Lecture by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Holy See, who urges international diplomacy to find new paths to justice and peace within a rapidly changing geopolitical context. Towards the construction of a new world order that guarantees stability for peoples and countries, renewing the effectiveness of international law in the face of today’s challenges.
Cardinals, Excellencies of the Diplomatic Corps, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am honored to thank all of you, in your various roles, for choosing to join us in celebrating the 325th anniversary of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy’s founding. As Grand Chancellor of the Academy, a title I assumed after the reform by Pope Francis, I have the task of welcoming you in a new capacity compared to previous occasions. This is an additional responsibility for an institution that, throughout its centuries-long history and despite the most diverse and unexpected events, has faithfully preserved its function of preparing young priests called to serve in the Holy See’s diplomatic corps.
I am grateful to His Excellency, President Salvatore Pennacchio, for echoing the word “jubilee” at the beginning of our work. It is the same word that has accompanied us throughout the past year, and we have linked it to a hope that does not disappoint. This hope illuminates this worthy institution, which, as an integral part of the Secretariat of State, addresses a concrete need of the Apostolic See. Diplomatic activity demonstrates the concern of the Successor of Peter for the particular churches, which are “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful” (Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, 23). The Roman Pontiff’s inherent right to be represented before the authorities of states and intergovernmental institutions derives from this same spiritual mission so that the Church may offer “the valuable assistance of her spiritual energies and her organization for the attainment of the common good of society” (Paul VI, Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, Preamble).
New Challenges for Diplomacy
Today, we commemorate the patron saint of our institution, St. Anthony the Abbot. His teachings remain essential for all members of the Academy family. When asked, “What must I do to please God?” Anthony replied: “Wherever you go, always keep God before your eyes. Whatever you do, rely on the testimony of the Holy Scriptures. Wherever you live, do not leave quickly” (Life and Sayings of the Desert Fathers, PG, I, 1). Our patron saint reminds us that God guides the history and events of humanity, that the Good News inspires our daily actions and thoughts, and that the pursuit of peace and justice in papal diplomacy requires us to love all peoples, regardless of their history, culture, religious beliefs, customs, or geographical location.
The Great Abbot’s exhortation is profoundly meaningful, especially in our current moment, which requires a journey of conversion for those acting on the international stage. In various ways and for various reasons, they are confronted with the anxieties of justice and the desire for peace of the human family. Despite the signs of war, violations of human life, destruction, uncertainty, and a widespread sense of loss that now prevail, voices continue to rise from different regions of the planet, calling for peace and justice. Those who work in the context of international relations cannot remain indifferent to this, but must establish a new style capable of responding to the many difficulties with the certainty that, despite all the uncertainties of tomorrow, there is a desire for good in every corner of the earth.
Even though we follow different paths—diplomacy, ecclesial reality, academia, and other social spheres are represented here—today’s meeting unites us in reflecting on how peace and justice can become the pillars of international order once again, rather than remaining mere aspirations.
In a critical context for international relations, it is unfortunately easy to see that individuals and peoples have lost sight of ways to achieve the deepest aspirations of the human family, including stability, peace, and economic and social development. This affects the whole world, not just areas of conflict. Consider the political decisions supported only by the force of arms or the will to power inspiring language and demonstrations on the international stage. These behaviors, due to their severity and effects, go beyond the tragedies of war.
The international order today is not what it was eighty years ago when the United Nations and the United Nations system were established in accordance with international law. We must take note of this not only as spectators with some nostalgia for the past, but also as protagonists ready to act.
A Vision of the Future in Peace and Justice
The current state of international relations requires everyone to take concrete action, formulate proposals, promote research, and contribute to developing strategies that will make discourse, programs, and activities credible. In our various roles, the challenge is to offer more than just competent contributions; we must offer a vision of the future based on reflection, ideas, and concrete possibilities. For those working in institutions today, it is difficult to explain why justice is replaced by force and peace by war in light of the dramatic events affecting the international order. The difficulty increases when considering the consequences: the fragility of the world order, growing tensions in seemingly reconciled situations, an increase in different types of international crimes, and a widening gap in the levels of development of peoples and countries.
Paradoxically, security, now invoked for every action ranging from prevention to rearmament, requires an approach open to ensuring not only military and terrorism security, but also food, health, educational, environmental, and energy security. This includes ensuring security in religious matters in the face of violence against believers through the use of weapons, discrimination, isolation, exploitation of faith, privatization of religious practice, and indifference toward any transcendent dimension.
These elements are already alarming enough for diplomacy, the Church, academia, and society. Additionally, principles such as the self-determination of peoples, territorial sovereignty, and the rules governing war itself are being called into question. Indeed, we are witnessing the relativization of the entire apparatus of international law concerning areas such as disarmament, development cooperation, respect for fundamental rights, intellectual property, trade, and commercial transit.
In this context of concern, the desire to find answers must grow stronger. We must seek and develop solutions that abandon the use of force, the will to power, and contempt for the rules to achieve unjust objectives. The time has come to contribute to the development of a doctrine that addresses today’s situation while also serving as an educational, training, and research proposal. Faced with the new international order that emerged in the 16th century, the School of Salamanca—from which modern international law originated—updated Thomas Aquinas’s vision of “war.” Since Augustine of Hippo, the Church has reflected on this topic. Today, arguments capable of overcoming the limits and barriers that are often psychological, as well as material, are necessary.
As Paul VI said before the UN General Assembly, “Peace is not built solely on politics, the balance of forces, and interests, but on the spirit, ideas, and works of peace” (Paul VI, Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965). In this regard, I first address the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy. In its renewed mission, the Academy must combine its students’ growth in the priestly ministry with up-to-date training and research in diplomatic sciences, considering the future needs of the Holy See in its international actions.
Diplomacy: Much to Do, Little to Say
We are faced with appeals for collaboration, negotiation, and dialogue. However, these can easily be confused with acts of domination and exclusion, which can lead to the elimination of others. Thus, when analyzing international relations, we must consider not only their legitimacy but also how to overcome obstacles precisely and concretely, even when a sense of powerlessness prevails, often perceived as injustice. The Holy See operates along these lines with its diplomacy. It sees every level of activity and responsibility as an opportunity to seek ways and means to ensure an international order based on justice, where the principle and goal of coexistence is peace. The Holy See adheres to the principles, customs, and rules of diplomacy while maintaining its own style. As Pastor reports in his famous History of the Popes, Fabio Chigi — the future Pope Alexander VII — described the work of the diplomat as follows while he was Apostolic Nuncio in Cologne and participated in the Münster negotiations that led to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648: “Much to do, little to say” (L. von Pastor, Storia dei Papi, vol. XIV/1, Rome, 1961, p. 321). Today, the allure of the media seems to have overshadowed this attitude.
It is an extremely arduous and tiring journey. However, it is precisely in moments of particular difficulty that everyone is committed to building a vision for tomorrow supported by authentic hope and the capacity for personal involvement. These cornerstones inspire and guide the Church’s magisterium’s reflection in the contemporary age, in the face of conflict and destruction. I think of Benedict XV, who, at the end of World War I, wrote in his 1920 encyclical Pacem Dei munus that peace is a gift from God and must be built on justice and the contributions of every human being. I think of Pius XII, who, in his 1944 Christmas radio message, still during World War II, said that justice is a prerequisite for a peaceful international order. I think of St. John XXIII, who, in Pacem in terris (1963), said that peace needs justice in the face of the abyss that the use of atomic weapons would lead to. I think of St. Paul VI, who, in Populorum progressio (1967), said that development is a new name for peace. I think of St. John Paul II, who, in Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987), called for a higher degree of international order. Benedict XVI, in Caritas in veritate (2009), indicated that peace requires diplomatic action. Finally, Francis, in Fratelli tutti (2020), proposes an architecture of peace that peacemakers must build.
The deepest meanings of peace and justice are explored because, as Pope Leo XIV reminded us at the beginning of his ministry, they are rooted in the Christian mystery. In other words, they are a gift linked to human action that inspires and leads to “the disarming path of diplomacy, mediation, and international law.” Unfortunately, this path is contradicted by increasingly frequent violations of hard-won agreements in a context that requires the strengthening, not the delegitimization, of supranational institutions (Leo XIV, Message for World Peace Day, January 1, 2026) (Leo XIV, Message for World Peace Day, January 1, 2026).
In this academic setting, I would like to share some thoughts, beginning with two questions. In a world increasingly dominated by conflict, how can diplomacy reconcile today’s tragedies with the need for a peaceful future for peoples and countries? How can diplomats operate in relation to current events?
International Order: A Call for Stability
In short, one could respond by inviting diplomats not to limit themselves to reading reality. From this, we can only deduce that emergency has become the modus operandi and that resorting to conflict is the only method used. Unfortunately, there is a lack of planning in the development of political choices, legal rules, and economic programs to rebuild an international order adequate to real needs. This order would be designed to establish the “international foundations of the entire human community in order to resolve the most serious issues of our time, promoting progress in every corner of the Earth and preventing war in any form” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 84).
This definition of the international order is not a call for orderly coexistence or the absence of conflict. Rather, it is a call for stability in the community of states, recognizing that stability is changeable by nature and often manifests in unpredictable ways. Thus, diplomacy cannot limit itself to protecting individual advantages or needs; rather, it must contribute to building the common good, the primary objective of social life in every community, both national and international. The goal is not to add up the well-being of individuals but to achieve “those conditions of social life which enable both the community and its individual members to attain their perfection more fully and more rapidly” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 26).
We can contribute to this process if we acknowledge that peace is the fruit of justice, not just a consequence of good actions (cf. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 71). This is an invitation and a duty for those in positions of responsibility. This is especially true in the face of the need to emerge from a profound crisis that disregards the values on which the community of nations has been gradually built, as well as the rules that govern its structure, social balance, the sovereignty of states, and their political, institutional, and economic independence.
Within international dynamics and institutions, we must combine the responsible performance of our duties—based on competence, dedication, professionalism, and transparency—with the ability to free diplomacy from outdated forms, nationalistic sentiments, and the protection of particular interests. As has happened at other times in the history of international relations, it is a question of prioritizing engagement with what is emerging or being determined at this stage in contemporary societies, without resorting to declarative tones — “do much, say little.” In other words, we must act on current events rather than take refuge in fanciful scenarios. We must recognize that, in building peace, “the adaptation of social reality to the objective requirements of justice is a problem that never admits a definitive solution” (Pacem in terris, 81). This brings to mind the method outlined by Pope Francis, according to which: “Rather than being experts in apocalyptic diagnoses or obscure judges who take pleasure in identifying every danger or deviation, it is better that we be seen as joyful messengers of lofty proposals, guardians of goodness and beauty” (Evangelii gaudium, 168).
Violation of International Law
In the face of violations of the binding principles of international law and the fundamental rules of state society, and in the face of conflict being proposed as the only method of governing international relations, we must overcome the sense of powerlessness that turns into anguish when confronted with the use of force that destroys the aspirations of peoples, exacerbates inequalities, and establishes unjust balances. Despite the fact that international law, particularly that produced and codified since the end of World War II, has constituted a regulatory system inspired by ethical and moral principles, as well as religious values, which have contributed to its foundation, development, and opening up of new perspectives, this is happening.
Those working in international relations must confront these principles and values and not view them as limitations on their will and ambitions. Conscience and reason cannot tolerate violations of sovereignty in any form, including the forced displacement of peoples, changes to the ethnic composition of territories, the removal of resources necessary for economic activity, and limitations to freedoms. Throughout history, the diplomacy of the Holy See has witnessed moments that teach us how uncontrollable factors can easily render force irrelevant. This is especially true today, when events unfold rapidly, are widely known, and lead to easy recourse to immediate solutions or emotional reactions. Such reactions are the exact opposite of discernment and deliberation, which are essential characteristics of diplomatic action.
We find the profound crisis suffered by the multilateral system of international relations in the use of force that replaces rules, in forms of agreement based solely on the advantage and interest of a few, and in the inability to address common issues through solutions that involve everyone. However, a more in-depth analysis shows that it is not just a matter of states wanting to reduce the role of international institutions, but rather the emergence of multipolarism inspired by the primacy of power. This multipolarism is regulated by the ability to demonstrate self-sufficiency and the determination to preserve state and supranational borders, despite the fact that they are not impermeable. Yet, as early as 1795, Immanuel Kant pointed out in Perpetual Peace that “the violation of law at one point on earth is felt at all points” (I. Kant, Political Writings, Turin, 2010, 305).
A defining feature of multipolarism is the use of conflict—military, economic, and ideological—which often extends beyond the use of weapons to influence political orientations, alliance systems, and the allocation of resources within states. This is an even more worrying fact because it affects not only the objective that the state or states intend to pursue through military action but also the entire course of international relations directly. These positions are not only taken by countries involved in conflicts but also by those that support the need for security as a means of preparing for war or launching preventive rearmament campaigns.
It seems forgotten that the right of states to guarantee their own security—and with it, the sovereignty and social life of those living within their borders—does not authorize them to take preventive action or launch attacks that increasingly stray from international law. Despite its limitations, this legality had stabilized the multilateral system by replacing the equilibrium of power present in international life with the prohibition of the use and threat of force — war and deterrence. As John XXIII pointed out in Pacem in terris, this was to allow “the criterion of peace based on the balance of arms to be replaced by the principle that true peace can only be built on mutual trust.”
Throughout history, we have seen that the arms race can only lead to armed peace or mutual distrust between states. Weapons, deterrence, and the expansion of the war industry and research lead to isolation and closure. They also form the basis for political, military, and economic choices that are justified by the need to anticipate or counter hypothetical attacks. Diplomats are well aware that the distinction between prevention and arbitrariness can easily be ignored when legal norms and the ethical and moral principles that inspire and guarantee their legitimacy are disregarded.
Building Alternatives and Common Strategies
This is immediately confirmed when we consider the bloody conflicts various peoples are experiencing, which often leave us as helpless spectators. Indeed, an increasing number of people are almost uninterested, either because they are unable to distinguish the veracity of data and information or because they prefer to take one side, thus introducing the confrontational practices of war into their everyday lives. In other cases, indifference reveals an attitude that emerges when each person is asked to take responsibility, echoing Cain’s words: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9). Finally, many argue that wars and conflicts have always been part of the international community.
These positions and attitudes are difficult to maintain in dramatic situations, especially when the use of force is seen as the only means to resolve conflicts, differences, and disagreements between states. In other words, the belief has emerged that peace can only be achieved after the enemy has been destroyed. An enemy can be a people, a nation, an institution, or an economic space that opposes the vision of the strongest power at the moment. We forget that the category of enemy is not coincidental, but rather, it is created by the game of power or by the will to manifest it toward someone.
It’s clear that the times we’re living in demand choices involving not only diplomacy, but also other dimensions of international life. The idea of rebuilding an international order that protects us from fear and discouragement leaves open the search for ways to contribute effectively. This begins with interpreting actions that touch on the foundations of peace and the meaning of justice. This task must stimulate us to break out of limited realities, including professional ones, in which we seek answers to every question, often in vain.
Perhaps we should start by assessing whether it is right to continue acting in isolation, even as a group of countries, and opposing or trying to eliminate any obstacle that might disturb our ambitions or the fulfillment of our reckless desires. Disregarding or ignoring the rules of warfare—starting with treating the civilian population as a military target or depriving them of the means to survive—is not merely a way to conduct hostilities or end conflicts. Rather, it is the realization of the fait accompli principle, which manifests in the will of rulers and the ruled.
It is now clear that what is happening does not concern localized problems, but rather structures that affect the whole world and relations between peoples. Therefore, the need for alternative responses consisting of common strategies and paths, as well as the conclusion of agreements between states, is not only imposed on diplomatic activity but is also required at all institutional levels. In fact, the absence of responses to selfishness, abuse, and injustice extinguishes the culture of peace and the dimension of justice—the factors that hold a society together by creating cohesion and guaranteeing identities.
This requires an “appeal to conscience,” or the idea that everyone has a duty to contribute to the greater good (Pacem in terris, 28). The contempt for peace and justice that increasingly takes violent forms in the international arena must be considered in terms of its effects. Therefore, it cannot be ignored. Nor is it useful to accept or reject the positions of some protagonists of international life that contradict the idea and goal of the common good. This is why fragmented reactions lacking the necessary firmness and precision are insufficient.
A common contribution of ideas and concrete actions must demonstrate the danger of trusting in conflict as a means of resolving every problem without considering its scope and consequences or how inhuman and dehumanizing war is. Likewise, we should encourage the renewal of intergovernmental institutions by eliminating any institutional conditions or structures that block their task in the face of threats to peace and violations of justice. We must also make these institutions functional for today’s international community scenarios, such as protecting human life, eliminating underdevelopment, ensuring human mobility, transferring skills in new technologies, and making natural resources available. These are not just agendas, but actual situations in which conflicts arise or wars break out, situations that only multilateral action can prevent, resolve, or govern.
Foresight and Sound Realism
As actors in the international arena, can we hope for peace and build effective justice to breathe new life into international relations? The experience of an institution such as the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, which has persevered through the vicissitudes of the Church and the world, demonstrates the necessity of a commitment that starts from the ground up, engages everyone, fosters creativity, and addresses problems head-on. Study and research are indispensable for more than just a technically satisfactory education; they are also necessary for proposing and effectively implementing possible actions, even in the most difficult situations. A diplomat’s ability is fully manifested not only in proposing solutions that are planned and regulated, but also in consistently and wisely interpreting new, unpredictable scenarios that are far from established practices.
Therefore, demonstrating foresight and healthy realism means not waiting or thinking that ultimately, it is up to others to act and intervene. This method overcomes the sense of helplessness that can arise and ensures conditions that overcome the pain and anguish of victims of conflict and injustice.
