The big idea: Peace is not simply the absence of war. The fighting can stop while people still suffer poverty, injustice and oppression — so the theme splits peace into two kinds: negative peace (no fighting) and positive peace (a just, fair society).
This distinction comes from Johan Galtung. Negative peace is the absence of direct violence — a ceasefire, no bombs falling. Positive peace goes further: it removes the hidden violence built into unfair systems and the ideas that justify it, so peace means justice, not just quiet.
- Negative peace — the absence of direct violence: no war, no fighting (but injustice may remain).
- Positive peace — the absence of all violence, including hidden structural violence and cultural violence.
- Peace is contested — some see it as just 'no war', others as a whole just society.
- More than quiet — real peace, for many, means fairness and dignity, not only the end of fighting.
A quiet country is not always at peace: A country with no war can still be deeply unjust — with poverty, repression and discrimination. That is negative peace only. Positive peace asks for more: remove the hidden violence too, so people are not just un-bombed but genuinely free and fairly treated.
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.
The clearest way to see the difference is a ceasefire — the fighting stops, but the deeper problems remain, so there is peace on the surface only.
Case study — a ceasefire vs a just peace: When a war ends in a ceasefire or truce, the direct violence stops — that is negative peace. But if the injustices that caused the war remain — poverty, exclusion of a group, unfair land or power — the society is not truly at peace, and violence often returns. A lasting, positive peace requires more: tackling the structural causes (inequality, injustice) and the cultural ideas that justify them, through reconciliation and development, not just a signed truce.
This is why many argue peace is more than the absence of war: stopping the fighting is necessary but not enough. Without justice, negative peace is fragile — the same grievances can reignite conflict.
The key point: Peace is contested: negative peace is the absence of direct violence (the fighting stops); positive peace is the absence of ALL violence — structural and cultural too — so it means a just, fair society. Lasting peace usually requires positive peace, not just an end to fighting.
Learn what examiners really want
See exactly what to write to score full marks. Our AI shows you model answers and the key phrases examiners look for.
So — is peace just the absence of war, or must it mean justice too? And can positive peace ever be fully achieved? Recurring debates. Weigh them.
Why negative peace is not enough
If a ceasefire leaves the poverty, injustice and grievance that caused the war, violence tends to return — so a lasting peace must remove the structural and cultural violence too, not just the fighting.
Can positive peace ever be fully achieved?
Positive peace — no direct, structural OR cultural violence anywhere — may be an ideal no society fully reaches, since some injustice always remains. Critics say this makes it unachievable; supporters say it is a direction to aim at, not a finish line.
Two perspectives — weigh them: One view: peace means more than the absence of war — it needs justice (positive peace). Another view: peace is realistically the absence of war, and positive peace is an unreachable ideal. Strong essays evaluate both, often concluding negative peace is the vital first step but lasting peace requires positive peace.
How peace comes up in Paper 2: A Paper 2 essay might ask whether peace is more than the absence of war, or whether positive peace can be achieved. Use the negative/positive distinction (Galtung), a real case (a fragile ceasefire), 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
Discuss the view that peace is more than simply the absence of war.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Defining peace as only 'no war'. Use the negative/positive distinction.
2. Not naming Galtung / structural violence. They anchor the answer.
3. No real case. Use a fragile ceasefire.
4. Listing, not evaluating. Top marks need perspectives explored AND evaluated.
5. No judgement. Conclude on what peace really means.