HL Paper 3: Guide to Conducting the Inquiries
What you must study 

• Global Political Challenges (GPCs): Borders • Environment • Equality • Health • Identity • Poverty • Security • Technology.

• Coverage: Research at least two different HL topic areas (the GPCs) and at least two different case studies. Emphasize interconnections—don’t treat topic areas as silos.

• Purpose: HL inquiries build on the core + thematic studies; there’s no extra prescribed content at HL.
   

How this maps to Paper 3 (exam day)

• Q1 in ~6 min, Q2a in ~10, Q2b in ~15, Q3 in ~45–50 (This is not mentioned by IB). 

• • 1h 30mins;  28 marks;  30% weightage; One stimulus + four compulsory questions; most evidence must come from your studied cases.

  • Q1 (3 marks, AO2): Analyse/explain something signalled by the stimulus.

  • Q2a (4 marks, AO2): Explain/analyse one political issue from one of your cases.

  • Q2b (6 marks, AO3): Recommend a feasible course of action for that issue; evaluate implications/challenges.

  • Q3 (15 marks, AO3): Synthesize & evaluate across your researched case(s) using the Lines of Inquiry.
    
    

Minimum viable plan that always works: choose two HL topic areas and build two case studies that each connect to both topic areas—perfect for Q3 interconnections.

Teacher note (optional to show)

Model one teacher-led inquiry first; then have students lead two more (≈ three cases total is realistic). Assess any product they make, but always add a written Paper 3 for that inquiry.

This can be referred in a bit more detail on the guide book, page number 52-

Environment

Many environmental problems cross borders; action usually requires international cooperation. Resource depletion and climate risks create political tensions and debates over whether growth can align with sustainability. Example angles to study:
• Arctic sea-ice melt and its implications for regional cooperation (Russia & Northern Europe)
• Cape Town’s 2016–2018 drought and state crisis management
• Forest loss in India’s Gadchiroli and constraints on fixing environmental failures
• Shale gas in the USA and how NGOs influence legislators
• Airline carbon-offset policies and multi-level political decisions.

Poverty

Explore how globalization and state–non-state cooperation shape poverty reduction. Strong links to Development & sustainability (inequality), with ties to Rights & justice and conflict. Possible cases:
• Child labour at Manila’s “Smokey Mountain”: local vs national approaches
• Poverty in Aboriginal communities in Queensland: why policies miss the mark
• “Relative poverty” in the UK: which level of government addresses it best?
• The Global Poverty Project / “Live Below the Line”: empathy as a political tool.

Health

Compare local/national public-health initiatives with the role of global actors (WHO, INGOs). Epidemics cross borders; health patterns reflect wider socio-economic contexts. Sample directions:
• Health care provision for Syrian refugees in Jordan (actor coordination)
• HIV/AIDS in rural South Africa (links with poverty)
• Addiction and access to care in Florida (voice and representation)
• Leprosy in Nepal (INGO vs state provision)
• Ebola in Liberia (public health vs civil liberties).

Identity

In an interconnected world, identities (religion, ethnicity, gender, class, nation) are politically salient, shaping rights debates and sometimes fueling conflict; strong links to Rights & justice. Illustrative avenues:
• Religion and Bhutan’s democratic transition
• LGBTQ+ marches in Eastern/Central Europe (shifting norms)
• Class identity in South Africa (changing role of labour)
• Race and incarceration in the USA (profiling and its effects)
• National identity in Hungary (mobilization by government narratives).

Borders

“Borders” include state frontiers and social/economic/cultural boundaries. Challenges may stem from hard borders or their absence (e.g., capital flows, labour treatment). Migration, land, and trafficking issues often sit here. Case ideas:
• Scotland’s 2014 independence referendum (how borders shaped campaign dynamics)
• USA–Mexico border operations and law changes
• Botswana Bushmen land conflict (authority vs ways of life)
• Youth migration within the EU (national vs regional rules)
• Gender boundaries in Egypt (religion and women’s rights).

Security

Connects to Peace & conflict but also food/water/energy security, rights, and how actors exploit insecurity. Look at sovereignty, war, proliferation, and non-state actors. Possible studies:
• “Kony 2012” and whether social media catalyses real change
• South China Sea disputes and regional maritime security
• Policy shifts after ISIS/ISIL attacks (e.g., France 2015)
• Refugee inflows and host-state security debates (e.g., Germany)
• “Mano dura” in El Salvador (security vs rights).

Equality

Equality shapes how states, groups, and individuals interact in trade, development, and security. Inequalities can destabilize politics and harm vulnerable groups; equality overlaps with rights, justice, development, and diversity. Example cases:
• Rohingya in Myanmar (institutionalized inequality)
• Black Lives Matter (from local movement to global reach)
• “Zero flags” campaigns (art and decriminalization of homosexuality)
• Racial discrimination in Mexico (the “invisible” problem).

Technology

Technology reshapes power and participation—especially via information flows, mobilization across borders, cyber-capabilities, and surveillance. Balances between privacy, security, and development emerge here. Study paths:
• US–China confrontations over cyber operations
• Drone strikes and debates about “legitimate” force
• ICT use in anti-coup mobilization (e.g., Honduras 2009)
• US “Big Tech”: privacy vs security dilemmas
• Green tech in India (state–IGO–private collaboration).

What’s the key distinction between Question 1 of paper 1 and 3?

• Paper 1 Q1 = AO1 (comprehension). It tests understanding of a source—typically “Identify/Describe/Summarize” elements directly visible in the source.
  Example (specimen): “Identify what Source A tells us about how states might exercise power. [3]”; markscheme awards [1] per relevant point up to [3], no elaboration needed.
  
  

• Paper 3 Q1 = AO2 (application + analysis). It requires candidates to use the stimulus as a springboard and analyse/apply their knowledge of HL global political challenges—so it’s more than spotting info.
  Paper 3 is stimulus-based, but evidence should mostly come from students’ researched case studies, not from micro-reading the stimulus.

• P1 structure: Q1 = AO1 (identify/describe/summarize from a source).

• P3 structure: Q1 = AO2 (understanding & analysis of stimulus + HL challenges).

Source of Q3. It’s built off the HL extension Lines of Inquiry (LOIs); Paper 3 is stimulus-based, but responses should be evidenced mainly from students’ researched case studies.

How it’s marked. Q3 uses markbands (holistic best-fit), like Paper 2.

Specimen anchor for Q3. The sample Q3 asks candidates (with one researched case) to examine links between ≥2 HL topic areas—this is a model of what we’ll likely keep rewarding: case-anchored analysis of interconnections.

“Argumentativeness” vs Paper 2 expectations

• Yes, it’s still an argument. The top band language (“arguments … clear, coherent and compelling”) comes from the bands we apply—so Q3 essays still need a defensible thesis and sustained reasoning, even if they don’t mirror a Paper-2 “claim/counterclaim” template.

• Structure can vary. Marking guidance explicitly tells examiners to expect a range of approaches and reward appropriate alternatives—so we judge quality of reasoning & evidence, not a single essay blueprint.

“Diverse perspectives” in Q3 

• The bands escalate from “identified” → “explored” → “evaluated” perspectives. That can mean stakeholder views, actor types, levels of analysis, or theoretical frames—not just formal counterarguments.

• The Guide and assessment objectives emphasize synthesizing/evaluating perspectives—lean into this when standardizing.

Paper 3, Q3 — simple marking lens

• What Q3 wants: A thesis-driven, case-anchored essay that examines links between ≥2 HL topic areas/challenges (not a Paper-2 style debate essay).

• Structure can vary: Don’t insist on claim–counterclaim. Reward any coherent route that answers the task; IB explicitly says to expect a range of approaches.

• Use the case throughout: If they discuss links but don’t keep tying back to a researched case, cap at [8/15].

• Top-band feel: Arguments are clear, coherent, compelling; claims are justified & evaluated; examples are developed; diverse perspectives are explored & evaluated.

• What “diverse perspectives” can mean: different actors/stakeholders, levels, or theoretical frames—not only formal counterarguments. (This aligns with the band language on perspectives.)

• Where Q3 comes from: The HL Lines of Inquiry (LOIs); Q3 is set from these, with markbands applied holistically.

• LOI 6 clarity: “Topic areas” are overlapping tools for analysis, not rigid boxes; students may enter via topic or case and still must link multiple topic areas to the challenge. Accept broad, defensible interpretations as long as links via the case are explicit.

What good looks like (5–6): Clear, well-supported recommendation that addresses the issue and weighs implications/risks.

What to look for: Does it (1) respond to the identified issue, (2) specify who’s affected, (3) outline concrete actions to increase the actor’s influence, (4) give evidence/reasons (e.g., similar cases, existing mechanisms, theory)?

Fast penalty cues: Vague or unlinked to 2(a) → 1–2; adequate but no challenges/implications → 3–4

Ask these for each case so you can answer any Paper 3 prompt:

1. Connections to the core topics (power, sovereignty, legitimacy, interdependence).

2. Links to the thematic studies (Rights & justice; Development & sustainability; Peace & conflict)

3. Interconnections among the global political challenges (how two or more HL areas link).

4. Different contexts & perceptions - Context = the setting that shapes politics: where (country/region/city), when (time period/crisis/peace), system (democracy/authoritarian; federal/unitary), laws & institutions, economy (wealth/poverty), society (majority/minority, urban/rural), media/tech access, and environmental conditions. The same issue plays out differently in different contexts.Perceptions = how different actors (government agencies, IGOs/NGOs, firms, movements, communities) interpret the issue—what they think the problem is, what evidence they trust, what values/interests they prioritize, and what solution they prefer. Perceptions are shaped by context and can include biases/blind spots.

5. Frameworks/systems/organizations/mechanisms addressing the challenge- These are the formal and informal tools already in the world for tackling a challenge: laws/treaties, policies/programs, institutions (ministries, courts, IGOs/NGOs), and mechanisms like budgets, oversight bodies, sanctions, procurement rules, data standards, task forces, or MoUs. They show who does what, how, and with what rules/resources. They make your analysis realistic and feasible. Good answers don’t just say “someone should…”, they anchor recommendations in existing levers (or explain how to adapt/create one) and weigh capacity, legitimacy, and constraints.

6. How looking at specific cases through different topic areas (core/thematic/HL) changes how the challenges are perceived or addressed. 

Difference between 3rd and 6th point- #3 Interconnections among GPCs = map the links between different Global Political Challenges (Borders, Environment, Equality, Health, Identity, Poverty, Security, Technology). You’re showing cause–effect, feedback, trade-offs, and knock-on effects across challenges.
#6 Cross-topic lenses = reframe one case by looking at it through two different GPC lenses, and show how the analysis and solutions change when you switch lenses. It’s about perspective shift, not just linkage.

What these are (and how they differ from the LoI)

• Guiding lines of inquiry (LoI) = the big-picture lenses HL students must keep returning to when analysing global political challenges (connections to core/thematic studies, interconnections among challenges, how challenges are perceived/ addressed in different contexts, and what frameworks/mechanisms exist). These steer the overall analysis and comparison across cases.
  
  

• Additional research questions = a practical checklist for building each HL case study. They tell students exactly what to find out (data quality, actors, causes, impacts, responses, perspectives, significance, etc.) so their notes become usable evidence in the exam.
  
  

Together, the LoI give direction; the additional questions make sure the research is exam-ready and balanced.

HL Extension — Research questions (from the IB guide)

Use these while researching your HL case studies. Begin thinking about connections and evidence you could use in Paper 3.

1) Background, data and political issues
• What data exist on the case, how valid are the data analysed, and to what extent are the data contestable?
• Who are the principal actors and stakeholders?
• What is happening?
• Which terms are central to understanding the case?
• What are the indicators that this case can be understood as part of global political challenges?
• Which other similar cases are relevant to understanding this case?
• Which political issues manifest themselves in the case?

2) Causes of, impact of and responses to the political issue
• What factors are causing this situation?
• What are the political, social and economic impacts of the issue at various levels of global politics on various actors and stakeholders?
• What are the responses to the issue at various levels of global politics by various actors and stakeholders?
• How do interpretations of the issue vary by actor and stakeholder?
• What considerations influence how the issue will play out?

3) Reflection
• How can I use the key concepts, theories, ideas and examples I have learned in the course to analyse this case and political issue?
• Which wider issues or developments in global politics are relevant in understanding this case?
• What is the particular significance of this case?
• What other interpretations of or points of view on the case are possible?

1) Background, data & political issues (build your factual base)

• I can summarize what is happening (who/where/when) in this case.

• I have reliable data (with sources) and I’ve noted validity/limits/contestability of those data.

• I’ve identified the principal actors and stakeholders.

• I’ve listed key terms needed to understand this case (definitions checked).

• I can show why this belongs to a Global Political Challenge (GPC) (clear indicators).

• I’ve found similar/linked cases to compare.

• I’ve named the political issue(s) that manifest in the case (not just descriptive facts).

2) Causes, impacts & responses (analyse and explain)

• I can explain the causes/drivers (recent first; note important historical roots).

• I can outline impacts (political/social/economic) at different levels (local/national/international) on different actors/stakeholders.

• I can map responses so far at different levels by different actors (state & non-state).

• I can show how interpretations vary between actors/stakeholders (and why).

• I can discuss what will shape outcomes next (constraints, enablers, timing).

3) Perspectives (compare, then evaluate)

• I’ve identified multiple perspectives (e.g., government agency, local community, NGO, IGO, private sector, marginalized groups) and any biases/limitations in my sources.

• I’ve ensured balance of views across my sources (not one-sided).

4) Connections to the course (map to LoI)

• Links to core topics: I can state 1–2 concrete links (concepts, prescribed content).

• Links to thematic studies (Rights & justice; Development & sustainability; Peace & conflict): I can show authentic connections.

• Interconnections among GPCs: I can explain how at least two challenges connect in this case (and/or in how they’re addressed).

• Different contexts & perceptions: I can explain how context changes perceptions and responses (place, time, capacity, culture).

• Frameworks/systems/organizations/mechanisms: I can name relevant laws, institutions, agreements, regimes, policies that address the challenge, and show if/why they matter here.

• Cross-topic lenses: I can show how examining the same case from different topic areas changes what we perceive or what solutions look like.
  
  

5) Course tools (concepts, theories, models)

• I’ve applied key concepts/theories/ideas from the course to analyse this case (not just name-dropping).

• I can articulate why this case is significant and which wider developments in global politics are relevant.

6) Case-study scope for Paper 3 (meeting HL expectations)

• I’ve researched at least two different case studies across at least two different HL topic areas (e.g., Security & Health; Technology & Environment).

• I understand that HL topic areas overlap and should be treated as interconnected, not in isolation.

7) Evidence log (so your notes convert into exam answers)

• For each case, I have 2–3 specific, recent data points (with dates/sources) plus concise actor/action/outcome notes. (Supports Q2a/Q2b/Q3.)

• I’ve recorded credible comparisons to at least one similar case (helps synthesis/evaluation).

• My sources list shows a mix of types (news, reports, journals, policy docs, datasets) with balanced perspectives.

8) Ready-to-write (align to Paper 3 question types)

• Q1 practice: I can read a short stimulus and explain what matters using the relevant GPC ideas (AO2). (LoI connections help you decide what to explain.)

• Q2a practice: I can analyse one political issue in one of my cases with clear context and accurate content (AO2).

• Q2b practice (HL skills): I can propose a feasible, actor-specific course of action and justify it with evidence, noting implications/trade-offs (AO3).

• Q3 practice: I can synthesize across cases/topic areas, weigh perspectives, and evaluate claims/counterclaims to answer a broad prompt (AO3).

9) Referencing & integrity (how you show your scholarship)

• Every fact/quote/idea that isn’t mine has an in-text citation + reference in a consistent style (your school’s chosen style).

• My case-study pack shows balanced views and avoids over-reliance on a single outlet.

10) Quick planner you can duplicate for each case

• Case ID & HL topic areas (which GPCs this touches)

• Issue statement (1–2 lines)

• Actors/stakeholders (by level)

• 3 key data points (source/date)

• Causes → Impacts (by level, by actor)

• Current responses (map by actor/level)

• Perspectives (contrast + why they differ; note source limits)

• LoI links (core, thematic, interconnections, contexts, frameworks, cross-topic lens)

• Comparable cases (1–2) & what they add

• Possible recommendation (who/what/why/risks) (builds HL skills)
  
  

Case: The Rohingya (Myanmar/Bangladesh)
Primary HL topic areas (GPCs): Identity and Borders
Secondary links you may draw on as needed: Security, Poverty, Health, Equality, Technology, Environment
Why this setup: IB wants depth in at least two HL topic areas and at least two researched case studies, with emphasis on interconnections and solution-oriented analysis. This inquiry delivers one strong case that clearly connects Identity ↔ Borders, while giving you usable bridges to other GPCs for Q3.

A. What students must do (and why it matches Paper 3)

1. Build a case one-pager covering facts, actors, issues, and mechanisms, and answer the six Lines of Inquiry for HL. (Paper 3 questions are based on these Lines.)

2. Practise the four tasks that always appear on the paper: Q1 (3, AO2) stimulus analysis; Q2a (4, AO2) political issue in one case; Q2b (6, AO3) feasible recommendation + implications; Q3 (15, AO3) synthesis & evaluation across cases using the Lines of Inquiry.

3. Keep evidence ready: short, dated indicators and perspective notes you can deploy fast in Q2a/b and Q3. (Paper 3 expects candidates to draw mainly from their researched case studies.)
   
   

B. Student case one-pager (Rohingya) — prompts to fill

Use these prompts to produce concise notes-

1) Information & interpretation

• Issue (1–2 lines): e.g., Statelessness and displacement of Rohingya and its effects on rights, protection and prospects for return.

• Recent drivers/causes + key historical roots

• Current status (who/where/when) + 2–3 indicators (with dates)

• Political issues (citizenship, asylum/protection, repatriation conditions, camp governance, cross-border politics)

• Key actors & stakeholders (state, IGO, NGO, host communities, diaspora, platform/media)

• Impacts (political/social/economic) on each stakeholder group.
  
  

2) Perspectives (compare, then evaluate)

• How do Myanmar authorities, Bangladesh, UNHCR/INGOs, host communities, and Rohingya voices view the issue—and why?

• Sources used, likely biases/limits, how this affects your evidence; which other sources would balance it.
  
  

3) Connections (situate the case)

• Strongest GPC links beyond Identity/Borders (pick 1–3 and explain): Security (securitization, protection), Poverty (livelihoods/exclusion), Health (service access), Technology (platform incitement, digital ID), Equality (legal inequality), Environment (camp exposure).

• Apply course concepts/theories/frameworks (legitimacy, sovereignty, rights & justice; securitization; development & sustainability).

• Note similar cases (e.g., Venezuela, Syria, Uyghurs) for later comparison in Q3.
  
  

4) Responses (what’s being done; what should be done)

• Current responses at individual, community, national, international levels.

• Your recommendation to a specific actor with: mechanism (why it helps), conditions for success, risks/implications (esp. for vulnerable groups).

• Reference frameworks/organizations/agreements already in place and any analogous cases where similar actions worked.

• Note factors likely to shape outcomes and briefly state the significance of this case.
  
  

5) Close by answering the six Lines of Inquiry explicitly

(This is your bridge to Q3 on exam day.)

C. Assessment-shaped mini tasks

Q2b memo (6 marks, AO3) — One feasible recommendation (≈15 min)

Use the scaffold Actor → Action → Mechanism → Conditions → Risks/implications.
Sample options to model:

• Bangladesh ministry + UNHCR: establish non-biometric fallback & independent grievance redress for assistance delivery; mechanism: reduce exclusion errors; conditions: staff, audits; risks: fraud—mitigate via random checks.

• Platform company: create independent escalation for credible hate-speech alerts in Burmese/Bangla; mechanism: faster removal of incitement; conditions: language capacity, CSO MoUs; risks: over-removal—publish transparency reports.

• Regional IGO (e.g., ASEAN) / donors: tie monitoring & benchmarks to any repatriation plan; mechanism: conditions-based returns; risks: low leverage—pair with incentives.
  Top band lens: clear, well-supported recommendation that addresses the issue and considers challenges/implications.
  
  

Q3 essay plan (15 marks, AO3) — Synthesize & evaluate

• Prompt style: “To what extent…?” / “Examine links between at least two HL topic areas…” (based on the LoIs).

• Positioned thesis + two cases (Rohingya + a contrasting case you’ve studied).

• Weave the LoIs: links to core and themes; interconnections (Identity↔Borders↔Security/Poverty); different contexts & perceptions; frameworks/mechanisms that address the challenge; what changes when you view the same case through a second topic area.

• Markband focus: clear structure, accurate knowledge, developed examples, evaluated perspectives and implications for top band.

What you’ll see on the page

• One short stimulus (adapted from Diane Stone) about global problems, many actors, and “transnational” policy processes alongside intergovernmental ones. It’s there to focus your thinking, not to supply all your evidence. You’re expected to bring in your own researched case studies when answering.
  
  

• Three compulsory questions in order:
  
  

  • Q1 (3 marks, AO2) — e.g., “Using at least two examples, distinguish between transnational and intergovernmental political processes.” You give brief, accurate examples that show the difference.
    
    

  • Q2a (4 marks, AO2) — explain a political issue from one of your case studies, focusing on three types of actors/stakeholders involved.
    
    

  • Q2b (6 marks, AO3) — recommend a feasible course of action for a specific non-state actor on that same issue, with reasoning and likely implications/challenges.
    
    

IB confirms this exact structure and the AOs/mark weights in the guide.

What the stimulus is doing (and not doing)

The stimulus frames a topic (here: how global policy now involves many actors, not just states). It is not your main evidence. Your marks come from how well you mobilize your researched cases to answer each question.

How to answer each specimen question

Q1 — 3 marks (AO2): “Distinguish…”

• Task: State clearly how transnational processes (involving non-state actors across borders) differ from intergovernmental ones (formal relations between states/IGOs). Give two concise, concrete examples that fit each side.

• A good 3-mark mini-outline:
  1–2 sentences defining the distinction → 2 short examples (e.g., a company/NGO network vs. a treaty/IGO forum) each tied to the definition.
  
  

Q2a — 4 marks (AO2): Your political issue + three actors

• Task: Pick one political issue from one case study you researched. Explain how three actor/stakeholder types are involved (e.g., state, IGO, NGO; or firm, movement, community).

• Micro-template (repeat x3): Actor → role/interest → what they did/how they shaped the issue (with a specific fact or moment from your case).
  
  

Q2b — 6 marks (AO3): One recommendation with implications

• Task: For the same issue, recommend a specific, workable action for one named non-state actor; explain how it would help and what challenges/risks to anticipate.

• One-liner to build from: X should do Y because (mechanism). This is feasible if (conditions). Watch for (resistance/trade-offs/ethics).

• What top-band looks for (from the guide): clear, well-supported recommendation and explicit consideration of challenges/implications.
  
  

Q3 — 15 marks (AO3): Interconnections between HL topic areas

• Task: Using one of your case studies, examine links between at least two HL topic areas (the global political challenges). Build a positioned, structured argument that synthesizes case evidence, perspectives, and concepts.

• What “good” looks like (markband): clear structure; accurate knowledge throughout; developed, integrated examples; perspectives explored and evaluated; implications considered.
  
  

What students must have prepared before the exam

• A small “case bank” you can write from quickly: for each HL topic area you studied, have at least one well-built case with the issue, actors, policies/actions, outcomes/indicators, criticisms/perspectives, and realistic recommendations (plus likely challenges). This is exactly what the guide expects, and it aligns with the HL lines of inquiry (connections to core/thematic studies; interconnections between challenges; frameworks/mechanisms to address them; context variation).
  
  

Time/marks snapshot for the specimen

• Q1: 3 (very brief, precise distinctions + examples).

• Q2a: 4 (one case issue + three actors explained).

• Q2b: 6 (one targeted recommendation + implications).

• Q3: 15 (synthesized evaluation linking at least two HL topic areas).