Power, Sovereignity, International Relations Unit and Peace & Conflict

Unit 1: Power, Sovereignty, International relations

Key concepts: power, sovereignty, legitimacy, interdependence

Learning outcomePrescribed contentPossible examples

(Intended as a starting point only: for many topics, local and current examples will be more appropriate than the ones listed, and many more examples are listed than are expected to be covered during the course)

Nature of power Definitions and theories of power
  • John Mearsheimer, Joseph Nye, Antonio Gramsci, Steven Lukes
Types of power
  • Hard versus soft; economic, military, social, cultural; individual versus collective; unilateral versus multilateral
Operation of state power in global politics The evolving nature of state sovereignty
  • Terminology (eg state, nation, nation-state, stateless nation)
  • The Westphalian conception of state sovereignty
  • Present-day status of sources of state sovereignty, eg possession and use of force, international law and norms, recognition by other states due to economic and balance of power considerations, consent (or lack thereof) of the governed through political participation
  • Present-day challenges to state sovereignty, eg globalization, supranationality, humanitarian intervention, indigenous rights
Legitimacy of state power
  • Democratic states, eg unitary states, federal states
  • Authoritarian states
  • Fragile/failed states
Function and impact of international organizations and non-state actors in global politics The United Nations (UN)
  • The UN, eg Charter of the United Nations, UN principal organs (General Assembly, Security Council, etc) and subsidiary organs and agencies
Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)
  • World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU), African Union, Arab League, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs) and trade unions
  • NGOs, eg International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW), Greenpeace, BRAC
  • MNCs, eg Unilever, Philips, IKEA, Lenovo, Tata
  • Trade unions, eg International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)
Social movements, resistance movements and violent protest movements
  • Social movements, eg Occupy, Avaaz
  • Resistance movements, eg Arab Spring, Orange Revolution in Ukraine
  • Violent protest movements, eg Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Hezbollah, Naxalites
Political parties
  • USA’s Republican and Democratic parties, Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD), Communist Party of China (CPC)
Informal forums
  • G20, The Group of Seven (G7), The Group of Eight (G8), G2, World Economic Forum (WEF), World Social Forum (WSF)
Legitimacy of non-state actors
  • Representativeness
  • Means of exerting influence
  • Efficacy
Nature and extent of interactions in global politics Global governance
  • UN Security Council resolutions, climate change agenda, Basel accords on financial regulation, WTO trade agreements, regional decision-making
Cooperation: treaties, collective security, strategic alliances, economic cooperation, informal cooperation
  • Treaties, eg Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Montreal Protocol
  • Collective security, eg North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Organization of American States (OAS)
  • Strategic alliances, eg China’s alliances in Latin America and Africa, USA–Taiwan, USA–Israel, India–Afghanistan
  • Economic cooperation, eg bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, regional economic integration, facilitation and regulation of international production
  • Informal cooperation, eg extraordinary rendition, technology harmonization, cultural exchange
Conflict: interstate war, intrastate war, terrorism, strikes, demonstrations
  • Interstate war, eg Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, South Sudan
  • Intrastate war, eg Syria, Ukraine, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Central African Republic
  • Terrorism, eg Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Boko Haram
  • Strikes and demonstrations: local examples

Markband for Paper 2

– 2 –
 
The paper is marked using the generic markbands below, and the paper specific markscheme that
follows. The markscheme for this paper is the same for HL and SL.
Markbands for paper two
Marks
Level descriptor
0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–5
The response reveals limited understanding of the demands of the question.
The response is poorly structured, or where there is a recognizable essay structure
there is minimal focus on the task.
There is little relevant knowledge, and examples are either lacking or not relevant.
The response is mostly descriptive.

6–10
 
The response indicates some understanding of the demands of the question.
 
There is some evidence of an attempt to structure the response.
Some relevant knowledge is present, and some examples are mentioned but they are
not developed or their relevance to arguments is not clear.
The response demonstrates limited understanding of the key concepts of the course.
There is limited justification of main points.
Counterclaims, or different views on the question, are not considered.

11–5
The demands of the question are understood and mostly addressed but the
implications are not considered.
There is a clear attempt to structure the response.
The response is mostly based on relevant and accurate knowledge of global politics,
and relevant examples are given and support arguments.
The response demonstrates some understanding of the key concepts of the course.
Many of the main points are justified and arguments are largely coherent.
Some counterclaims, or different views on the question, are considered.

16–20
 
The demands of the questions are understood and addressed, and most implications
are considered.
The response is well-structured.
The response demonstrates relevant and accurate knowledge and understanding of
global politics, and relevant examples are
used in a way that strengthens arguments.
The response demonstrates a good grasp of the key concepts of the course.
All or nearly all of the main points are justified and arguments are coherent.
Counterclaims, or different views on the question, are explored.

21–25
A very well structured and balanced response that addresses the demands and
implications of the question.
Comprehensive knowledge and in-depth understanding of global politics is applied in
the response consistently and effectively, with examples integrated.
The response demonstrates a very good grasp of the key concepts of the course.
All of the main points are justified. Arguments are clear, coherent and compelling.
Counterclaims, or different views on the question, are explored and evaluated.