In some senses, yes -- but, as per usual, it makes most sense from a Eurocentric point of view. The Pax Britannica, from Waterloo in 1815 to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, mostly refers to a period in which British hegemony was so strong that it could ensure the outcome of most conflicts around the world by supporting or not supporting a particular side.

Some important examples include:

The Crimean War, in which Britain fought to save the Ottoman Empire from being swallowed up by the Russian Empire (also part of a fascinating Cold War-esque geopolitical time called the Great Game between Russia and Britain).

The American Civil War, in which Britain essentially destroyed any hope of Confederate victory by refusing recognition or aid and ramping up cotton production in Egypt and India.

Both Opium Wars, the second of which sometimes includes the Taiping Rebellion, which was the largest civil war in history -- Britain intervened decisively and burnt Beijing to the ground (or at least parts of it), which to this day causes great consternation to the Chinese.

And a whole host of smaller imperial conflicts that essentially were allowed to happen as Britain's overwhelming military and economic power halted any Europe-wide conflagration à la Napoleon.

Now, obviously there were wars; it wasn't entirely peaceful -- the Franco-Prussian War is a notable exception to 'peace in Europe'. But even then, it was hardly a European-wide conflict, though it would feed directly into WW1 40 years later.

It's also a fun fact to note that in the early 1800's, the Royal Navy was so overwhelmingly powerful that Britain unilaterally ended the slave trade -- everywhere in the world. They just up and said 'no more slave trading from Africa', and it's sort of this act that set some events in motion that would lead to the US Civil War.

Sorry for the lack of links, I'm on my phone.