The big idea: Stopping the fighting is not the same as building peace. Peacebuilding is the long, deep work AFTER a ceasefire, so that war does not come back.
What peacebuilding does
- Rebuilds institutions.
- Addresses grievances.
- Helps former enemies live together.
- Aims for positive peace, not just a pause.
- Rebuilding institutions — a working government, police, courts and economy that can manage disputes peacefully.
- Addressing root causes — the grievances, inequality and structural violence that caused the war.
- Reconciliation — helping divided communities and former enemies rebuild trust.
- Transitional justice — dealing with past crimes through trials, truth commissions or reparations.
- Disarming and reintegrating former fighters back into society.
Negative peace vs positive peace: A ceasefire gives negative peace (no direct violence). Peacebuilding aims for positive peace — a just society where the causes of conflict (injustice, exclusion, structural violence) have been removed, so peace can last. Without peacebuilding, many conflicts simply reignite.
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.
The hardest question in peacebuilding is how to deal with past atrocities. Do you punish the perpetrators (justice) or reconcile and move on (healing)? This justice vs reconciliation tension is a favourite exam theme.
The case for justice (accountability)
Trying and punishing those responsible for atrocities — including through courts like the ICC — delivers justice to victims, deters future crimes, and shows that no one is above the law, which can strengthen a fragile new peace.
The case for reconciliation (healing)
Truth-and-reconciliation commissions let victims and perpetrators tell the truth, sometimes trading full punishment for honesty and amnesty, to rebuild relationships and let a divided society move forward together without reopening the war.
Case study — truth commissions and international courts: After deep conflicts, societies — or the international community — have chosen different ways to deal with the past.
Truth and reconciliation commissions
- Public bodies where victims and perpetrators tell the truth about what happened.
- They prioritise healing and a shared future over punishment.
- Strength: they can rebuild a fractured society.
International courts
- Courts like the International Criminal Court (ICC) try individuals for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- They prioritise accountability.
- Strength: trials can deter atrocities and deliver justice.
The catch: Each approach has strengths — but each also has critics who say it sacrifices the other goal.
The key point: Peacebuilding is the long-term work of removing the causes of conflict — rebuilding institutions, addressing grievances, reconciling communities and dealing with past crimes — to turn a fragile ceasefire (negative peace) into a lasting, just peace (positive peace).
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.
Two recurring debates: is reconciliation or justice the better path to lasting peace? And can peace be built from outside, or must it grow from within a society? Weigh them.
Why peacebuilding must be locally owned
Peace that is imposed from outside, without local ownership, often fails; lasting peace needs the society's own institutions, leaders and communities to address grievances and rebuild trust, so outside actors work best by supporting rather than replacing local peacebuilding.
Why outside support still matters
Fragile post-war societies often lack the resources, security and expertise to rebuild alone, so outside funding, peacekeepers, and institutions like the ICC can provide vital support — the challenge is helping without imposing.
Two perspectives — weigh them: One view: lasting peace needs justice and accountability — impunity breeds new violence. Another view: it needs reconciliation and healing — punishment can reopen wounds and restart war. Strong essays show most successful peacebuilding blends the two, and judge that the right balance depends on the society, the atrocities, and whether justice is even achievable.
How peacebuilding comes up in Paper 2: A Paper 2 essay might ask whether reconciliation or justice better secures peace, or how effective peacebuilding is. Distinguish negative and positive peace, weigh justice against reconciliation, then judge — usually a blend, depending on the society.
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
Discuss the view that reconciliation is more important than justice in building lasting peace.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Confusing negative and positive peace. Peacebuilding aims for positive peace.
2. Treating justice and reconciliation as total opposites. Most peace blends them.
3. No real mechanism. Use truth commissions and/or the ICC.
4. Listing peacebuilding activities. Weigh which ones move a case from negative to positive peace.
5. No judgement. Conclude on the balance for lasting peace.