Author: Maurizio Gentilini – 09/07/2025
Seventy Years Since the Russell-Einstein Manifesto
On 9 July 1955, in London, the most significant document ever composed concerning the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons to humanity was presented. It urged governments worldwide to pursue peaceful means of conflict resolution—founded on dialogue, international cooperation, and a shared responsibility for the future of humankind. Conceived within the international scientific community, the manifesto bears the names of its two principal authors: the philosopher-mathematician Bertrand Russell and the physicist Albert Einstein.
The document articulated several core themes: the risk of annihilation of life on Earth; a call for global disarmament and reliance on diplomacy; and an appeal to scientists to acknowledge their ethical responsibilities by transcending ideological and national allegiances.
The manifesto aimed to dismantle the entrenched relationship between science and warfare, which, during the first half of the twentieth century, had taken on the characteristics of a “mutualistic symbiosis”—to borrow a term from biology. This relationship had normalized the idea that numerous scientific discoveries and technological applications were products of military necessity, with states incentivizing research in exchange for advancements in weaponry.
The ethos underpinning the 1955 Manifesto developed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, following the moral and civilizational collapse symbolized by the liberation of Auschwitz and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a historical juncture that, within the broader trajectory of human civilization, signaled what has been described as the “beginning of the end” of modernity. Among the most conspicuous signs of this rupture was the growing realization that scientific and technological progress, when subordinated to military imperatives, had led humanity to what Giorgio La Pira termed the “apocalyptic edge of history,” thereby necessitating radical choices and a redefinition of traditional concepts of war and peace.
By the close of the twentieth century, the conceptual evolution of peace—no longer understood merely as a state of non-belligerence (in contrast to the Clausewitzian notion of war as a continuation of politics by other means)—gave rise to the idea of “positive peace.” This notion emphasizes the proactive construction of institutional, relational, and political frameworks grounded in cooperation and the principle: “If you want peace, prepare for peace.” This stands in stark contrast to “negative peace,” defined as the mere absence of war—a temporary interlude between conflicts, often characterized by rearmament and the safeguarding of national interests through any means deemed necessary.
Closely linked to the concept of positive peace is one of the most significant advancements in the field of universal human rights: the “right to peace,” formally recognized by the United Nations in 1984. This right is intended to orient international policy toward the elimination of war-related threats, the renunciation of the use of force, and the peaceful resolution of international disputes.
Concepts such as human rights, the right to peace, the renunciation of war, solidarity and cooperation, multilateralism, disarmament, and the principle of non-discrimination are not only embedded in international law but also enshrined in various national constitutions—most notably, the Italian Constitution. However, these principles must also be cultivated within civil society, communities, and institutions. Without this broader integration, their normative power risks diminishing—an erosion that is increasingly evident in today’s global context, often referred to as a “Third World War.”
Such concepts require ongoing critical engagement and revision, particularly in light of the epochal transformations we are currently undergoing. These shifts parallel the recent maturation of scientific and anthropological concepts such as the Anthropocene, biodiversity, and sustainability. New variables must be introduced into the conceptual frameworks through which we interpret contemporary reality—variables encapsulated in the notion of “transitions.” These are complex, dynamic, and globally interdependent processes, often unfolding within fragile ecological equilibriums. They also reflect a growing awareness that the human person must once again be placed at the center of legal and political thought; that natural resources are finite; that energy must be clean and renewable; that economic systems must shift from linear to circular models; and that the human impact on the planet must be anticipated, measured, and regulated.
In this context, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto continues to offer a compelling and authoritative framework for reinterpreting the meaning of “peace” in the twenty-first century. It remains particularly relevant in light of the exponential growth of scientific knowledge, the acceleration of technological innovation, and the increasing moral and civic responsibilities that the global scientific community must assume in relation to the destiny of humanity.
Maurizio Gentilini