🏠 Home Detailed notes Predicted Q1(b) notes All judgement grids

How to use this

Two grids on the same template. The first is empty - print it, fill in each cell with a one-line note while you revise. The second is a worked example to check yourself against.

Each cell asks one question: does this row strengthen the column quality (mark +) or weaken it (mark -)? Then add a one-line note saying why. The plus and minus columns are deliberately not pre-printed - your judgement is the work.

Favours the UN = does this test favour the United Nations? Favours NATO = does this test favour NATO? Same on both = is this a genuine similarity - the 12-mark material? Proven in action = has this capacity actually been used successfully? Great-power proof = does it work even when a great power objects? Legitimacy = does this test confer legitimacy on the body's actions? Exam weight = how much work does this test do in an answer?

The UN against NATO - two security bodies compared +   -

Empty version. Print and fill in.
Test+   - Favours the UN Favours NATO Same on both Proven in action Great-power proof Legitimacy Exam weight
Type and
structure
Origins and
purpose
No army of
their own
Great-power
dominance
Membership
The record
How to use the grid in an essay. This grid runs the comparison the other way round: the rows are TESTS, and each row asks whether the test favours the UN (+ in the UN half of your note) or NATO. For the 12-mark Examine question use the similarities only - both intergovernmental, both 1940s-founded, both without armies, both criticised for great-power dominance. The differences feed 30-mark evaluation instead. One warning from the notes: do not evaluate in a 12-marker - that is AO3 and earns nothing there.

The UN against NATO - two security bodies compared +   -

Filled version. Use this to check your own grid - and tap any cell for the full detail behind the judgement.
Test+   - Favours the UN Favours NATO Same on both Proven in action Great-power proof Legitimacy Exam weight
Type and
structure		 -No structural advantage either way. -No structural advantage either way. +Both intergovernmental bodies of member states - the deepest similarity. -Structure is the precondition, not the action. -Both structures hand control to the strongest members. -Structure alone confers neither. +The first developed similarity in any 12-mark answer.
Origins and
purpose		 +Peace and security for all states, not an alliance's members. +A defined job - collective defence - it has visibly done since 1949. +Both founded in the post-1945 order for security purposes. -Purpose on paper - the record comes below. -Both were built around the powers of 1945-49. +The UN's universal purpose is its legitimacy claim. +The second developed similarity.
No army of
their own		 -Borrowed troops, restrictive mandates, chronic funding gaps. +Borrowed forces too - but integrated command makes the loan usable fast. +Both depend entirely on members for forces and funding. +NATO's command structure turned members' forces into one instrument in Libya. -Whoever lends the forces sets the limits. -Dependence weakens both bodies' claims to autonomy. +The third developed similarity - and where the difference begins.
Great-power
dominance		 -The veto is dominance written into the Charter. -US dominance is unwritten and total - the alliance is its commitment. +Both criticised for control by their most powerful members. +Syria and Ukraine vetoes; NATO moves at Washington's pace. -The criticism IS the great-power problem. -Dominance undercuts both bodies' claims to speak for their members. +The fourth developed similarity - finish the 12-marker here.
Membership +Near-universal membership - legitimacy no alliance can claim. +Like-minded members - decisions actually get made. -The difference, not a similarity - keep it out of the 12-marker. +Steady NATO enlargement since the Cold War shows the club's pull. -Universality includes your adversaries; selectivity excludes them. +Even NATO sought UN authorisation before Libya - Resolution 1973. +The spine of any 30-mark comparison.
The record +Peacekeeping's quiet record; the only lawful authoriser of force. +Deterrence that has held since 1949; Article 5 invoked once, after 9/11. -The records diverge - difference material. +Libya 2011: the UN authorised, NATO acted - one operation, both records. -Both records stop where great-power interests start. +The UN lends legitimacy; NATO lends capability. +The evaluation paragraph: NATO acts where the UN deliberates.
What the filled grid shows. Read the rows. The deepest similarity is structural: both are intergovernmental bodies with no army of their own, only as effective as their members allow, and both are dominated by their most powerful members - the P5 in one, the United States in the other. The differences all flow from membership and purpose: near-universal membership gives the UN legitimacy and paralysis; a like-minded alliance gives NATO decisiveness and a legitimacy ceiling. The judgement line: NATO acts where the UN deliberates - and can only act where its members agree the threat lies.
See also
David Clayton Tutoring | davidjclayton@proton.me