The big idea: Ending a conflict happens in steps.
Three steps to ending a conflict
Make peace
Peacemaking brings the fighting to a stop through talks.
Keep peace
peacekeeping holds the fragile calm by monitoring a ceasefire.
Enforce peace
peace enforcement uses force to impose or protect peace when there is no deal to keep.
- Consent — the warring parties agree to the peacekeepers being there.
- Impartiality — peacekeepers do not take a side.
- Minimum force — they use force only in self-defence or to protect civilians.
- Their job is to monitor a ceasefire, build confidence and create space for a political settlement.
Peacemaking before peacekeeping: The order matters: you usually need peacemaking (a deal to stop fighting) BEFORE peacekeeping (holding the deal). Peacekeepers keep a peace that already exists — they cannot create one where the sides still want to fight. When there is no peace to keep, only peace enforcement (force) can impose calm, which is far harder and more controversial.
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.
Peacekeeping — especially by the UN — is the classic international tool for conflict, and its effectiveness is a favourite exam question. It can do real good, but it has real limits.
When peacekeeping works
Where the parties genuinely want peace, neutral peacekeepers can monitor a ceasefire, separate former enemies, protect civilians, rebuild trust and give a political settlement time to take root — turning a fragile deal into a lasting one.
When peacekeeping struggles
Peacekeepers can fail where there is no real peace to keep, where they have a weak mandate or too few troops, where one side refuses consent, or where great powers block a strong UN response — and they have sometimes been unable to prevent atrocities.
Case study — UN peacekeeping's mixed record: UN peacekeeping has a genuinely mixed record.
Where it worked
- Blue-helmet forces helped monitor ceasefires.
- They protected civilians.
- They let peace deals hold — clear successes.
Where it failed
- Peacekeepers had weak mandates, too few troops, or no real peace to keep.
- They were unable to stop mass violence.
- The UN Security Council's veto-holding powers sometimes blocked a strong response.
The lesson: Peacekeeping works best when there is a real deal, a strong mandate and great-power backing — and struggles when these are missing.
The key point: Peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace enforcement are different tools for different stages. Peacekeeping (holding a ceasefire) needs a real peace to keep, a strong mandate and consent — so its effectiveness depends on the conditions, not just on the peacekeepers themselves.
Practice with exam-style questions
Answer exam-style questions and get AI feedback that shows you exactly what examiners want to see in a full-marks response.
Is peacekeeping effective? And can outside actors like the UN really resolve conflicts, or do only the parties themselves make peace? Recurring debates. Weigh them.
Why outside peacemakers can succeed
Neutral mediators and peacekeepers can break deadlocks, offer face-saving compromises, guarantee deals and reassure sides who do not trust each other — doing what the warring parties cannot do alone.
Why lasting peace needs the parties
Outsiders can stop the shooting but cannot force the parties to want peace; if the underlying grievances and will to fight remain, a deal imposed or monitored from outside can collapse once the peacekeepers leave, so the parties' genuine commitment is essential.
One view: outside help is essential
- International peacemaking and peacekeeping stop violence and save lives that the parties alone would not.
Another view: peace comes from within
- Outsiders can only hold a peace the parties themselves genuinely want.
- So lasting peace comes from within.
Two perspectives — weigh them: Strong essays judge that outside help is often effective and life-saving, but works best alongside — not instead of — the parties' own commitment.
How peacemaking and peacekeeping come up in Paper 2: A Paper 2 essay might ask how effective peacekeeping is, or how far the UN can resolve conflict. Distinguish the tools, weigh peacekeeping's successes against its limits, then judge — usually 'effective under the right conditions'.
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 effectiveness of peacekeeping in resolving conflicts.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Confusing the tools. Peacemaking (deal) ≠ peacekeeping (holding it) ≠ enforcement (force).
2. No real case. Use UN peacekeeping's mixed record.
3. Saying it always works OR never works. The record is mixed.
4. Defining the three tools separately. Judge which fits a named conflict, and why.
5. No judgement. Conclude on effectiveness under conditions.