12-mark questions

1A major similarity between the UN Security Council and NATO is that collective security lies at the heart of their role. 2Both were created in the aftermath of the Second World War: the Security Council to provide collective global security, and NATO in 1949, when Article 5 committed its twelve original members to collective defence against the threat from the Soviet bloc. 3Similarly, both have used this role to take significant military action. The Security Council authorised the use of force in Korea in the 1950s and in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, while NATO took military action in the former Yugoslavia. 4This means that both are significant because they can turn a collective decision into military force. 5Equally, both are limited by the same weakness: their significance depends on agreement among their members, which is why the Security Council could not agree on action over Iraq and NATO’s members have not agreed to take direct military action over Ukraine.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceUses the focus word (“similarity”) and the first part of the question (“role”) straight away.
2. 2
   Knowledge (AO1)Precise, accurate examples for both bodies: Article 5 (1949), and, in the next sentences, force authorised in Korea and Kuwait and NATO in the former Yugoslavia.
3. 3
   Comparison“Similarly…”, “while NATO…”: keeps the two bodies side by side rather than in separate halves.
4. 4
   Analysis (AO2)Moves from role to significance, the second part of the question, and explains why it matters.
5. 5
   Higher-level touchAdds nuance. It is still a similarity, so it stays on the question.

1Another similarity is that the role of both organisations has widened beyond conflict, which adds to their significance. 2The Security Council has passed resolutions on issues such as the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the use of children in armed conflict and support for international criminal tribunals. Similarly, NATO, although a military alliance, has taken on tasks such as anti-piracy operations and earthquake relief. 3This means that both have adapted to a world in which threats are no longer limited to wars between states, and consequently both have remained relevant long after the circumstances in which they were formed. 4In each case, the wider role rests on the same foundation: the military and political weight of their most powerful members, without which these missions would carry far less force.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceA new similarity, linked at once to significance.
2. 2
   Knowledge (AO1)Specific, varied evidence for each body.
3. 3
   Analysis (AO2)A chain of reasoning: the role widened, so they adapted, so they stayed relevant.
4. 4
   Link forwardSets up paragraph 3, giving the answer coherence.

1A third similarity is that both have a restricted membership dominated by powerful states. 2The Security Council’s five permanent members – the US, Russia, the UK, China and France – are among the most powerful states in the world economically and militarily, and all are nuclear powers. Permanent membership is limited to these five by Article 23 of the UN Charter, with ten further members elected for two years at a time. Similarly, NATO brings together nuclear and economically powerful states such as the US, the UK, France and Canada, and applicants must meet strict criteria, including democratic government and civilian control of the armed forces. 3Consequently, both concentrate power in a small group of states, which gives their decisions great weight but also exposes them to the criticism that they serve the interests of the powerful rather than the world as a whole.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceClear and focused.
2. 2
   Knowledge (AO1)Detailed, accurate institutional knowledge: the P5 named, Article 23, ten elected members, NATO’s membership criteria.
3. 3
   Analysis (AO2)Explains what the shared feature means for their significance.
4. What’s missing (deliberately)No introduction, no conclusion, no verdict. None is needed: this is AO1 and AO2 only.

1The most fundamental difference between realists and liberals over the inevitability of war lies in their view of human nature. 2Realists hold a pessimistic view: thinkers such as Morgenthau argue that humans are self-centred and pursue their own interests, so states, led by humans, put their national interest above any concern for harmony. 3This reflects the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, a key thinker in conservatism, who argued that without a sovereign power to impose order, humans would live in a constant state of conflict. 4In sharp contrast, liberals believe that humans are guided by reason and are capable of cooperation. 5This draws on John Locke, a key thinker in liberalism, who emphasised the benefits of mutual cooperation and order, and the avoidance of war, for practical and economic reasons. 6Therefore, for realists war is rooted in a fixed and selfish human nature, whereas for liberals human reason makes war avoidable.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceNames the sub-topic and ties it to the question’s focus (inevitability).
2. 2
   Knowledge (AO1)A realist thinker and concept, applied to war: Morgenthau; self-interest; national interest.
3. 3
   Synoptic linkSynoptic link for realism. It unlocks Level 4, and it is explained, not just named.
4. 4
   Comparative pivotTurns description into comparison (AO2).
5. 5
   Synoptic linkThe second synoptic link. Neither needs repeating later.
6. 6
   Mini-summaryRestates the core divide in terms of inevitability.

A second difference concerns the structure of the international system. 1Realists argue that it is anarchical: there is no superior authority above states, so each must rely on self-help to survive. This produces the security dilemma, in which one state’s efforts to increase its security are seen as a threat by others, who respond in kind, leading to arms races and, ultimately, conflict. 2Realists point to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as evidence that states will use force when they believe their security and national interest are at stake. 3Whereas realists see anarchy as making war inevitable, liberals argue that its effects can be softened by complex interdependence. 4As states become linked through trade, international organisations and shared problems that no state can solve alone, war becomes too costly; liberals point to the European Union as evidence that economic integration can make war between former rivals highly unlikely. 5Thus realists see anarchy as a trap, while liberals see interdependence as a way out of it.

1. 1
   Analysis (AO2)Precise realist terminology (anarchy, self-help, the security dilemma), with a chain of reasoning ending in war.
2. 2
   Knowledge (AO1)A contemporary example applied to the theory.
3. 3
   Comparative pivotThe contrast is made in a single sentence.
4. 4
   Knowledge (AO1)Concept plus example (complex interdependence; the European Union), matching the realist side.
5. 5
   Mini-summaryA crisp restatement of the divide.

1Finally, realists and liberals differ over which actors matter, and therefore over whether the forces for peace can outweigh those for war. 2Realists use the billiard ball model, in which states are the only significant actors and collide as their interests clash. 3International organisations therefore have little power to prevent war, and realists point to the Security Council’s failure to agree on action over Iraq as evidence that such bodies are paralysed when great powers disagree. 4Conversely, liberals use the cobweb model, in which states are bound together by a web of relationships with each other, with international organisations and with non-state actors. 5Liberals add that democracy, trade and international organisations reinforce one another in the Kantian triangle, and that bodies such as the International Court of Justice give states a peaceful way to settle disputes. 6The core divide, then, is that realists see a world of competing states in which war will always recur, whereas liberals see a connected world in which war can be made increasingly unlikely.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceLinks a new sub-topic straight back to war.
2. 2
   ComparisonThe billiard ball model, matched with the cobweb model below: a matched pair of concepts, the ideal material for comparison.
3. 3
   Knowledge (AO1)Evidence on the realist side: the Security Council over Iraq.
4. 4
   ComparisonThe other half of the matched pair.
5. 5
   Knowledge (AO1)Evidence on the liberal side: the Kantian triangle; the ICJ.
6. 6
   Mini-summaryEnds the answer on the question’s key word without a separate conclusion.
7. Synoptic: none in this paragraphCorrect: the links were made once in paragraph 1.