IB MYP Individuals and Societies – Warfare and peacekeeping Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – the IB holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or the IB store.

This practice set covers warfare and peacekeeping for IB MYP Individuals and Societies, aligned to the International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Individuals and societies, from 2014. It suits MYP years 4 and 5 (no SL/HL split). MYP has no prescribed content list; schools design their own units, and “warfare and peacekeeping” is one of the topics the brief lists for the on-screen examinations.

Each question is labelled with the criterion it trains. Real MYP work is judged against criterion level descriptors (achievement levels 1–8), so the [1] points in the answers are a revision aid, not IB marks. Norland, Aldova, Brenmark, Castria and Durnia are fictional, and so are all data and Source A.

Study first with the study guide and revision notes. See also the course hub, checklist, criteria in practice questions.

Questions

1. (Criterion A) Define peacekeeping and state one way it differs from peacebuilding. [3]

2. (Criterion A) The First World War began in the summer of 1914.

(a) Identify the trigger of the war and give its date. [2] (b) Explain how the alliance system turned a Balkan crisis into a general European war. [3]

3. (Criterion A) Classify each conflict with one type of war and justify your choice: the Spanish Civil War (1936–39); the Second World War (1939–45); the Falklands War (1982); the Vietnam War (ended 1975). [4]

4. (Criterion A) Explain two differences between the League of Nations and the United Nations in how each could respond to aggression. [4]

5. (Criterion A) State the three principles of UN peacekeeping and explain why one of them limited the UN force in Rwanda in 1994. [4]

6. (Criterion B) A fictional peacekeeping mission in Norland has 3,000 troops: Aldova 1,200, Brenmark 900, Castria 600, Durnia 300. The table shows its records.

Year	Ceasefire violations reported	Patrols carried out
1	240	400
2	180	400
3	150	250

(a) Calculate the percentage of the mission’s troops supplied by Aldova. [1] (b) Calculate the percentage change in reported violations from Year 1 to Year 3. [2] (c) Calculate violations per 100 patrols for each year and explain why the fall in reported violations may be misleading. [3]

7. (Criterion B) You are planning an investigation into how effective UN peacekeeping has been in Cyprus since 1964.

(a) Write a focused research question. [2] (b) Suggest one primary and one secondary source, with a reason for each. [2] (c) Identify one limitation of your plan and how you would reduce it. [2]

8. (Criterion D) Read Source A.

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. An imagined extract from the memoir of a retired officer, published twenty years after he served with a peacekeeping mission in Norland.

“We patrolled the ceasefire line every night. The villages trusted us, and in two years my sector saw no major fighting. Headquarters sent us too few vehicles, but my men never let the local people down. When people say peacekeeping failed in Norland, they were not there.”

(a) Explain one value of Source A for a student researching peacekeeping in Norland. [2] (b) Explain one limitation of Source A for the same student. [2]

9. (Criterion C) Plan a 250-word information leaflet for 11-year-olds explaining what UN peacekeepers do. Describe the features of content, structure and style your leaflet would use. [5]

10. (Criterion D) Explain why the Treaty of Versailles (1919) can be seen as both a consequence of one war and a cause of another. [4]

11. (Criterion D, extended response) “The alliance system was the main cause of the First World War.” To what extent do you agree? [8]

12. (Criterion D, extended response) “Peacekeeping only freezes conflicts; peacebuilding is what brings lasting peace.” Evaluate this claim with reference to at least two cases. [10]

Answers

1. Peacekeeping is the deployment of impartial military, police or civilian personnel [1] with the consent of the parties to help keep a ceasefire [1]. Peacebuilding differs because it tackles the causes of war over the long term, for example through disarmament or rebuilding courts, aiming at positive peace [1]. [3] Examiner insight: A definition needs both the task and the condition of consent; “soldiers keeping peace” just repeats the term.

2. (a) The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo [1] on 28 June 1914 [1]. (b) Austria-Hungary, backed by its ally Germany, declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914 [1]. Russia supported Serbia, so Germany and Russia were drawn in, and France was Russia’s ally [1]. Germany’s invasion of Belgium brought Britain in on 4 August 1914, making the war general [1]. Examiner insight: “Explain” needs the chain of links; naming the two blocs alone stays at description level.

3. Spanish Civil War: civil war, fought between groups inside Spain [1]. Second World War: total war, whole economies mobilised and civilians targeted [1]. Falklands: interstate and limited, between Argentina and Britain over one territory [1]. Vietnam: proxy war, with the USA backing the South and communist powers backing the North [1]. [4] Examiner insight: The justification carries the credit; a label with no feature of the conflict shows recall only.

4. The League had no armed forces and the USA never joined, so its sanctions and appeals had little force [1], shown when it failed to stop Japan in Manchuria (1931) [1]. The UN Security Council can authorise force under Chapter VII [1], as it did for Korea in 1950, although the veto of the five permanent members can block action [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Each difference needs a supporting example; two differences asserted without evidence usually reach only half the credit.

5. Consent of the parties [1]; impartiality and non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate [1]. In Rwanda, the non-use of force principle meant the small UN mission was not mandated to fight those carrying out the genocide [1], and when the Security Council cut the force in April 1994 it could not protect most civilians [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Link the chosen principle to events in 1994; “the UN failed” alone shows no connection.

6. (a) 1,200 ÷ 3,000 × 100 = 40% [1]. (b) (150 − 240) ÷ 240 × 100 [1] = −37.5% (a fall of 37.5%) [1]. (c) 240 ÷ 400 × 100 = 60; 180 ÷ 400 × 100 = 45; 150 ÷ 250 × 100 = 60, so 60, 45, 60 per 100 patrols [1]. The rate in Year 3 is back at the Year 1 level [1], so fewer patrols may explain the lower count: violations may have gone unreported rather than stopped [1]. Examiner insight: Show each division; a wrong bare figure earns nothing, but correct method with a slip can keep method credit.

7. (a) A focused question with a time frame [1] that evidence can answer, e.g. “How far did UNFICYP prevent renewed fighting in Cyprus between 1964 and 2004?” [1] (b) Primary: UN Security Council resolutions renewing the mandate, which show what the mission was asked to do [1]. Secondary: a historian’s account of the Cyprus dispute, which gives context and judgement over time [1]. (c) Accessible sources may be mostly in English and from outside Cyprus, missing local views [1]; add translated accounts from both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities [1]. Examiner insight: Criterion B rewards a question that can actually be investigated; “Was the UN good?” has no focus, scale or time frame.

8. (a) The author was an eyewitness who served on the ceasefire line [1], so the source is valuable for showing daily patrol work and how some peacekeepers saw relations with villagers [1]. (b) Written twenty years later by someone defending his own unit’s record [1], it may exaggerate success and covers only one sector, so it cannot show whether the mission as a whole succeeded [1]. Examiner insight: Value and limitation should come from the source’s origin and purpose; “it might be biased” with no reason tied to the author earns little.

9. Content: who peacekeepers are, who sends them, the three principles in simple words [1]; one real example, such as Cyprus since 1964 [1]. Structure: a title, short headed sections, a “Did you know?” box [1]. Style: short sentences and everyday words for 11-year-olds, key terms explained [1]. Format: a labelled map or image and a source list [1]. [5] Examiner insight: The communicating criterion rewards matching audience, purpose and format; a plan that could suit any reader misses the point of the task.

10. As a consequence, the treaty was the peace settlement imposed on Germany after its defeat in 1918 [1], including Article 231 (war guilt) and an army limit of 100,000 [1]. As a cause, German resentment of these terms helped the Nazis win support [1], and Hitler’s overturning of the treaty led towards the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Both halves need specific evidence; credit is capped when one side of the “both” is only asserted.

11. Indicative points:

• A clear judgement in the introduction [1].
• Alliances: Triple Alliance (1882) and Triple Entente (1907) turned a Balkan dispute into a general war [1].
• Evidence: Germany backed Austria-Hungary, Russia backed Serbia, Britain entered on 4 August 1914 [1].
• Against: militarism and the arms race made rapid mobilisation likely [1].
• Nationalism in the Balkans created the crisis in the first place [1].
• The Sarajevo assassination (28 June 1914) set events in motion [1].
• Links between factors, e.g. alliances plus rigid mobilisation plans [1].
• Substantiated conclusion that answers “to what extent” [1]. [8] Examiner insight: Criterion D rewards weighing factors; a list of causes with a one-line conclusion reads as description.

12. Indicative points:

• Both terms defined, using negative and positive peace [1].
• For: in Cyprus, UNFICYP has served since 1964 without a final settlement [1].
• Peacekeeping cannot remove causes such as disputed land [1].
• Peacebuilding tools (DDR, courts, elections) target causes of conflict [1].
• Example: Rwanda’s gacaca community courts, closed in 2012 [1].
• Against: without a held ceasefire, peacebuilding cannot start [1].
• A frozen conflict still saves lives by keeping sides apart [1].
• Peacebuilding needs funding, local support and time, and can look imposed from outside [1].
• The stages are linked, as in An Agenda for Peace (1992) [1].
• Balanced, supported conclusion [1]. [10] Examiner insight: “Evaluate” needs both sides weighed with evidence; an answer that only agrees cannot reach the top bands.

Where marks are usually lost

• Naming the 1914 trigger as the main cause without showing why it led to a wider war.
• Calling Korea (1950) or Kuwait (1990–91) peacekeeping; both were enforcement under Chapter VII.
• Classifying a war with no feature of the conflict to justify the label.
• Percentage change divided by the final value instead of the starting value.
• Accepting a falling count without checking recording effort.
• Generic source evaluation (“could be biased”) not tied to who wrote it, when and why.
• Research questions with no focus, place or time frame.
• Extended responses that describe but never weigh or judge.

Next steps

• Warfare and peacekeeping revision notes
• Warfare and peacekeeping study guide
• Source-evaluation exam preparation
• IB MYP Individuals and Societies course hub
• Printable MYP Individuals and Societies checklist
• All free 10-minute diagnostics
• Book a free trial class

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Individuals and societies, from 2014. The brief lists “warfare and peacekeeping” among the topics explored in the individuals and societies on-screen examinations; all questions here are original.