The big idea: A conflict is not just 'two sides'. It involves parties to the conflict (those doing the fighting), third parties (outsiders who intervene), and non-combatants (civilians caught in it). Knowing who is who is the first step to analysing any conflict.
- Parties to the conflict — the actors directly fighting or in dispute. These can be states (their governments and armies) or non-state actors (rebel groups, militias, insurgents, terrorist groups).
- Third parties — outsiders who get involved: other states, IGOs (like the UN), NGOs, and mediators who try to help, take a side, or broker peace.
- Non-combatants — people who are not fighting: civilians, refugees, aid workers, journalists — often the ones who suffer most.
Why non-state actors matter: Modern conflicts are often not state-vs-state. Many are a state fighting a non-state actor (a rebel group or insurgency), or non-state actors fighting each other. This makes conflicts harder to end — non-state actors may not sign treaties, may hide among civilians, and may not have one clear leader.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Third parties — outsiders — can change a conflict completely. They can make it worse (by arming a side) or help end it (by mediating or keeping the peace). Their role is a favourite exam theme.
Third parties who help END conflict
IGOs like the UN send peacekeepers to separate sides and protect civilians; neutral mediators (states, NGOs or respected individuals) help warring parties talk and reach a ceasefire or peace deal; NGOs deliver aid and monitor human rights.
Third parties who make conflict WORSE
Outside states may back a side with weapons, money or troops to pursue their own interests, turning a local conflict into a longer 'proxy' war; this is why external involvement is not always neutral or helpful.
Case study — outsiders in a civil war: In many modern civil wars, the same conflict contains parties, third parties and non-combatants all at once — and the outside actors often decide whether it drags on or ends.
Parties
- A government
- One or more rebel groups
Third parties
- Outside states back different sides with weapons and money (making it a proxy war)
- UN peacekeepers or mediators try to broker peace
Non-combatants
- Civilians become refugees
The key point: Third parties are powerful: they can prolong a conflict by backing a side, or help end it by mediating and peacekeeping. External involvement is rarely neutral — outsiders usually have their own interests.
Get feedback like a real examiner
Submit your answers and get instant feedback — what you did well, what's missing, and exactly what to write to score full marks.
Two recurring debates: are non-state actors now as important as states in conflict? And does outside intervention help or harm? Weigh both.
Why outside intervention can help
Neutral peacekeepers and mediators can separate sides, protect civilians and broker deals that the warring parties could not reach alone — outsiders can break a deadlock.
Why outside intervention can harm
When outside states intervene for their own interests — arming a side or invading — they can prolong the conflict, widen it into a proxy war, and make lasting peace harder, so intervention is not always helpful.
Two perspectives — weigh them: One view: non-state actors and outside powers now drive conflict as much as states, so we must analyse all actors. Another view: states remain central — they have the armies, legitimacy and signatures peace needs. Strong essays weigh both and judge that modern conflict is a mix, with the balance depending on the case.
How actors in conflict come up in Paper 2: A Paper 2 essay might ask about the role of non-state actors or the significance of external actors in conflict. Map the parties, third parties and non-combatants, then weigh how much each shapes the conflict — and judge.
The 15-mark markband (what moves you up)
Bands 1–6
Mostly descriptive; perspectives not identified.
avoid
Bands 7–9
Clear knowledge, but perspectives identified, not explored.
7–9
Bands 10–12
Well-supported argument; perspectives explored.
10–12
Bands 13–15
Balanced, compelling; perspectives explored AND evaluated.
13–15
Evaluate the significance of external actors in shaping the outcome of conflicts.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Treating conflict as just 'two sides'. Map parties, third parties AND non-combatants.
2. No real case. Use a modern civil/proxy war.
3. Saying outsiders are always helpful. They can prolong conflict.
4. Mapping the parties and stopping. Weigh which actor's interest most shapes the outcome.
5. No judgement. Conclude on how significant the actor is.