Paper 2 Guide Notes

IB Global Politics Paper 2 Guide

1. Paper 2 is an essay-based paper where:
   1. Same for SL and HL
   2. Duration: 1 hour 45 minutes
   3. Marks: 30
   4. Weighting:
      1. 40% (SL)
      2. 30% (HL)
   5. Format: Extended essay responses.
2. These questions require conceptual understanding, evaluation of political issues, and the use of relevant examples.

Structure

1. Two Sections:
   1. Section A → Questions from each of the thematic studies
      1. Rights & Justice
      2. Development & Sustainability
      3. Peace & Conflict
   2. Section B → Integrating questions.
      1. Require connections across the three themes + the core topic (Power, Sovereignty & International Relations).
2. Answer one question from each section.

What’s Assessed

1. Conceptual understanding of key political ideas
2. Ability to synthesize, justify, and evaluate arguments
3. Use of examples, counterclaims, and political theory
4. Marks are awarded for:
   1. Relevant political concepts and prescribed content
   2. Examples (real-world or theoretical)
   3. Justified arguments
   4. Balanced structure and evaluation of counterclaims

Command Terms to Know

1. Describe: Give a detailed account
2. Define: Give the precise meaning
3. Identify: Provide an answer from options
4. Outline: Give a brief summary
5. Analyze: Break down key elements
6. Distinguish: Highlight differences
7. Explain: Give reasons or causes
8. Suggest: Propose a solution or idea

Structure of an Essay

1. Introduction
   1. Define key terms
   2. Identify the question type and core concept
   3. Brief outline of argument
2. Main Body - Use PEEL in each paragraph:
   1. Point: Clear topic sentence
   2. Evidence: Real-world examples, theories, or case studies
   3. Explanation: Why/how your point supports your thesis
   4. Link: Connect to next paragraph or main question
3. Include counterclaims to strengthen your argument:
   1. Use phrases like:
      “On the other hand…”, “An alternative to this is…”, “It must be admitted that…”
   2. Then argue against them with evidence
   3. Reassert your claim
4. Conclusion
   1. Clearly answer the question
   2. Weigh claims vs. counterclaims
   3. Leave the reader with a clear judgment

Markbands for Paper Two

0 Marks

1. The work does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors below.

1–5 Marks

1. Limited understanding of the demands of the question.
2. Poorly structured or lacks a clear essay structure.
3. Minimal focus on the task.
4. Little relevant knowledge, examples are lacking or irrelevant.
5. Response is mostly descriptive.

6–10 Marks

1. Some understanding of the question is evident.
2. Attempt at structure, though not fully effective.
3. Some relevant knowledge is included, examples are not clearly linked.
4. Limited understanding of key course concepts.
5. Main points lack sufficient justification.
6. Counterclaims are not considered.

11–15 Marks

1. Question demands are mostly understood and addressed.
2. Clear attempt to structure the essay.
3. Mostly relevant and accurate knowledge, examples support arguments.
4. Some understanding of key political concepts.
5. Main points are mostly justified, arguments are largely coherent.
6. Some counterclaims or different views are considered.

16–20 Marks

1. Question demands are understood and addressed, with most implications considered.
2. Well-structured response.
3. Relevant and accurate knowledge and examples support arguments.
4. Good grasp of key political concepts.
5. Most or all points are justified, arguments are coherent.
6. Counterclaims or alternative views are explored.

21–25 Marks

1. Very well-structured and balanced response that fully addresses the demands and implications of the question.
2. Comprehensive and in-depth understanding of global politics is consistently and effectively applied.
3. Excellent grasp of key political concepts.
4. All main points are justified with clear, coherent, and compelling arguments.
5. Counterclaims or different views are explored and evaluated.

Sample Exemplar Essay Response

Exam question: To what extent is the possession of resources the most important factor in determining power in global politics?

Essay Plan

Introduction:

1. Define key terms: power (hard, soft, smart) and resource possession.
2. Outline the debate between materialist (realist) and ideational (liberal/constructivist) views of power.
3. Thesis: This essay argues that while power is multifaceted and context-dependent, the possession of resources remains one of the most critical enablers of global influence particularly in terms of military, economic, and structural power, even if it is not the sole determinant.

Main Argument 1 - Resources enable hard power:

1. Point: Military and economic power depend on access to resources.
2. Evidence/Example: China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Russia’s energy leverage over the EU.
3. Analysis: Realist view – power is derived from material capabilities.
4. Link: States with access to resources can project force and exert influence globally.

Main Argument 2 - Resources support structural and institutional power:

1. Point: Economic strength allows states to shape international institutions and global rules.
2. Evidence/Example: U.S. influence in IMF and World Bank, Saudi Arabia’s leadership in OPEC.
3. Analysis: Susan Strange’s structural power theory.
4. Link: Resources help embed a state’s preferences within the global system.

Counterclaim - Power can also come from soft power and legitimacy:

1. Point: Cultural diplomacy, values, and identity can generate influence.
2. Evidence/Example: South Korea’s global image through K-pop and media, India’s democratic values and global South leadership.
3. Analysis: Liberal and constructivist theories – legitimacy and shared values shape outcomes.
4. Link: Influence can be achieved through attraction, not just coercion.

Rebuttal - Even soft power often depends on material resources:

1. Point: Soft power requires infrastructure and investment to succeed.
2. Evidence/Example: Japan’s limited political power despite strong soft power, Norway’s peace diplomacy funded by oil wealth.
3. Analysis: Soft power effectiveness is constrained without an economic foundation.
4. Link: Material wealth often underpins and amplifies non-material forms of power.

Conclusion:

1. Reiterate that while soft power and legitimacy are important, they often rely on resource backing.
2. Final judgement: Power is multifaceted, but resource possession remains one of its most essential and influential foundations in global politics.

Full Essay Response

Power in global politics refers to the ability of actors, primarily states, to influence the actions of others and shape international outcomes. This power manifests in various forms: hard power (military and economic coercion), soft power (cultural appeal, legitimacy, and diplomacy), and smart power (a strategic blend of both). A central debate in international relations concerns the root of this power: is it primarily derived from the possession of resources, or can other factors like legitimacy, values, and diplomacy supersede material capability? This essay argues that while power is multifaceted and context-dependent, the possession of resources remains one of the most critical enablers of global influence, particularly in terms of military, economic, and structural power, even if it is not the sole determinant.

Firstly, possessing key resources such as natural commodities, financial capital, and skilled labor is essential for building and sustaining military and economic power. States require these resources to maintain armed forces, fund development, and invest in technologies that enable power projection. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) provides a clear example of how economic surplus and industrial capacity can be leveraged for strategic gain. By investing in infrastructure across Asia, Africa, and Europe, China fosters dependency and expands its geopolitical footprint. Likewise, Russia’s use of its vast gas reserves to influence Europe, particularly through its control over pipelines to countries like Germany and Ukraine, demonstrates how energy resources can be used as political tools. These cases align with realist theories such as those of Kenneth Waltz, who argue that power is rooted in material capabilities. Without a strong resource base, states cannot act autonomously or credibly project hard power. Thus, access to resources remains essential for global relevance.

Secondly, beyond coercive capabilities, resources also underpin structural power, the ability to shape global systems and institutions in ways that serve national interests. Economic wealth allows states to dominate decision-making within international organizations and condition global policy. For instance, the United States exerts significant influence over the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, using its financial contributions to promote neoliberal reforms aligned with American interests. Saudi Arabia, through its oil reserves, plays a leadership role in OPEC, allowing it to influence oil prices and global energy policy. These examples illustrate Susan Strange’s notion of structural power, where resource-backed economic dominance enables states to write the rules of the game. Therefore, possession of resources not only grants immediate leverage but helps institutionalize long-term influence within the international system.

However, critics argue that material resources are not the only source of influence. Power can also derive from cultural appeal, moral leadership, and global legitimacy. These intangible forms of power enable states to shape preferences and values without using force or financial leverage. South Korea is a prime example. Through the global popularity of its cultural exports such as K-pop, Korean dramas, and fashion, Seoul has enhanced its international image, boosting tourism, attracting students, and strengthening diplomatic relationships. India, despite economic challenges, exerts soft power through its democratic ideals, large diaspora, and active leadership in the Global Souththrough platforms like BRICS and the G20. Liberal and constructivist theories emphasize that legitimacy and shared values can shape international outcomes as effectively as coercion. According to Joseph Nye, soft power is becoming increasingly important in a globalized, media-driven world. These examples show that even states without vast resources can influence global discourse and public opinion.

While soft power is valuable, its success frequently depends on a state's ability to fund and promote it. Cultural exports, education systems, media platforms, and foreign diplomacy all require infrastructure and long-term investment, ultimately rooted in economic strength. Japan is globally admired for its cultural output, ranging from anime to cuisine, but its limited military capability and reliance on the United States for security constrain its strategic influence. Norway’s reputation as a peace mediator is also underpinned by its economic independence, made possible by its sovereign wealth fund, generated from oil revenues. South Korea’s cultural industries benefit from extensive state subsidies and targeted investments. These examples reinforce the argument that soft power, while ideational in form, is often grounded in material resources. Without sufficient funding or global reach, even the most compelling narratives struggle to gain traction. Hence, resource possession remains critical to sustaining all forms of power.

In conclusion, power in global politics is multidimensional, shaped by military capacity, economic influence, cultural appeal, and institutional leadership. While soft power and legitimacy offer alternative avenues to influence, they rarely operate independently of material foundations. As this essay has shown, the possession of resources is not only central to hard power but also instrumental in supporting soft and structural power. Therefore, although power is context-specific and shaped by more than just what a state possesses, the ability to convert resources into influence remains one of the most important and consistent determinants of power in global politics.