In IB Global Politics, peace is not understood as a single condition. Instead, students are expected to distinguish between negative peace and positive peace, two concepts that highlight different dimensions of stability, justice, and long-term conflict prevention. This distinction is essential for analysing whether peace is truly sustainable or merely temporary.
Negative peace refers to the absence of direct violence or armed conflict. When fighting stops, a ceasefire is reached, or a war ends, negative peace exists. This form of peace is often the immediate goal of conflict resolution efforts because it reduces loss of life and physical destruction. In global politics, negative peace is relatively easy to identify and measure because it focuses on visible violence.
Negative peace is important, but it is also limited. A society may experience no active conflict while still facing repression, inequality, discrimination, or injustice. For example, authoritarian regimes may maintain order through force while denying political rights. In such cases, peace exists on the surface, but underlying grievances remain unresolved. IB Global Politics emphasises that negative peace does not necessarily prevent future conflict.
In contrast, positive peace refers to the presence of justice, equality, and social harmony, as well as the absence of structural violence. Structural violence includes systems that harm individuals by preventing them from meeting basic needs, such as poverty, exclusion, and discrimination. Positive peace aims to address the root causes of conflict rather than just stopping violence.
Positive peace involves strong institutions, inclusive governance, respect for human rights, and economic opportunity. It focuses on building trust between groups and ensuring that power and resources are distributed fairly. From this perspective, peace is not simply the end of war but the creation of conditions that make violence unnecessary. In IB Global Politics, positive peace is closely linked to development and justice.
The key difference between the two lies in sustainability. Negative peace may be fragile and temporary, while positive peace is more likely to endure. Without addressing inequality, political exclusion, or historical grievances, negative peace can collapse into renewed conflict. Positive peace seeks to prevent this by transforming social and political structures.
However, achieving positive peace is far more challenging. It requires long-term commitment, resources, and political will. Some critics argue that focusing on positive peace can delay urgent efforts to stop violence. This highlights the tension between short-term stability and long-term justice.
For IB Global Politics students, strong answers explain that negative peace is about stopping violence, while positive peace is about creating fairness and stability. High-level analysis evaluates why both are important and why peace without justice is unlikely to last.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is negative peace?
Negative peace is the absence of direct violence or war. Fighting has stopped, but deeper problems may remain. IB students should link it to ceasefires and stability.
What is positive peace?
Positive peace is the presence of justice, equality, and inclusive institutions. It addresses root causes of conflict. This concept goes beyond ending violence.
Which type of peace is more sustainable?
Positive peace is generally more sustainable because it reduces long-term grievances. Negative peace may be temporary. IB answers should explain this difference.
Can a country have negative peace without positive peace?
Yes, many states experience stability without justice. This peace can be fragile. IB analysis should evaluate risks of renewed conflict.
How should this topic be answered in exams?
Students should clearly define both concepts and compare them. Evaluating sustainability and justice strengthens answers. Balanced explanation leads to higher marks.
