Paper 2

This paper is an essay paper, with two (SL) or three (HL) questions set on each of the four core units. The same paper is set at both SL and HL. SL students must answer two questions, each selected from a different unit. HL students must answer three questions, each selected from a different unit.

Duration:

• 1 hour 45 minutes at SL  - which means 52.5 minutes of writing time per answer

• 2 hours and 45 minutes at HL - which means 55 minutes of writing time per answer

IB Weighting: 45% at SL; 40% at HL

Marks: The maximum mark for this paper is 50 marks at SL and 75 marks at HL. The paper is marked using generic markbands and a paper-specific markscheme. The questions in this paper assesses students ability to synthesize and evaluate.

Words limit: 800-1000 words or 1000 to 1200 words

This paper is an essay paper, with two (SL) or three (HL) questions set on each of the four core units. At least one of the questions for each unit is firmly anchored in that unit, whereas the second question may open up for a more cross-unit approach.

Conceptual understanding and the ability to work with the key concepts of the course are particularly important in this paper. Some questions use the key concepts of that particular unit. Still, other questions draw on key concepts from several units. Even where the key concepts are not explicitly mentioned in a question, students should demonstrate a conceptual understanding of global politics. In their answers, students are invited to draw on their understanding of any relevant political concepts, depending on the arguments they put forward.

Marks are awarded for demonstrating understanding of relevant political concepts and prescribed content, making reference to specific relevant examples, justifying points, and exploring and evaluating counterclaims, or different views on the question.

Too often, it was the case that a candidate had misread or misinterpreted a question when perhaps a little more time taken to think and reflect upon its key demands would have been beneficial. It is always disappointing to read a response that demonstrates a firm understanding of Global Politics but is not clearly addressing the question at hand.

Weaker candidates struggled with the integration of concepts and real-world examples. There is still the propensity to insert theoretical references into a discussion as if it is something that the candidate believes must be done regardless of the actual value added of doing so. There is also a tendency to make such references in the broadest terms possible, which only further detracts from their salience and/or effectiveness. It often seemed as if theory was being included at the expense of more fully developed real-world examples.

A very well structured and balanced response that addresses the demands and implications of the question.

• Well structured: we are looking for clarity, ease of understanding the direction you are taking with the question and the that points you are making are clear. Related to this point, a principal examiner has written in a previous subject report that “Unpacking the concepts that appeared in the questions seem to be the most difficult area that most students faced. Students tended to use the concepts without demonstrating clarity in their understanding of them.”

• Balanced response: Are you looking at both sides of the issue? This comes up later in the markbands with claims and counter-claims. If you are able to examine both sides of the argument fully and robustly then you will have met this requirement

• Addresses the demands of the question: Questions always have a word or short phrase upon which the question hinges. For example, in the two questions for which the exemplars are provided:

  • • Question 3: Examine the claim that human rights as presented in treaties and covenants are not enforceable, and are therefore of little use to vulnerable populations.

    • Question 6: To what extent is the achievement of political and social stability essential for development?

    • And one more on a topic we have deliberated on extensively throughout the first part of the course: Discuss reasons why the legitimacy of a state may need to be questioned.

The bolded and italicised phrases may surprise you, but this is what you need to talking about. Are the treaties of little use? Why or why not? Is political and social stability essential for development? Essential is a very strong word and must be the focal point of your analysis. Finally, why would legitimacy "need" to be questioned? Again, a strong claim and one what would need to be analysed throughout your response.

If you can figure what the question is actually asking, as the principal examiner suggests in the May 2019 subject report, then you are well on your way to effectively answering the question. If not, you'll likely be writing out a lot of information but not doing the requisite analysis in order to successfully respond to the question.

• Implications of the question: If the statement/assertion contained within the question is true, then what does that mean for how we should approach that area of Global Politics? Using our two questions as an example:

If treaties and covenants are not enforceable, and are therefore of little use to vulnerable populations, then what does that mean for Global Politics i.e. what is the implication of this claim?

If political and social stability is essential for development then what does that mean for how we should approach development?

This one is fairly straight forward - do you know your stuff? If you are discuss the reasons why the legitimacy of a state may need to be questioned, you would need to know the theoretical underpinnings of legitimacy such as those stated here. Furthermore, you would highlight the Fragile States Index, Democracy Index and the Freedom in the World Report each of which highlight the characteristics of a legitimate state. Finally, you would be able to reference the work you did on Yemen and the reasons why they are at the bottom of many of these lists...what is it about there current situation that has us feeling the need to question their legitimacy.

"In many cases examples were stated and explained, sometimes at length, without connecting them to the argument or to the question at hand. Some candidates went to great lengths to explain an example, then stated their argument in just a line and didn’t build on it, leaving it to the examiner to draw inferences and connections.”

Do you know what the key concepts of the course are? Do you understand them? Can you articulate various theories and approaches to them? Have you chosen the concepts that fit best with the question that is being asked? From a previous subject report: “Candidates did not seem to be able to refer adequately to the key concepts and to the prescribed content of the course in their answers: a balanced all-around understanding of concepts and content is needed, including some knowledge of differing interpretations of the concepts and some depth and breadth in the prescribed content.”

Another subject report read: “Concepts, theories and examples were often just mentioned in answers without further explanation or context or application. This often led to inaccurate or inappropriate use of these concepts, theories and examples, with answers focusing on their inclusion instead of on their meaning."

Have you provided good examples and arguments to justify the main points that you are attempting to make. In the top markband not only are you being asked to clear arguments that make sense (that's the "coherent" part) but are they compelling, that is, are you making a strong argument for the position you are taking on the question. A lot of students can be clear and coherent but it make their argument compelling is a big challenge, but that is why this is the top markband. 

Like question 4 of Paper 1, you need to ensure you are giving different perspectives and offering a thorough investigation in your paper. A cursory reference to another view or option is not satisfactory and you will not have met the "balanced" expectations noted above. Instead, you need do as examiners have explained here: “Counterclaims were weak in all questions and often not present. Some candidates did mention an alternative point of view, but then failed to provide any evidence to support it [this would be the “explored and evaluated” part of the descriptor]. This is an area that needs to be emphasized and the reason for providing counterclaims explained.”

Most students are only able to "explore" claims and counter-claims, that is, only state both sides or approaches to the question. What makes an excellent paper are those students that are able to not only state both perspectives but actually evaluate the quality of the perspective/argument.