This chapter examines the philosophical distinctiveness of pacifism by analysing the distinction between “principled” and “contingent” forms of pacifism. While both positions appear aligned in rejecting the justification of war in practice, they diverge fundamentally at a deeper conceptual level, particularly in their views on the relationship between means and ends and their underlying conceptions of politics. Principled pacifism adopts a categorical rejection of war as a means and envisions politics as a nonviolent, transformative practice. By contrast, contingent pacifism accepts the theoretical possibility of just war and aligns, at the level of philosophical commitments, with just war theory, differing only in its pessimism about real-world conditions. This argument is further illustrated through an analysis of the “pacifist” principles in the Italian and Japanese constitutions, arguing that only the latter reflects a genuinely principled pacifist stance.