AQA GCSE Citizenship Studies Paper 2, June 2025: Question 4
9 marks · Medium difficulty · Extended Response
Identify an example of mediation, and evaluate the statement that sanctions are more effective than military intervention in resolving international disputes and conflicts.
Practise this questionQuestion
Question text
04.1 Which of the following is an example of mediation?
[1 mark]
Shade in the one correct answer.
A Geneva Conventions
B Good Friday Agreement
C Hague Convention
D UN Charter
04.2 ‘Sanctions are more effective than military intervention for resolving international
disputes and conflicts.’
Considering a range of views, to what extent do you agree or disagree with this
statement?
[8 marks]
Extra space
Mark scheme
Show the mark scheme
Total
Qu Part Marking guidance
marks
04 1 Which of the following is an example of mediation? 1
Correct response: B Good Friday Agreement
AO1 = 1
Total
Qu Part Marking guidance
marks
04 2 ‘Sanctions are more effective than military intervention for resolving 8
international disputes and conflicts.’
Considering a range of views, to what extent do you agree or
disagree with this statement?
Level Marks Descriptor
Developed and sustained analysis of a wide range
of evidence and views related to the citizenship
debate.
4 7–8 Developed and reasoned justifications are
provided which relate to the evidence provided.
The justifications put forward form a coherent
argument.
Analysis of a range of evidence and views related
to the citizenship debate.
The evidence is used to support arguments but
3 5–6 these arguments are not always completely
developed, justified or evaluated.
Conclusions drawn from the arguments may not
be completely coherent.
Basic analysis of a limited range of evidence and
views related to the citizenship debate.
10 Weak arguments are made which are not
necessarily related to the evidence selected.
2 3–4
The arguments represent only a limited range of
viewpoints.
Some attempt is made to integrate the arguments
into concluding remarks.
Limited evidence presented and/or evidence
presented is not directly related to the citizenship
debate.
Insufficient range of differing viewpoints
1 1–2 considered.
Little or no attempt is made to analyse or evaluate
the evidence presented.
Little or no attempt is made to integrate the points
made.
00 Nothing to credit.
Indicative content
Points which may be included to agree with this statement
• Sanctions are a morally more acceptable method than military
intervention (and the inevitable loss of life and collateral damage that it
involves) for resolving international disputes and conflicts.
• Sanctions can be used to gradually build pressure on a country and
bring about peaceful change which avoids both the damage that
military intervention results in and the subsequent risk of a desire for
‘revenge’ developing within the targeted country.
• Sanctions can target different individuals/economic
sectors/regions/cultural facets of the targeted country, providing a more
nuanced and subtle means of applying pressure in order to resolve
international disputes and conflicts than the ‘blunt’ instrument of military
intervention.
• Sanctions are a method for resolving international disputes and
conflicts that is easier to gain the support for from citizens in a
democracy than military intervention.
Points which may be included to disagree with this statement
• Rulers of countries targeted by sanctions often respond by becoming
more oppressive – meaning that sanctions may simply be a prelude to
an ‘inevitable’ military intervention to make a country comply, change
its behaviour or to bring about regime change in that country.
• Sanctions tend to hurt the poor and not those in power. The negative
effects of military intervention, the inevitable risk of the loss of life, can
be shorter and more isolated than the long-term negative effects of
sanctions.
• Enforcement of sanctions is often inconsistent, making them potentially
ineffective, whereas military intervention, by its very nature, requires
‘full commitment’.
• The threat of military intervention is often needed to ‘back up’ other
measures (such as sanctions) and ensure that the targeted country 11
takes these measures seriously.
Accept any other appropriate response.
AO3 = 8
How to answer it
Resolving International Conflicts & Disputes
What this question tests
This assessment covers key methods used by the international community to manage and resolve disputes under the theme "The UK and the Wider World":
- AO1 (Recall): Identifying real-world examples of diplomatic dispute resolution, specifically mediation.
- AO3 (Analysis & Evaluation): Comparing the effectiveness of economic/diplomatic sanctions versus military intervention, balancing multiple perspectives, and constructing a coherent, justified conclusion.
Part 1: Identifying Mediation
Which of the following is an example of mediation?
✅ Correct Answer: B
Good Friday Agreement
The 1998 Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement involved an independent external mediator (US Senator George Mitchell) facilitating discussions between opposing political parties in Northern Ireland and the British and Irish governments.
💡 Key Knowledge: What is Mediation?
- Mediation involves a neutral third party stepping in to help conflicting groups talk, negotiate, and reach a voluntary peace settlement.
- Geneva Conventions & Hague Convention: International treaties establishing legal rules of warfare and treatment of prisoners—not active mediation.
- UN Charter: The founding treaty/legal document establishing the United Nations and its principles.
❌ Common Misconception
Students often guess the Geneva Conventions or UN Charter simply because they sound prominent and international. Remember: a treaty or convention is a set of rules, whereas the Good Friday Agreement was a negotiated peace deal reached through an active mediation process.
Part 2: Sanctions vs Military Intervention
‘Sanctions are more effective than military intervention for resolving international disputes and conflicts.’ Considering a range of views, to what extent do you agree or disagree?
| Level | Marks | What the Examiner Looks For |
|---|---|---|
| Level 4 | 7–8 | Developed and sustained analysis of both sanctions and military intervention. Uses specific evidence. Balanced arguments leading to a coherent, well-reasoned final judgment. |
| Level 3 | 5–6 | Analysis of a range of viewpoints with supporting evidence, but points may lack full development or the conclusion may be slightly abrupt. |
| Level 2 | 3–4 | Limited range of viewpoints (often one-sided or purely descriptive). Arguments are basic with weak integration of evidence. |
| Level 1 | 1–2 | Isolated points or opinions with little to no citizenship knowledge or evaluation. |
💡 Arguments AGREEING with the Statement (Sanctions are more effective)
- Lower human cost: Avoids military casualties, collateral damage, and loss of civilian lives associated with armed conflict.
- Peaceful & gradual pressure: Gives diplomatic off-ramps and avoids creating a cycle of resentment, revenge, or post-war insurgency.
- Targeted ("smart") sanctions: Asset freezes and travel bans can target corrupt leaders/oligarchs directly without harming the wider population.
- Democratic legitimacy: Far easier to maintain public and international support at home than deploying ground troops or carrying out airstrikes.
💡 Arguments DISAGREEING with the Statement (Military intervention is needed / Sanctions fail)
- Harm to ordinary citizens: Broad trade embargoes can cause shortages of food, medicine, and fuel, hurting vulnerable civilians while elites evade them.
- Authoritarian entrenchment: Regimes often use foreign sanctions to rally nationalist support and crack down more harshly on domestic opposition.
- Sanctions take too long: When genocide or rapid aggression occurs, slow economic measures cannot stop atrocities; immediate armed force is required.
- Inconsistent enforcement: Countries often find trading loopholes or third-party allies to bypass sanctions unless backed by military blockades.
🧠 How to Structure a Level 4 (8/8) Response
- Introduction (brief): Define sanctions (economic penalties, trade bans) and military intervention (use of armed force). State that their effectiveness depends on the urgency and nature of the dispute.
- Point 1 (In favour of sanctions): Explain that sanctions apply targeted financial pressure without loss of life. Contrast this with the high human and financial costs of wars (e.g., Iraq or Afghanistan).
- Point 2 (Against sanctions / In favour of military action): Explain the limitations of sanctions (e.g. Russia or North Korea evading restrictions via black markets) and how dictators pass suffering onto civilians. Explain that military intervention provides immediate results to halt humanitarian crises.
- Point 3 (Synthesised evaluation): Highlight that these tools are not mutually exclusive—military threat is often required to give sanctions "teeth" and force leaders to the negotiating table.
- Conclusion (Clear Justified Judgment): Answer the question directly. Example: "Overall, while sanctions are morally preferable and less destructive, they are rarely effective on their own against determined autocrats without the credible threat of military enforcement."
❌ Examiner Commentary & Common Traps
- Writing a one-sided essay: A purely "anti-war" or purely "pro-sanctions" essay is capped at Level 2 (maximum 4 marks), no matter how eloquently written. You must assess both sides.
- Vague definitions: Don't treat sanctions as "just being mean" or "telling someone off." Specify that they mean trade embargoes, asset freezes, or financial restrictions.
- Missing a final conclusion: To reach Level 4 (7–8 marks), you must give a reasoned judgment explaining which method is more effective and why. Simply saying "both have pros and cons" drops you into Level 3.
Topics
3.1 Citizenship skills, processes and methods · 3.2 Life in modern Britain · 3.1 Citizenship skills, processes and methods · 3.2.4 What is the UK's role in key international organisations?
Question and mark scheme from the AQA GCSE Citizenship Studies examination, Paper 2, June 2025. QuestionVault is an independent revision resource; questions remain the copyright of the awarding body.