AQA A2 History 3N: Aspects of International Relations, 1945-2004

So with historiography you can use people like Gaddis for example he believes that Khrushchev sent the missiles into Cuba to close the missile gap. From here you can say Gaddis is right or wrong whatever you believe.. The best way to find historiography is to just read up online on certain topics and see what authors have said

So do you have to be specific with your histiography? Or can it just be the acknowlegement of debate and differentiating views? Any ideas what might be on the exam aswell?

Ohh okay thankyou, so what are you aiming for and get last time? And I don't really know, I have a feeling it may be détente or secon world war, but it's difficult to pick out patterns for determination because of the lack of actual exam questions!

A*, I need 93% in this exam! The thing is I'm actually feeling pretty confident about it, fingers crossed those two topics come up, I'll be a happy bunny.

Hey, can you give some tips on how you would structure an essay, so like would I do arguments for and against or what?... I really don't know the right essay structure for int. relations :/

I think it depends on the essay tbh.. But the basic theme is to start with your into (obviously) but make sure you put your argument from the start so straight away in your intro reword the question to show the examiner you understand the question, then give your view.

The main body of the argument is up to you how you structure it, but personally I would just do a paragraph or two for and a paragraph or two against,but make sure that your argument is clear throughout the essay, so if you do not agree with the point for say why, also it says in the mark scheme for an A* that a high level of synopticity is required, and that students must be aware of the historical debate, and that the essay is well structured, so make sure that when you write, you write with purpose. A point that our teacher said was that a lot of people are thinking while they are writing about what to write next thus allowing their essay to not recieve 100% concentration, it is best to write a 5 minute plan for yourself at the start to ensure you know what you are writing about next, even if it takes you 10 minutes, you still have 40-35 minutes to write a well planned out essay!

My Teacher gave me this question: 'world politics from 1991-2004 shows that the principle of collective security cannot be applied in international crises'. How far do you agree with this view of the UN's interventions in this period?

Don't really know how to structure this...any help?

Ooo this question looks good, i'll do a plan for it tomorrow and ill type it all up! It seems to be leaning towards the idea that the UN failed or was a success? So for example collective security couldn't be established in the international crises of Somalia because the UN switched from humanitarian aims to political aims in the region... And USA the superpower did not want to intervene which is why they failed.... Is that what u were thinking?

That sounds good
I was also thinking change overtime. For example there was a collective effort led by the UN in the first Gulf War, but the US seemed to be more unilateral in its approach after 9/11 e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan undermining the UN

If you have specific historiography use it, and then say if u agree or not. It is always better to have a historians name... Thats what i do i try and put one person in per question. No idea Im re taking this exam .. Do you have any ideas?

Not one of the best plans ever i attempted it in 10 mins. Is this how you would tackle the question?

'World politics from 1991-2004 shows that the principle of collective security cannot be applied in international crises.’ How far do you agree with this view of the UN’s intervention in this period?

Intro – Show your line of argument and then define collective security – a system for international peace. UN failed in this case for many reason

• Collective security cannot be applied when superpowers interests are being threatened. USA (oil) in Kuwait – Appears as if the UN are united and are going to lead a collective security response to the invasion- UN coalition forces dominated by US troops – Undermined.

• CS cannot be applied in international crisis especially when the UN lacks organisation- Rwanda- Major failure – No peace established – didn’t prevent a genocide- France a member state of the UN use their presence in Rwanda to protect Hutu allies (committed the genocide)

• East Timor- Success at facilitating elections but the UN’s main role is to be peacekeepers not hold elections- Failure in preventing violence ( Mentioned a slight success but then argued against it)

• Collective security cannot be applied due to the system in which the UN works- Darfur China and Russia vetoed intervention – Economic interests- Clear lack of political will to help in the region- Failure. UN undermined in these situations. 2004

Oh yes and historiography is hard to find on this topic and the EU.. i dont have much :/

Not liking this question i hate the EU out of all the topics!!!

To what extent should the expansion of the EU be considered a success in the period 1991-2004 - I did this question and got the lowest mark EVER out of all my essays :'( Any help ?

Thanks