In an era marked by growing geopolitical tensions, bloody conflicts, and a troubling return to the logic of rearmament, a radical and bold proposal emerges strongly, yet is deeply rooted in the founding principles of the Italian Republic: the establishment of a Ministry for Peace. This is not a mere rhetorical claim but a concrete challenge, a clear political statement seeking to propose a structural alternative to the logic of conflict and force.

The idea, championed by numerous Christian and pacifist associations, finds its deep inspiration in Pope Francis’ encyclical Fratelli Tutti and has been embraced by the Vatican Foundation “Fratelli Tutti, on Fraternity and Social Friendship”, established by Pope Francis on 8 December 2021, tasked with promoting initiatives based on the principles of the eponymous encyclical. Father Francesco Occhetta, Secretary General of the Foundation, emphasises that creating such a ministry is not a symbolic gesture, but a commitment to promoting a different way of life, based on restorative rather than vindictive justice, conflict mediation, and dialogue. It expresses a collective will, opposing the fear and vengeance driven by political interests of the “great and powerful”, while giving voice to ordinary people who do not want war.

The project, presented in Rome at an event bringing together authoritative voices from academia, religion, and the third sector, aims to redefine the very concept of peace, which cannot be generic pacifism but a concrete, institutional, and structural commitment.

The proposal is firmly grounded not in an abstract ideology but at the heart of the Italian Constitution, whose Article 11 states: “Italy repudiates war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means of resolving international disputes; it consents, on equal terms with other States, to limitations of sovereignty necessary for an order ensuring peace and justice among Nations; it promotes and encourages international organisations pursuing this aim.”

• It is therefore not limited to a formal repudiation of war on ethical grounds but constitutes a legal norm prohibiting the use of military force for aggression or dispute resolution.
• It imposes an active duty: creating the conditions necessary to eliminate conflicts and establish an international order based on justice and peaceful relations among peoples, actively promoting institutions and international organisations aimed at peace and justice.
• It accepts limitations of sovereignty, because peace cannot be guaranteed in isolation but requires participation in an international order based on cooperation and justice, even at the cost of ceding part of national sovereignty.

A Ministry for Peace fits perfectly within this framework and would become the institutional tool to implement the vocation “to peace”, coordinating public policies and providing Parliament with the means to monitor their effective implementation.

The principle of repudiating war and promoting peace is not exclusive to the Italian Constitution. Other nations, often marked by historical conflicts, have incorporated similar principles into their foundational texts:

• Japan, whose Constitution, Article 9, states: “The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. Land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.” This is perhaps the most radical example of constitutional pacifism, although its interpretation has been subject to debate.

• The Federal Republic of Germany, whose Basic Law affirms: “The Federation may, for the protection of peace, participate in a system of collective security involving limitations on its sovereignty” (Art. 24) and “Acts that may disturb peaceful coexistence among peoples and undertaken with the intent of preparing a war of aggression are unconstitutional” (Art. 26). This Basic Law, drafted after the Second World War, specifically prohibits aggressive war and actively promotes participation in collective security systems aimed at maintaining peace.

• The Norwegian Constitution, Article 111: “The King and Government may not declare war nor enter into any military union or alliance without the consent of Parliament.” While it does not explicitly repudiate war, it imposes a strong limitation, reflecting a principle of caution and non-belligerence.

• The Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 79: “The Russian Federation does not accept joining intergovernmental organisations whose objectives are contrary to the interests of the Russian Federation, including threats to independence and territorial integrity.” This article calls for respect for sovereignty and openness to international cooperation, while emphasising the defence of national interests.

These examples show that the principle of “constitutional pacifism” is not isolated but represents a conscious choice by several nations, which, following dramatic historical experiences, seek to anchor their foreign policy in values of peace, cooperation, and international justice.

However, the operational principles of Russian foreign policy, as demonstrated by the war in Ukraine, and those of other countries, often contradict these peace principles. Moreover, as in Italy, the “institutional will for peace” is fragmented: The Prime Minister’s Office handles civil service, the Foreign Ministry international cooperation, the Ministry of Justice restorative justice, and the Ministry of Education nonviolence education. This fragmentation, though guided by goodwill, makes a holistic and integrated approach difficult.

Furthermore, true peace, as Occhetta emphasises, is built through disarmament, understood not only as a reduction of weapons but as a deeper “disarmament of minds, language, and the culture of fear.” This approach, centred on human dignity and the power of nonviolence, represents a true “new institutional humanism.”

A Ministry for Peace would unify these efforts, promoting a coherent vision that goes beyond the mere absence of war, encompassing conflict management, the creation of conditions of justice, and the prevention of hostilities.

The establishment of such a ministry would also provide a unique opportunity to enhance and coordinate the enormous political and social commitment already carried out in each country by thousands of organisations. Acting within a subsidiarity framework, the State could support and promote this “social vitality,” providing stable resources for peacebuilding projects and ensuring transparency in related activities. Peace is not a fortuitous event but the result of constant and organised work.

The path to peace requires cultural and generational commitment. Young people are already deeply involved in the dramas of our time, from war to climate challenges. It is essential to support them through moments of fraternity and international exchange, accompanied by the creation of dignified and just living and working conditions. The culture of peace must be rooted and flourish in new generations, who represent hope for a different future.

A Ministry for Peace, if it existed in some countries, would be a concrete and tangible example of engaged democracy, offered to the international community as proof that another path is possible. An example of that “disarming and disarmed” peace urgently needed and which, as Pope Leo XIV hopes, could become our compass in a drifting world. This proposal is not only a response to current crises but a long-term investment in building a future where justice, dialogue, and nonviolence are the true pillars of human and international relations.

See, Un ministero della Pace, alternativa concreta alla logica della forza and La sfida di un ministero della pace