、安全、保护和伦理的常识方法，尽管存在重大缺陷和批评，但它无可置疑地占据主导地位。这也是由于一些广泛持有的误解的持续存在，包括和平主义代表一个单一的同质立场，拒绝任何形式的武力和暴力，和平主义在政治上是幼稚的，它具有潜在的危险，因为它需要面对侵略的被动。其他误解围绕着保护平民的武力的效用和必要性，以及据称国家需要防御和进攻能力的无政府状态的性质。鉴于几十年来和平主义活动家和倡议在裁军、国际组织和国际法方面取得的历史性成功，和平主义理论相对于主导的国际关系和政治理论的显着见解和优势，这种边缘化状态令人费解，以及最近强有力的实证研究结果证明了与暴力运动相比，非暴力运动对政治变革的成功和积极影响。尽管存在这种历史性和持续性的征服状态，但近年来，国际关系中和平主义的复兴，以及将其作为一种严肃的分析和道德方法进行参与的新开放态度。IR 的核心会议和期刊上的论文和文章越来越多，包括本期和其他最近的特刊，