Power Questionbank

Source A

Source B

Adapted from “The Humanitarian Impact of War” by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), www.msf.org (2019).

War zones create devastating humanitarian crises that disproportionately affect civilian populations. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reports that in conflict-affected regions like Syria, indiscriminate airstrikes and ground offensives have destroyed vital infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and water supplies. These attacks not only cause immediate loss of life but also leave millions of people without access to healthcare, clean water, and shelter, driving large-scale displacement both within countries and across borders.

MSF highlights the essential need for humanitarian corridors, secure routes that allow aid organizations to reach populations in need and permit civilians to escape dangerous areas. However, the organization points out that maintaining these corridors is extremely challenging. Warring parties often use access to aid as a bargaining tool, intentionally block humanitarian assistance, or manipulate relief efforts for political gain. The threat of violence against aid workers further restricts operations, placing both civilians and humanitarian staff at constant risk.

The organization calls for stronger enforcement of international humanitarian law, emphasizing that all parties to conflict are obligated to protect civilians and ensure access to humanitarian aid. MSF urges the international community to hold violators accountable, support the neutrality of aid organizations, and prioritize civilian protection to prevent further human suffering in war zones.

Source C

Adapted from “The Limits of Peace Agreements” by the International Peace Institute, www.ipinst.org (2021).

While peace agreements are often celebrated as milestones in conflict resolution, their effectiveness depends on long-term implementation and addressing the root causes of conflict. The International Peace Institute (IPI) examines the 2016 Colombian peace agreement between the government and the FARC rebels, considered a landmark deal at the time. However, IPI notes that achieving lasting peace in Colombia has proved difficult, as challenges remain in reintegrating former combatants, delivering promised reforms, and addressing structural inequalities such as land distribution and rural poverty.

IPI points out that many peace agreements worldwide suffer from a gap between signed commitments and actual change on the ground. In Colombia, violence has persisted in some regions due to the emergence of new armed groups and ongoing disputes over resources and territory. The institute warns that without sustained political will, adequate funding, and mechanisms for accountability, peace agreements risk being only symbolic. Ensuring justice for victims, guaranteeing security, and building trust among divided communities are highlighted as key prerequisites for genuine reconciliation.

The report concludes that for peace agreements to have a transformative impact, they must be accompanied by comprehensive policies that address historical grievances, promote inclusion, and support social and economic development alongside political solutions.

Source D

Adapted from “The Role of Regional Organizations in Conflict Resolution” by the African Union Peace and Security Council, www.au.int (2020).

Regional organizations such as the African Union (AU) are increasingly recognized as essential actors in managing and resolving conflicts on the continent. The African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) describes how regional organizations offer valuable local knowledge, quicker response capabilities, and political legitimacy in peace operations. The AU has played a critical role in mediating conflicts and deploying peacekeeping missions, such as the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the United Nations–African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), to stabilize regions, protect civilians, and facilitate humanitarian aid.

Despite these achievements, the AUPSC identifies several persistent challenges. Funding shortfalls, limited logistical capacity, and dependence on external donors (such as the European Union or United Nations) constrain the scope and effectiveness of regional missions. In addition, political divisions among member states and varying levels of commitment can undermine unified action. The council also highlights the complexity of some conflicts, which often require close collaboration with international partners and national governments.

Nevertheless, the report argues that regional organizations, given their proximity and understanding of local dynamics, are well-positioned to take a lead role in conflict prevention and resolution. The AUPSC calls for stronger institutional support, sustainable financing, and increased cooperation between regional, continental, and global actors to achieve lasting peace in Africa.

Source A

Source B

Adapted from: The Guardian, “Small island states call for urgent climate action” (2022)

Small island developing states (SIDS) are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, despite contributing the least to global emissions. Rising sea levels, saltwater intrusion, and more frequent natural disasters threaten not only their environments but their sovereignty, economies, and national identities.

Leaders from the Pacific and Caribbean have repeatedly called on major polluters to honor their financial and legal commitments under the Paris Agreement. They argue that without immediate reductions in emissions and substantial funding for adaptation, their countries may become uninhabitable.

Despite diplomatic efforts, many SIDS face barriers in global negotiations. Their political and economic influence is limited, and their voices are often sidelined by more powerful states with competing priorities. The lack of binding enforcement mechanisms in climate agreements further complicates accountability.

Nevertheless, SIDS have developed alliances such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) to amplify their collective voice in global forums. They emphasize that climate justice is inseparable from human rights and development. For them, climate change is not a distant threat but an existential crisis that tests the inclusiveness and fairness of international cooperation.

Source C

Adapted from: UN News, “Tensions Rise Over Unequal Vaccine Distribution” (2021)

The global response to COVID-19 revealed serious fractures in international cooperation. Wealthy nations secured the majority of available vaccine doses early in the pandemic, often ordering far more than their populations needed. Meanwhile, many lower-income countries were left to wait for donations or rely on delayed shipments through COVAX, the global vaccine-sharing initiative.

While the WHO and other institutions called for equitable access, critics argue that structural inequality and national self-interest overwhelmed global solidarity. Some countries even blocked the export of vaccines or ingredients needed for production. Others engaged in "vaccine diplomacy," using access to doses as leverage in foreign policy.

This disparity not only prolonged the pandemic globally but also undermined trust in international institutions. Public health experts warned that “no one is safe until everyone is safe,” yet the response remained fragmented and competitive.

Some efforts were made to improve distribution, such as debt relief or technology transfer, but many states remained skeptical of international cooperation, viewing it as shaped by power imbalances and unequal benefits. The pandemic exposed the limitations of voluntary systems and raised questions about whether the current global order can respond effectively and equitably to shared challenges.

Source D

Adapted from: Human Rights Watch, “Corporate Power and Climate Accountability” (2023)

Multinational corporations play a major role in shaping global responses to environmental crises. Fossil fuel companies, agribusiness, and heavy industry sectors have significant financial interests in maintaining the status quo and are among the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, they often present themselves as partners in sustainability through public-private partnerships and voluntary climate pledges.

However, many corporations continue to lobby against environmental regulations, fund climate denial, and delay transitions to green alternatives. Investigations have revealed discrepancies between corporate sustainability reports and actual practices, leading to accusations of "greenwashing." Critics argue that voluntary commitments lack transparency and accountability, enabling powerful actors to appear cooperative while undermining real progress.

Civil society groups and investigative journalists have exposed how corporate influence distorts policy outcomes, particularly in international negotiations. Some corporations wield more economic power than states, making it difficult for governments, especially in the Global South, to enforce compliance or prioritize the public interest.

While some companies have made genuine efforts toward decarbonization, the imbalance of influence raises concerns about the democratic legitimacy of global environmental governance. Human Rights Watch calls for stronger regulatory frameworks to ensure that climate justice and public welfare are not sacrificed for profit.

Source A

Source B
Adapted from “The Role of Mediation in Conflict Resolution,” United Nations Mediation Support Unit, www.un.org (2018).

Mediation has become a central approach for resolving both interstate and intrastate conflicts in today’s world. The United Nations emphasizes that effective mediation depends on several core principles: the neutrality of mediators, the building of trust among conflicting parties, and the inclusion of all key stakeholders in negotiations.

A prominent example occurred during Kenya’s 2008 post-election crisis, when violence erupted over disputed election results. The African Union, with former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as chief mediator, succeeded in brokering a power-sharing agreement that prevented further bloodshed and restored stability. This case is often cited as a demonstration of mediation’s capacity to de-escalate crises and create space for dialogue.

However, mediation is rarely straightforward. The process faces major hurdles, including the reluctance of parties to make meaningful concessions, spoilers seeking to undermine progress, and interference by external actors with their own agendas. Furthermore, a lack of deep understanding of the historical, political, and cultural roots of a conflict can limit the effectiveness of mediation efforts. The UN stresses the need for robust support to mediators, ongoing monitoring, and the adaptation of strategies to local realities to increase the prospects for achieving a durable peace.

Source C
Adapted from “The Human Cost of War,” Amnesty International, www.amnesty.org (2021).

Modern conflicts inflict devastating consequences on civilian populations, causing widespread displacement, civilian casualties, and gross human rights abuses. Yemen’s ongoing war, which began in 2015, exemplifies the toll of protracted violence. The UN has called Yemen the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with millions of people facing hunger, disease, and limited access to basic necessities like healthcare and clean water.

According to Amnesty International, all sides in the conflict—including Houthi forces and the Saudi-led coalition—have been accused of violations such as indiscriminate bombings, use of banned weapons, and targeting of civilian infrastructure. This has led to large-scale displacement, trauma, and the breakdown of families and communities. Despite repeated international efforts to negotiate ceasefires and improve humanitarian access, the parties’ repeated violations of agreements demonstrate the fragility of peace efforts. Amnesty International calls for greater international accountability and stronger enforcement of humanitarian law.

The report argues that the global community has a duty to protect civilians, ensure aid reaches those in need, and hold perpetrators to account, warning that the absence of such measures perpetuates suffering and instability in conflict zones like Yemen.

Source D
Adapted from “The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention,” Jayshree Bajoria and Robert McMahon, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org (2013).

The escalating violence and humanitarian disaster in Syria have reignited debate over the legitimacy and effectiveness of humanitarian interventions by the international community. The “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine, adopted by the UN in 2005, was intended to provide a framework for intervention when states fail to protect their citizens from mass atrocities.

In practice, however, R2P has become contentious. The 2011 intervention in Libya, where a UN-mandated coalition carried out airstrikes to protect civilians from Muammar Qaddafi’s forces, is often cited as a turning point. While the intervention contributed to the fall of Qaddafi, it was widely criticized—especially by Russia and China—as going beyond civilian protection and being used as cover for regime change. The aftermath of Libya’s collapse led to instability in the region and skepticism about future interventions.

In Syria, despite mounting evidence of atrocities, Security Council divisions and fears of repeating the Libyan experience have paralyzed decisive action. Experts argue that concerns about sovereignty, great power rivalry, and the unintended consequences of intervention now make global support for humanitarian military action less likely, even in the face of grave human rights abuses.

Source A

Source B

Adapted from: “The End of Liberal Internationalism?” by John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs (2021)

Liberal democracies have long claimed a moral authority based on principles such as individual freedom, rule of law, transparency, and institutional accountability. These values have traditionally underpinned their legitimacy both domestically and internationally, reinforcing the liberal international order after World War II. However, in recent years, liberal states, particularly the United States and its allies, have faced growing criticism for failing to uphold these values consistently in practice. Critics argue that foreign policy decisions, such as the abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan, the use of drone strikes, and support for autocratic allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have weakened democratic credibility.

These contradictions raise questions about whether democracies are still committed to the ideals they promote. When democracies act primarily in self-interest or align with non-democratic regimes, their moral authority appears selective and strategic rather than principled. This erosion of global trust in liberal democracies damages their ability to claim legitimacy beyond their borders. The gap between declared values and actual conduct, especially in foreign policy, has led some observers to question whether power has overtaken principles as the primary source of state legitimacy. As liberal states lose influence in a more multipolar world, these tensions become increasingly visible and contested.

Source C

Adapted from: Freedom House, “Freedom in the World Report 2023”

Global freedom has been in decline for 17 consecutive years, with over 100 countries experiencing worsening conditions. Freedom House reports that out of 195 countries, only 20% are rated as “Free,” while 43% are either “Not Free” or “Partly Free.” This erosion of freedom is closely linked to the actions of authoritarian regimes that consolidate power by undermining democratic institutions. Governments in countries such as Belarus, Iran, Myanmar, and Venezuela have restricted civil society, controlled the media, and politicized the judiciary to silence dissent and maintain control.

These regimes often pass laws under the guise of national security, such as anti-terrorism or “foreign agent” legislation, to criminalize protest, restrict NGOs, and marginalize opposition figures. By monopolizing state institutions, these governments project an image of stability and order while violating democratic principles. In some cases, democratic countries tolerate or even enable these practices when it aligns with their economic or geopolitical interests.

The report also highlights that even in democratic states, populist or nationalist governments are adopting authoritarian methods, eroding checks and balances, limiting civil liberties, and weakening judicial independence. These trends suggest a broader, more systemic challenge to the legitimacy of democratic governance, with significant implications for global order and human rights.

Source D

Adapted from: “Populism and the Crisis of Democracy,” by Cas Mudde, Journal of Democracy (2022)

Populism has emerged as a major challenge to liberal democratic systems, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Populist leaders claim to speak for “the real people” and portray political elites, judges, journalists, and international institutions as corrupt or out of touch. This anti-elite rhetoric helps populists win elections, but once in power, they often erode democratic norms by concentrating authority in the executive, weakening opposition parties, and attacking media freedom. Countries such as Hungary, Brazil, and India illustrate how democratic backsliding can occur within an electoral framework.

Although these regimes hold elections, the playing field becomes increasingly uneven. Courts may be stacked, civil liberties restricted, and dissent labeled unpatriotic. Populist governments often frame legitimacy not around democratic accountability, but around “popular will,” undermining minority rights and constitutional protections in the process. This blurs the line between democracy and authoritarianism.

At the same time, some populist regimes benefit from high approval ratings and a perception of authenticity, particularly among older or economically disaffected voters. However, such popularity does not guarantee long-term legitimacy if it comes at the cost of institutional integrity. As populist-authoritarianism spreads, questions arise about whether formal democracy alone is sufficient to ensure legitimate and accountable governance.

Source A

Adapted from: Freedom House, "Freedom in the World 2023: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy" (2023).

Source B

Adapted from: The Economist Intelligence Unit, "Democracy Index 2022: Frontline Democracy and the Battle for Ukraine" (2023).

The Democracy Index 2022 report shines a spotlight on the profound impact of the ongoing war in Ukraine, illustrating how this major geopolitical crisis has compelled democratic nations around the world to take stock of their core values and re-examine the strength and reliability of their strategic partnerships. In the face of renewed threats to the international rules-based order, governments have reaffirmed commitments to free expression, rule of law, and collective security, yet the data also paint a sobering portrait of global governance as a whole.

According to the Index, a mere 8 percent of the world’s population now live in what are classified as “full democracies,” where electoral processes are competitive and fair, civil liberties are robustly protected, and political participation is both widespread and meaningful. By contrast, 37 percent of people reside under authoritarian regimes, states in which political power is concentrated in the hands of a few, opposition voices are routinely silenced, and the mechanisms of government serve to entrench incumbent rule rather than reflect the public will.

Source C

Adapted from: Human Rights Watch, "World Report 2023: Authoritarianism’s Global Impact" (2023).

Authoritarian leaders around the world are increasingly weaponizing legal frameworks to suppress dissent and restrict civil society. This growing trend involves the strategic use of legislation to target individuals and groups that challenge government authority. In countries such as Myanmar and Russia, regimes have introduced broad and vaguely defined laws that allow them to clamp down on opposition parties, independent journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society organizations. These laws are often justified under the pretext of protecting national security or preserving social order, but in practice, they criminalize free expression, peaceful protest, and political opposition.

For instance, in Russia, laws labeling individuals and groups as “foreign agents” or “extremists” have been used to discredit and dismantle NGOs and silence investigative reporting. In Myanmar, following the 2021 military coup, authorities used legal tools to imprison elected leaders and violently suppress peaceful demonstrations. These actions reflect a broader pattern in which authoritarian governments entrench their power by manipulating the rule of law, turning legal systems into instruments of repression rather than justice.

At the same time, international institutions face major obstacles in responding effectively. Deepening geopolitical rivalries and lack of consensus among powerful states often paralyze global efforts to hold these regimes accountable, enabling further democratic backsliding.

Source D

Adapted from: Pippa Norris, "Cultural Backlash: Populism and the Erosion of Liberal Democracy," Cambridge University Press (2019).

The rise of populism reflects a growing backlash against liberal democratic norms and institutions. Populist leaders typically portray themselves as the true voice of “the people,” positioning themselves in opposition to traditional political elites, technocrats, and established institutions. By claiming to represent the general will, they often bypass or undermine democratic checks and balances, such as independent judiciaries, free media, and legislative oversight. This erosion of democratic norms is especially apparent in regions grappling with deep economic inequality, cultural divisions, and widespread disillusionment with conventional political parties.

In such contexts, populist rhetoric resonates with citizens who feel left behind by globalization or ignored by out-of-touch elites. By offering simple and emotionally charged solutions to complex problems—such as immigration, unemployment, or national identity—populist movements gain support across the political spectrum. However, while populism may mobilize discontent and energize political participation in the short term, its longer-term consequences often include democratic backsliding and institutional decay.

Leaders who concentrate power in the executive branch, delegitimize opposition voices, and attack the independence of the press can gradually transform democratic systems into authoritarian-leaning regimes. Ultimately, although populism may emerge from democratic processes, it frequently undermines the very foundations of liberal democracy it claims to revitalize.