GCSE Religious Studies: Peace, Conflict and Justice
The examiner is not asking what you think about war or about prison. The question is always what a believer holding a stated position would appeal to, and why somebody in the same tradition might land somewhere else — so every question here is about the reasoning.
The criteria for a justified war are given as what they are: a just cause, a proper authority, a reasonable prospect of success, force in proportion, and a last resort. They are constraints, and the option treating them as a way of approving whatever a government has already decided is there because that is the misunderstanding they most often meet. Pacifism follows, distinguished from a preference by the thing that tests it — a preference for peace gives way when a case seems urgent enough, and a principled refusal does not — with the note that pacifists themselves disagree about whether any force is ever permitted.
Then two members of one tradition reach opposite conclusions about the same situation, and the accurate answer is that they are applying shared principles differently rather than one of them being insincere or the tradition having nothing to say. That question is the model for the whole set.
Forgiveness is separated from two things students routinely fold into it: excusing what was done, and being obliged to restore the relationship and the trust. Reconciliation is then treated as a process with content — harm acknowledged, behaviour changed — rather than as goodwill or a signed document.
The punishment half starts with the four aims. A court seeking a penalty proportionate to the offence is pursuing retribution; a prison education programme serves reformation, and the option saying reformation implies the offence was not serious is offered because that is the objection people actually raise. Capital punishment is left where it belongs, unsettled, with the sanctity of life and the risk of a wrongful conviction on one side and the argument from justice for the gravest crimes on the other, and no option that pretends a tradition has settled it.
The last two are about the line between understanding and approving. Poverty, upbringing and opposition to a law thought unjust explain why offences happen and do not excuse them, which is a distinction worth being able to make explicitly. And a believer considering breaking a law they think unjust weighs conscience against the consequences for other people and against accepting the penalty — the positions are set out and not chosen between.
No real war, country, conflict, group or crime is named, nothing is described graphically, and no teaching or quotation is invented. Nothing is reproduced from any exam board specification, past paper or mark scheme.
Zestly is an independent study tool. It is not affiliated with any exam board and it is not an exam centre.
- State the criteria for a justified war and treat them as constraints
- Distinguish pacifism from a preference for peace
- Explain a disagreement within one tradition as a disagreement about application
- Separate forgiveness from excusing and from restoring a relationship
- Say what reconciliation requires beyond goodwill
- Identify retribution, deterrence, protection and reformation from a description
- Say which aim a prison education programme serves and why
- Set out the capital punishment disagreement without settling it
- Distinguish explaining an offence from excusing it
- Name what a believer weighs before breaking a law they consider unjust
Ten cases and questions: a government weighing military action against the traditional criteria, a person who will not serve under any circumstances, two believers reading the same teachings differently, what forgiveness does and does not require, two communities after a long disagreement, a court seeking a proportionate penalty, a prison education programme, the unsettled argument about capital punishment, poverty and upbringing offered as explanations, and a law somebody believes is unjust. Twelve flashcards carry the vocabulary — just war, proportionality, last resort, pacifism, conscientious objection, forgiveness, reconciliation, retribution, deterrence, reformation, protection, sanctity of life.
Sample question
A government is considering military action. Which of the following best describes the traditional criteria used to determine if a war can be justified?
- The war is justified as long as the state has the military capacity to win, as the criteria for justice are considered secondary to the outcome of the conflict.
- The war must have a just cause, be declared by a proper authority, have a reasonable prospect of success, use force in proportion, and be a last resort.
- The war is justified if the government determines it is in the national interest, regardless of the scale of force used or the availability of diplomatic solutions.
- The war is justified if it is supported by a majority of the population, provided that the military objective is achieved quickly and without significant cost.
See the answer
The war must have a just cause, be declared by a proper authority, have a reasonable prospect of success, use force in proportion, and be a last resort.
The just war theory requires specific ethical conditions to be met, including proportionality and last resort. The incorrect options mistakenly suggest that state interest or military capacity alone can justify a war, which ignores the moral constraints required by the tradition.
Try this quiz →Try this exam →Practice these flashcards →Try this written work →