Preparing for a debate: Securing peace – but how?

In week 31, you will debate in class the big question that follows on from “Understanding conflicts: Causes, escalation and actors”: securing peace – but how? Like “Building an argument: Should the state regulate prices?” and “Debate preparation: Should the state be allowed to remove false information?”, this module deliberately goes beyond teaching facts: it gives you the tools and material for both sides. This module takes no position – you will weigh up the arguments in the debate.

First, the tool you know from “Building an argument: Should the state regulate prices?” – the argument structure:

1. Claim – What do you want to say? A clear sentence that takes a position.
2. Reason – Why is it true? The explanation, introduced with ‘because’ or ‘for’.
3. Example – How can we see this? A specific case that provides evidence you can check.

Without a reason and an example, all you have is an unsupported claim – and that will not persuade anyone who does not already agree with you.

You will debate two questions: firstly, ‘Are economic sanctions an effective tool for peace?’, and secondly, ‘Does a neutral small state need an army?’ You already have the background knowledge: from “EU and EEA: Europe as a single market”, you know the idea of promoting peace through economic interdependence; from “The UN and human rights”, the UN with its Security Council and veto problem; and from “Understanding conflicts: Causes, escalation and actors”, the escalation ladder and the actors. All you need now is the toolbox – then you will be ready for the debate.

What can the international community do to maintain or restore peace? You should know five tools – ordered from ‘soft’ to ‘hard’:

• Diplomacy and mediation: The oldest and softest tool – talking, negotiating and seeking compromises. When the parties can no longer deal directly with each other, a neutral mediator can help: an uninvolved state or an organisation such as the OSCE (“Understanding conflicts: Causes, escalation and actors”) that brings both sides to the negotiating table.
• Economic sanctions: Trade, bank accounts and travel are restricted to build pressure without weapons. You know the logic from “EU and EEA: Europe as a single market” – but here it works in reverse: the same interdependence that promotes peace becomes a source of pressure when a state breaks the rules.
• Peacekeeping (Blue Helmets): The UN sends peacekeeping troops – recognisable by their blue helmets – to monitor ceasefires and keep the parties to a conflict apart. Remember: traditional Blue Helmet missions need a Security Council mandate and the consent of the parties to the conflict – Blue Helmets do not enforce peace; they safeguard an agreed peace.
• International courts: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) settles disputes between states – for example, over borders. The International Criminal Court tries individual people accused of the most serious crimes, such as war crimes.
• Military action under a UN mandate: The strongest measure and last resort: the Security Council can authorise military intervention as an extreme measure.

Two points apply to the whole toolbox. Firstly, Blue Helmets and military action require the Security Council – and that is where the veto problem from “The UN and human rights” arises; the harder tools are therefore blocked precisely when a veto power is involved. Secondly, the tools are not mutually exclusive – negotiations, sanctions and monitoring usually take place at the same time.

Alongside the toolbox, there is a very different approach to war and peace: neutrality. A neutral state does not take part in other states' wars and does not join a military alliance – it therefore stays outside the blocs permanently.

The best-known example is Switzerland: its permanent neutrality has been internationally recognised for over 200 years. An important point for the debate: neutral does not mean having no opinion, nor does it mean doing nothing – Switzerland mediates in conflicts, offers its good offices and hosts negotiations; many international organisations are based in Genf. And Switzerland is neutral but maintains its own army for defence – neutrality and armed forces are not mutually exclusive.

What about Liechtenstein? This is where your second debate question gets interesting: Liechtenstein has had no army of its own since 1868 – it was abolished then mainly to save money. Since then, the small state has relied on other layers of protection: international law and its prohibition on the use of force (“Understanding conflicts: Causes, escalation and actors”), close interdependence and good relations with its neighbours (“EU and EEA: Europe as a single market”), and membership of international organisations such as the UN (“The UN and human rights”).

Treat this fact as food for thought, not an answer: whether a neutral small state is better off with or without an army is exactly the question you will debate – and there are serious arguments on both sides.

Here are three arguments on each side – all following the structure claim – reason – example. Remember: the arguments are framed in general terms; this module makes no claim about whether sanctions are working in any particular ongoing conflict – that can usually only be judged in hindsight. All country examples are fictional.

FOR: Sanctions are an effective tool for peace

1. Claim: Sanctions hit an aggressor's economy where war is financed. Reason: War costs enormous sums – losing export revenue and access to technology makes it harder to finance rearmament. Example: If the fictional country Rotland loses its main buyers of raw materials, the state budget loses billions – every tank factory then competes with wages and pensions for funding.
2. Claim: Sanctions send a clear signal without using weapons. Reason: They visibly show that breaking the rules has a price – without a single shot being fired, and with the option of lifting them if the state changes course. Example: Even states without armies can take part – a small state can freeze accounts and restrict trade, taking a stand without fighting.
3. Claim: Sanctions strengthen international unity. Reason: When many states act together, they create more pressure than each could exert alone – and the aggressor sees that it is isolated. Example: If dozens of states join a round of sanctions against Rotland, its leadership will struggle to find banks and ports willing to handle its business.

AGAINST: Sanctions are not an effective tool for peace

1. Claim: Sanctions often hurt the population rather than the leadership. Reason: Rising prices and shortages affect the most vulnerable first – the ruling elite usually finds ways to keep itself supplied. Example: In Rotland, medicines and spare parts become scarce and expensive, while the government arranges its imports through indirect routes.
2. Claim: Sanctions can be circumvented through third countries. Reason: Goods and money can flow through countries that do not join the sanctions – the fewer states take part, the bigger the gaps. Example: The fictional country Gelbland stays out and becomes a trading hub: Rotland simply buys the same technology there – more expensive, but still available.
3. Claim: Sanctions work too slowly to stop a war. Reason: States build up stocks, adapt production and find new trading partners – it often takes years for the pressure to take effect. Example: Rotland's stockpiles and alternative suppliers keep its economy afloat for a long time – sanctions alone do not halt an ongoing attack.

Remember: Both sides follow the argument structure properly. A debate is not won by whoever speaks loudest – it is won by someone who has a firm grasp of their reasons and examples and can respond to objections.

The second question brings the discussion closer to your own country – but remains a general one: it concerns a neutral small state, rather than making a recommendation for any particular country. Again, there are three arguments on each side, following the structure.

FOR: A neutral small state needs an army

1. Claim: Self-defence is central to sovereignty. Reason: A state that cannot protect its territory even symbolically makes its independence entirely dependent on others. Example: Neutral Switzerland shows that the two can go together: recognised neutrality and an army of its own for defence.
2. Claim: Even a small army increases deterrence. Reason: It makes an attack more costly and risky – an aggressor has to expect resistance rather than a walkover. Example: The fictional country Bergtal, with a small, well-trained militia, forces any aggressor to commit forces – that alone can make an attack unattractive.
3. Claim: An army enables a state to cooperate in alliances and provide assistance. Reason: A state that brings capabilities of its own – even just medical services, logistics or disaster response – is more likely to receive help in an emergency and can take responsibility in international missions. Example: Bergtal's mountain specialists are in demand for exercises and relief operations – creating partnerships that matter in an emergency.

AGAINST: A neutral small state does not need an army

1. Claim: A small state cannot defend itself militarily anyway. Reason: A tiny army stands no chance against a major aggressor's armed forces – it ties up money without offering real protection. Example: The fictional country Felsland, with only a few tens of thousands of inhabitants, could resist for only hours even with the greatest effort – so protection has to come from elsewhere anyway.
2. Claim: The money is better spent on diplomacy and the economy. Reason: A small state gains security through relationships, mediation and economic importance – every franc spent on barracks is a franc unavailable for these purposes. Example: Felsland invests in embassies, international organisations and its business environment – making it more valuable as a partner than a company of soldiers ever could.
3. Claim: International law and interdependence offer better protection than weapons of one's own. Reason: The UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, membership of international organisations and close economic interdependence make an attack on a small state extremely costly politically. Example: An attack on the closely interconnected Felsland would immediately affect all its partners' interests – this shield of relationships is broader than a small army could ever be.

And Liechtenstein? It has lived without an army since 1868 – this module does not decide whether that makes it a model or a special case. Both sets of arguments are ready: you will weigh them up in your debate.