Skip to main content

Challenges to Peace and Security (SACE Stage 2 Modern History)

Syllabus dot point

“Analyse the changing nature of threats to peace and security since 1945, including nuclear weapons, terrorism, ethnic conflict and the international responses to them.”

7 min read

Quick answer

Since 1945 the threats to global peace and security have shifted from the danger of total war between superpowers to a more varied landscape of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, genocide and ethnic conflict. The Cold War arms race raised the spectre of nuclear annihilation; after 1991 attention turned to civil wars and atrocities such as Rwanda and Bosnia, and after 2001 to transnational terrorism. International responses, from arms-control treaties to humanitarian intervention, have had mixed success.

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. The nuclear threat and arms control
  3. Genocide, ethnic conflict and humanitarian intervention
  4. Terrorism and the post-2001 world
  5. International responses and historiography
  6. Exam-style questions

What this dot point is asking

You must explain how the nature of threats to peace and security changed across the period and assess how effectively the world responded. Strong answers connect different kinds of threat and weigh the strengths and limits of international action.

The nuclear threat and arms control

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) opened the nuclear age and made the destruction of civilisation a real possibility. The Cold War arms race produced tens of thousands of warheads and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) showed how close the world came to catastrophe. In response, states built an arms-control framework: the Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963), the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968), and the SALT and START agreements. Yet proliferation continued, with India, Pakistan, North Korea and others acquiring or pursuing weapons, keeping the nuclear threat alive after the Cold War.

The shifting nature of threat

The central theme is change: from the bipolar nuclear standoff of the Cold War to the diffuse post-Cold-War threats of failed states, ethnic war and terrorism. Examiners expect you to trace this shift rather than treating "security" as a single, unchanging problem.

Genocide, ethnic conflict and humanitarian intervention

The end of the Cold War unleashed long-suppressed ethnic and nationalist conflicts. The break-up of Yugoslavia produced wars and "ethnic cleansing", culminating in the Srebrenica massacre (1995) in which around 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed. In Rwanda, an estimated 800,000 people were murdered in the 1994 genocide while the world failed to intervene. These atrocities forced debate about a "responsibility to protect" and led to interventions, sometimes UN-led, sometimes by NATO, as in Kosovo (1999), and to the creation of international tribunals and the International Criminal Court (2002).

Common mistake

Do not assume the end of the Cold War made the world more peaceful. The 1990s brought a surge of civil wars, genocide and ethnic cleansing. Examiners reward answers that recognise that old threats receded while new ones, often within rather than between states, emerged in their place.

Terrorism and the post-2001 world

Terrorism became a defining security challenge, especially after the al-Qaeda attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001, which killed almost 3,000 people. The US-led "war on terror" produced the invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), the second of which was deeply controversial and launched without UN authorisation. Terrorism struck globally, including the Bali bombings (2002) that killed many Australians. These events raised hard questions about the balance between security and civil liberties, the legitimacy of pre-emptive war, and the effectiveness of military responses to a non-state threat.

International responses and historiography

The period saw a vast expansion of international machinery for peace and security: the United Nations and its peacekeeping missions, arms-control regimes, regional alliances such as NATO, and international courts. Their record is mixed. Peacekeeping succeeded in some places and failed disastrously in others, as in Rwanda and Srebrenica; arms control slowed but did not stop proliferation; and the war on terror arguably created as many problems as it solved.

Historians and analysts debate these issues: whether nuclear deterrence kept the peace or merely risked catastrophe; whether humanitarian intervention is genuine protection or great-power interest in disguise; and whether the post-2001 responses to terrorism were proportionate. SACE answers should weigh the changing threats against the strengths and limits of the international response.

Why this topic matters

Challenges to peace and security since 1945 is a case study in how the nature of global danger evolved and how the international community struggled to respond. Examiners reward answers that connect nuclear, ethnic and terrorist threats with the record of international action into a sustained, evaluative argument.

Scholars and strategists disagree on how to read this record. Deterrence theorists argue that nuclear weapons paradoxically kept the great-power peace, since the certainty of mutual destruction made war irrational, while critics counter that the world survived by luck through crises such as Cuba and that proliferation makes deterrence ever more fragile. On humanitarian intervention, liberal internationalists defend the "responsibility to protect" as a moral advance, whereas realists and many in the Global South see it as a cloak for great-power interests, pointing to selective action. On terrorism, debate continues over whether military responses such as the Iraq invasion reduced or amplified the threat. A strong SACE answer holds these debates together, evaluating both the changing threats and the contested effectiveness of the responses.

Planning a 20 mark essay on changing threats to security

A SACE extended response asks you to analyse change and evaluate responses, not list crises.

Step 1: Define the question

State that "security threats" means dangers to states and peoples, and set criteria across nuclear, ethnic and terrorist threats.

Step 2: Analyse the Cold War threat

Show how the bipolar nuclear standoff and arms race defined danger until 1991, and how arms control responded.

Step 3: Analyse post-Cold-War threats

Show the surge of ethnic conflict, genocide and then transnational terrorism, and the responses of intervention and the war on terror.

Step 4: Evaluate the international response

Weigh the successes and failures of peacekeeping, arms control and intervention.

Step 5: Reach a judgement

Conclude with a defensible verdict on how far threats changed and how effective the response was, engaging with the debates.

Exam-style questions

Questions in the style of SACE Board exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.

SACE 2021-style15 marks
Source A is a 1994 UN report on the failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide. With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the usefulness of this source for a historian investigating international responses to threats to peace and security.
Show worked answer →

A SACE source-analysis response wants origin, purpose and content tied to a judgement about usefulness, not a summary of the report.

Origin and purpose. Identify it as an official UN document examining the organisation's own failure, with the purpose of accountability and reform. Its institutional origin may shape what it emphasises or downplays.

Usefulness. Argue it is highly useful as evidence of the international community's recognition of failure and of the limits of peacekeeping, but its self-examining purpose means it may understate or reframe responsibility.

Make the analytical move that an official self-assessment reveals institutional thinking but must be read critically, and cross-check against independent accounts.

Markers reward the origin-purpose-content link and a judgement on usefulness for the inquiry.

SACE 2022-style20 marks
To what extent has the nature of threats to global peace and security changed since 1945?
Show worked answer →

A 20 mark extended response needs a thesis tracing the shift in threats and weighing how complete the change has been.

Thesis. Argue that threats shifted from the bipolar nuclear standoff towards diffuse post-Cold-War dangers of ethnic conflict, genocide and transnational terrorism, though nuclear risk persists.

Evidence for change. Trace the move from MAD and the Cuban Missile Crisis to Rwanda, Bosnia and 9/11.

Counter-weight. Note the continuing nuclear threat from proliferation, so old dangers did not vanish.

Judgement. Conclude with a weighed verdict on how far the nature of threat changed, and how effectively the world responded.

Markers reward a structured argument, precise evidence and evaluation of the international response.

Practise this

Sources & how we know this

ExamExplained