The big idea: This is your capstone for Peace and conflict. This micro pulls the whole unit together so you can write a confident Paper 2 essay on any of its big debates.
What the exam tests: The exam does not test facts alone. It tests whether you can argue the big debates: what peace really means, why conflicts happen, how they end, and when force is justified.
- What is peace? — negative peace (no direct violence) vs positive peace (a just society with no structural violence).
- Why do conflicts happen? — grievance vs greed; and how they interact.
- Is the nature of conflict changing? — mostly intrastate, asymmetric, civilian-heavy vs unchanged deep causes.
- How is peace best pursued? — non-violence vs force; peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding; justice vs reconciliation.
- When is force justified? — pacifism vs just war; humanitarian intervention and R2P vs sovereignty.
One frame for almost everything: Galtung's ideas — direct, structural and cultural violence, and negative vs positive peace — sit under most of these debates. If a question asks about the causes of conflict, lasting peace, or whether violence has ended, you can almost always deepen your answer by asking: is this about direct violence, or the structural violence underneath?
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.
Every strong Paper 2 answer does the same four moves. Master this pattern and you can write a top-band essay on any peace-and-conflict debate.
The four moves of a top-band essay
Define and frame
Define the key terms (e.g. positive peace, structural violence, R2P) and set up the debate the question is really asking.
Explore both sides
Build the strongest version of EACH perspective with real examples — not a list, but a genuine exploration of why each view is held.
Evaluate
Weigh the perspectives against each other: which is stronger, on what conditions, and where each breaks down. This is what lifts 10–12 to 13–15.
Judge
Reach a clear, reasoned judgement that answers the exact question — usually nuanced ('depends on…'), never a fence-sit.
The moves in action — a mini example: Question: 'Non-violence is the only route to lasting peace.' Here is how the four moves answer it.
The four moves on this question
Frame
Define non-violence and lasting (positive) peace.
Explore
Non-violence wins legitimacy and avoids the revenge cycle (with real movements) — but some regimes crush it and force may stop genocide.
Evaluate
Non-violence is usually more durable because it builds legitimacy, yet its success depends on the opponent.
Judge
Non-violence is usually the surest route to lasting peace, but 'only' overstates a strong tendency — the answer depends on the opponent and context.
The key point: Content wins you the lower bands; evaluation and judgement win you the top bands. The examiner rewards an answer that explores AND evaluates perspectives and reaches a clear, conditional judgement — so always do all four moves.
See how examiners mark answers
Answer exam-style questions with model answers. Learn exactly what earns marks and what doesn't.
Here are the unit's debates as balanced judgements you can adapt. Learn the shape of each — the two sides and the nuanced conclusion — not a fixed answer.
The core concepts to weave in (Section B)
Section B essays reward integrating a core concept. The ones that fit peace and conflict best: power (who drives conflict/peace), sovereignty (intervention vs non-interference), legitimacy (of movements, peacekeepers, force), human rights (protecting civilians, R2P), equality (inequality as a cause), and interdependence (global pressure on conflict).
How to spot a Section B question
Section B questions ask you to INTEGRATE — linking peace and conflict to a core concept or another theme. When you see a concept like 'power', 'sovereignty' or 'human rights' in the question, make that concept the spine of your argument, not an afterthought.
Two perspectives — the meta-lesson: Across every debate in this unit, the top-band answer resists the extremes. Peace is rarely purely negative OR positive; conflict is rarely pure greed OR grievance; force is rarely always OR never justified. The examiner rewards the answer that holds both perspectives, weighs them, and lands a conditional judgement — 'it depends on…' done rigorously, not vaguely.
How the key debates come up in Paper 2: Any Paper 2 question in this unit is one of these debates in disguise.
How to answer it
- Identify which debate it is.
- Deploy the two sides and a real case.
- Do the four moves — define, explore, evaluate, judge.
- Section B adds a core concept to integrate.
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 view that lasting peace requires justice more than the absence of violence.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Reciting content without a debate. Every question is an argument.
2. Exploring one side only. Build BOTH perspectives.
3. Describing instead of evaluating. Weigh the sides — that is the top band.
4. Fence-sitting. Reach a clear, conditional judgement.
5. Section B: ignoring the core concept. Make it the spine of the answer.