The big idea: Conflicts come in different types and pass through different stages (dynamics). Modern conflict is increasingly intrastate (inside a country) rather than interstate (between countries), and often asymmetric (a strong state against a weaker armed group). Conflicts also escalate and de-escalate over time.
- Latent — tensions and grievances exist but no open fighting yet.
- Escalation — the conflict grows: more violence, more actors, hardening positions.
- Stalemate / hurting stalemate — neither side can win, and the cost of fighting becomes unbearable.
- De-escalation — violence decreases, often opening a window for talks.
- Resolution / settlement — a ceasefire or peace deal (which may or may not last).
The changing nature of conflict: A key exam theme: conflict has changed. It is now mostly intrastate (civil wars) rather than interstate, often asymmetric (states vs insurgents), fought partly through non-state actors and new technology (drones, cyber), and it harms civilians heavily. Old ideas of two states' armies meeting on a battlefield describe fewer and fewer conflicts.
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 free for 7 days:
- 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.
Understanding a conflict's type and stage matters because it shapes how you can end it. You cannot mediate the same way in an escalating war as in a hurting stalemate.
Why the 'hurting stalemate' matters
Conflicts are often ripe for resolution when both sides reach a hurting stalemate — neither can win and the pain of fighting is unbearable — because that is when parties become willing to talk. Mediators look for this moment.
Why asymmetric conflicts are hard to end
When a strong state fights a weaker insurgency, the weaker side avoids open battle, hides among civilians and uses guerrilla or terror tactics, so the state's superior force cannot deliver a clean victory and the conflict drags on.
Case study — from interstate to intrastate: For most of history, the classic conflict was interstate: two countries' armies fighting over territory. Since the late 20th century, most conflicts have been intrastate — civil wars inside a state, often asymmetric (a government against rebels or insurgents), drawing in outside backers (making them proxy wars) and non-state actors, and killing far more civilians than soldiers. This shift is why analysts talk about the 'changing nature' of conflict.
The key point: Conflicts differ by type (interstate, intrastate, proxy, asymmetric, ethnic) and move through stages (latent → escalation → stalemate → de-escalation → resolution). Modern conflict is mostly intrastate and asymmetric, harming civilians heavily — and knowing the type and stage shapes how it can be ended.
Know your predicted grade
Take timed mock exams and get detailed feedback on every answer. See exactly where you're losing marks.
Has the nature of conflict fundamentally changed? And are modern intrastate/asymmetric conflicts harder to resolve than old interstate wars? Recurring debates. Weigh them.
Why modern conflicts are hard to resolve
Intrastate and asymmetric conflicts often have many armed factions, no clear leader to sign a deal, fighters hidden among civilians, outside backers, and deep identity or resource roots — so they resist the clean ceasefires that could end an interstate war.
Why the change can be overstated
The underlying causes — greed, grievance, power, identity — are the same as ever, interstate wars still occur, and civilians have always suffered in war, so some argue the 'changing nature' is a change of form more than of essence.
Two perspectives — weigh them: One view: conflict has fundamentally changed — intrastate, asymmetric, tech-driven, civilian-centred — and is harder to resolve. Another view: the form has changed but the causes and human cost are constant. Strong essays weigh both and judge that the character of conflict has changed significantly even if its deeper causes have not.
How types and dynamics of conflict come up in Paper 2: A Paper 2 essay might ask whether the nature of conflict has changed, or why modern conflicts are hard to resolve. Use the types and stages to structure your answer, weigh change against continuity, then 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
To what extent has the nature of conflict changed in contemporary global politics?
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Only describing types. Turn them into an argument about change.
2. No real conflict. Contrast an interstate war with a modern civil war.
3. Ignoring continuity. Causes and human cost persist.
4. Listing, not evaluating. Top marks need perspectives explored AND evaluated.
5. No judgement. Conclude on how much has changed.