Source A

Text extract (adapted): "The decisions that bind the world are still taken in formal chambers: the Security Council, the World Trade Organization, the treaty conferences where votes are cast and rules are written down."

Source B

Text extract (adapted): "The real agenda of global politics is set in informal forums, the corridors of Davos and the dinners of the G7, where no vote is taken but the powerful reach the understandings that formal bodies later ratify."

Source

Text extract (adapted): "In October 2017 a regional government staged an independence vote that the national constitutional court had banned. Millions cast ballots; the central state sent in police, suspended the region's autonomy and prosecuted its leaders."

Source

Text extract (adapted): "Access to its vast consumer market is a privilege it grants and withdraws. Foreign firms quietly rewrite their rules, and foreign governments soften their words, rather than lose entry to it."

Source A

Adapted from "Rules for the Powerful? International Institutions and State Interest," World Order Studies, 2022.

International institutions are often presented as neutral referees, yet their design reflects the power of those who built them. The permanent members of the UN Security Council hold vetoes; voting weight at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank is tied to financial contributions, giving wealthy states disproportionate influence. Critics argue that powerful states obey international rules when convenient and ignore them when core interests are at stake, pointing to interventions launched without Security Council authorisation. On this view, global governance is less a constraint on the powerful than a tool they use to legitimise their preferences.

Source B

Adapted from "Even Great Powers Are Bound," Journal of International Law and Politics, 2021.

It is too simple to say that international institutions merely serve the strong. Powerful states invest heavily in maintaining rules because predictable order serves their long-term interests, and they pay real reputational and economic costs when they break them. Trade rulings at the World Trade Organization have gone against the United States and the European Union, and both have complied. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation and loss of credibility follow visible violations of international norms, as Russia found after 2022. Institutions constrain even their most powerful members, this argument holds, because the alternative, a world without shared rules, would be worse for everyone, including the strong.

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.