External assessment · SL and HL
Paper 2
Build two focused, evidence-based arguments about global political issues.
Paper 2 is taken by both SL and HL students. You answer two essays: one from Section A and one from Section B.
The paper assesses whether you can answer a political question directly, construct a sustained argument, apply concepts, use relevant real-world evidence, explore different perspectives and reach a supported judgment.
Paper 2 does not reward everything you know
It rewards the knowledge and evidence that directly answer the question you chose. Material that does not bear on that question earns nothing, however accurate it is.
Paper 2 at a glance
Section A and Section B
| Section | What you choose |
|---|---|
| Section A | One of three questions. Each question focuses on a single thematic study: Rights and Justice, Development and Sustainability, or Peace and Conflict. |
| Section B | One of three integrating questions. Connect the parts of the course that the wording of the question actually calls for. |
Section B does not automatically require all three thematic studies
Use only the connections the chosen question requires. Sweeping through every theme to prove breadth costs you the depth the markbands are looking for.
What Paper 2 tests
- understanding the exact question
- constructing a clear argument
- applying concepts
- using accurate course knowledge
- developing relevant contemporary examples
- exploring different perspectives
- evaluating claims and evidence
- reaching a supported judgment
Unpack the question first
Identify the command term
It tells you what kind of answer earns marks — discuss, evaluate, examine, to what extent.
Identify the central debate
What is genuinely contested here? That is what your argument has to settle.
Notice the qualifiers
Words such as “always”, “most important” or “to what extent” change what a good answer looks like.
Decide what is relevant
Which concepts and which parts of the course bear on this question — and which do not.
Consider the wider implication
What would follow if your answer were right? The strongest conclusions reach for this.
The question is asking me to judge whether…
Plan the essay
What is my answer to the question, in one sentence?
Which claims support it, and in what order?
Who sees this differently, and on what grounds?
Which specific cases carry each claim?
How strong is each claim, and under what conditions?
What does my answer ultimately depend on?
Choose fewer strong arguments and examples rather than many undeveloped ones.
A flexible essay structure
There is no single compulsory Paper 2 structure. Adapt the essay to the question in front of you.
Introduction
- identify the debate
- clarify the important terms
- state a clear argument
- indicate the main qualification
Body paragraphs
- make a claim
- explain how or why it occurs
- use a specific example
- explain what the example proves
- consider another perspective or limitation
- evaluate the claim
- link back to the question
Conclusion
- answer the question directly
- weigh the arguments
- explain what the judgment depends on
- consider the wider implication
None of these is a requirement
- exactly three body paragraphs
- a separate counterclaim paragraph
- a fixed word count
- one example per paragraph
Examiners mark the argument, not the arrangement.
A strong paragraph, part by part
Claim
What am I arguing?
Mechanism
How or why does this happen politically?
Evidence
Which specific case supports the claim?
Analysis
What does the example prove?
Perspective
Who might see the issue differently, and why?
Evaluation
How strong is the claim, and under what conditions?
Link
How does this answer the question?
This is a way of checking a paragraph you have written, not an order you must write it in.
Real-world examples
A developed example identifies:
- the political issue
- the location and the relevant time period
- the important actors
- the relevant policy, action or conflict
- the outcomes
- how it supports or challenges your argument
Do not only name a case. Explain what it proves. A named example with nothing drawn from it is a gap in the argument, not evidence for it.
Concepts and theories
Use concepts as analytical tools, not as decorative vocabulary.
Who can shape decisions or outcomes here?
How does state authority enable or limit action?
Why is this actor or decision accepted, or challenged?
How are the actors and the consequences connected?
Named theories are optional. Use one only when it helps explain behaviour, assumptions or perspectives — a theory mentioned and then left alone adds nothing to the argument.
Perspectives and evaluation
A different perspective may come from:
- another actor or stakeholder
- another theoretical perspective
- another level of analysis
- another political or cultural context
- short-term versus long-term effects
- a different interpretation of a contested concept
Evaluation is asking how far a claim holds:
- For whom is it true?
- Under what conditions?
- What evidence limits it?
- Does it explain causes, or only outcomes?
- What unintended consequences appear?
- Which perspective is better supported?
Section B — what integration means
Integration means explaining a meaningful connection between different parts of the course. It does not mean mentioning several units in passing.
Plan one before you write it:
What exactly is contested, and where?
Which part of the course explains one side of it?
Which other part does the question call for?
Which concept holds the two together?
What can you now say that neither part could say alone?
Do not write two unrelated mini-essays under one title. The marks are in the relationship between the connected issues — that last row is the essay.
Examiner-informed guidance
The markbands, per essay
The following is a student-friendly summary of what each band looks like. It is a paraphrase for revision, not an official IB markscheme.
| Band | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 13–15 | Fully addresses the question and its implications; a clear, balanced and compelling argument; claims justified and evaluated; accurate knowledge and well-developed examples; perspectives explored and evaluated |
| 10–12 | Addresses the question well; a clear and supported argument; accurate knowledge; developed examples; perspectives explored |
| 7–9 | Partly addresses the question; adequate structure; most claims justified; relevant knowledge; examples partly developed; perspectives identified |
| 4–6 | Some understanding; limited argument; some knowledge; examples mentioned but underdeveloped |
| 1–3 | Limited understanding; weak structure; little relevant knowledge; mostly descriptive |
The markbands are applied holistically. A particular number of paragraphs or examples does not guarantee a mark.
Time management
| Stage | Approximate time |
|---|---|
| Essay 1 — planning | 6–8 minutes |
| Essay 1 — writing | 40–43 minutes |
| Essay 2 — planning | 6–8 minutes |
| Essay 2 — writing | 40–43 minutes |
| Final review | About 5 minutes |
You may answer either section first.
Common mistakes
Paper 2 resources
Essay-planning grid
The six-row grid above as a sheet you can fill in under timed conditions.
Section B integration planner
The integration table above, with worked rows showing what a real connection looks like.
Self-assessment checklist
Mark your own practice essay against the things the markbands actually reward.
This guidance is independently prepared from the IB Global Politics course framework, published course materials, classroom practice and examiner experience. It is not an official IB publication.
Ready to use now
Work through the unpacking deck before your first mock, then read a sample answer before you write one.