Debates: justifying and evaluating the pursuit of peace

A framework for judging when going to war is justified (just cause, legitimate authority, last resort) and how it must be fought (proportionality, protecting civilians).

The right to go to war (whether a war is justified) and right conduct in war (how it is fought).

Just cause (e.g. self-defence), legitimate authority, last resort, and a reasonable chance of success.

Proportionality (force not excessive), discrimination (protect civilians, target combatants), and humane treatment of prisoners.

In self-defence, to stop genocide or mass atrocity (humanitarian intervention), and only as a genuine last resort after peaceful options fail.

The belief that violence is always wrong, even in self-defence.

Using force to stop a state committing atrocities against its own people — controversial because it clashes with sovereignty.

The force used must not exceed what the goal requires — no excessive or unnecessary destruction.

Combatants must be targeted, not civilians — civilians must be protected from deliberate attack.

It can be abused to make self-interested wars look 'just', its conditions are vague, and modern warfare makes proportionality and protecting civilians hard to honour.

Force can be justified in extreme cases — self-defence, stopping atrocities — as a last resort, but the moral bar must be very high and conduct constrained.

The principle that states must protect their people from mass atrocities, and if a state manifestly fails, the international community should step in — up to UN-authorised force as a last resort.

1) Each state protects its own people; 2) the international community helps states protect their people; 3) if a state manifestly fails, the world responds, up to force as a last resort.

It reframes sovereignty as a responsibility, not just a right: a state that fails to protect its people, or attacks them, forfeits the shield of sovereignty.

Genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

Using force to stop a state committing atrocities against its own people — controversial because it clashes with sovereignty.

Because intervention happens in some crises and not others, often depending on the interests of powerful states rather than consistent principle.

A permanent member's veto can block intervention, so R2P is often not applied even where atrocities occur, making it inconsistent.

It breaches sovereignty, can be a cover for self-interest or regime change, can cause more death and chaos, and sets precedents the powerful abuse.

It can halt genocide and mass atrocity, uphold the idea that sovereignty is not a shield for mass murder, and save lives inaction would cost.

Because saving lives in some crises is better than none, and the norm still constrains behaviour and shifts expectations even when not applied everywhere.

A genuine advance in principle — sovereignty cannot shield genocide — whose promise is undermined, but not destroyed, by selective and politicised application.

What peace is (negative/positive), why conflicts happen (greed/grievance), whether conflict is changing, how peace is best pursued, and when force is justified.

Define and frame the debate; explore both perspectives with real examples; evaluate them against each other; reach a clear, conditional judgement.

Galtung's frame: direct, structural and cultural violence, and negative peace (no direct violence) vs positive peace (a just society).

Evaluation — not just exploring perspectives but weighing them against each other and reaching a balanced, well-supported judgement.

Linking peace and conflict to a core concept (power, sovereignty, legitimacy, human rights, equality, interdependence) as the spine of the argument.

Resist the extremes: peace is rarely purely negative or positive, conflict rarely pure greed or grievance, force rarely always or never justified — hold both sides and judge conditionally.

Positive peace — a just society without structural violence — not merely a ceasefire (negative peace).

Grievance usually starts a conflict and greed sustains it; they interact, so ending war means addressing both.

Yes, in extreme cases (self-defence, stopping atrocities) as a last resort, but the moral bar must be very high and conduct constrained.

It depends on motive, authorisation and conduct — legitimate, limited, protective intervention can help; self-interested or reckless intervention harms.

Lasting peace usually blends both — truth and some accountability — with the balance depending on the society and the scale of atrocity.