IB DP Global Politics – Core Topic: Interdependence in Global Politics Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – the IB holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or the IB store.

This practice set covers the core topic Interdependence in global politics in IB Diploma Programme Global Politics. It follows the IB Diploma Programme Global politics guide (first assessment 2026, published February 2024), the course examined from the May 2026 session onwards. It draws on all six prescribed content rows for this topic, part of the core topics, which are the same for SL and HL.

Learn the content first in the study guide. Course links: IB DP Global Politics hub | printable checklist.

How the marks work here. Short answers use [1] per creditworthy point. In the real exam, the longest Paper 1 question and Paper 2 essays are marked against IB markbands, best fit; the [1] points in those model plans are a revision aid, not IB marks.

Sources for Questions 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge

There is no world government; the Security Council is the closest thing to one. When its members agree, its decisions bind every state. Yet five permanent members can each block action, so the Council moves only when the powerful allow it. The General Assembly gives every state an equal voice, but its resolutions are advice, not law. Global governance rests on the UN Charter, weak points included.

Source B – fictional data written for Marlbridge. Norland and Estavia are invented states, both members of the invented Coral Sea Union (CSU).

Norland	2015	2025
Share of imports from Estavia (%)	22	41
Share of imports from other CSU members (%)	30	27
Share of imports from the rest of the world (%)	48	32
Share of Norland’s gas supply from Estavia (%)	18	55
Share of Estavia’s exports that go to Norland (%)	9	12

Source C – original text written for Marlbridge

Look beyond the Security Council to see how the world is governed. Banking regulators in Basel, mayors sharing climate plans and regional bodies such as the African Union shape daily life more than most Council debates. These networks work because members need each other: whoever ignores shared rules soon loses partners. Interdependence, not a central authority, holds the system together – though rules are only as strong as members’ willingness to follow them.

Questions

1. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Using Source B, identify three changes in Norland’s external links between 2015 and 2025. [3]

2. (Paper 1 style – source-based) With reference to Source A and your own knowledge, explain the claim that the Security Council “moves only when the powerful allow it”. [4]

3. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Using Source B, explain why the relationship between Norland and Estavia could be described as asymmetric interdependence. [4]

4. Outline three sources of international law. [3]

5. Distinguish between government and governance. [2]

6. Distinguish between collective security and a strategic alliance, using one real example of each. [4]

7. Explain one achievement and one limitation of the UN Human Rights Council. [4]

8. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Compare and contrast the views of global governance in Source A and Source C. [6]

9. Explain how the Non-Proliferation Treaty shows both cooperation and competition between states. [4]

10. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Using all three sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that interdependence makes cooperation between political actors more likely than competition. [12]

11. (Paper 2 style – essay, integrating question) “International law matters far more in some areas of global politics than in others.” Discuss, with reference to at least two thematic studies. [15]

Answers

1. Estavia’s share of Norland’s imports rose from 22% to 41% (up 19 percentage points), making it the largest single source [1]. The rest of the world’s share fell from 48% to 32% (down 16 points) [1]. Estavia’s share of Norland’s gas supply rose from 18% to 55%, about three times as large and now over half [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Identify earns one mark per distinct, accurate point; quote the source’s figures, not a vague “increase”.

2. Each of the five permanent members can veto a substantive resolution [1]. A resolution needs nine of fifteen votes and no permanent-member veto, so majority support is not enough [1]. For example, Russia vetoed a 2022 draft resolution on its invasion of Ukraine, so the Council could not act [1]. Action therefore depends on the permanent members’ interests not clashing, which reflects structural power fixed in 1945 [1]. [4] Examiner insight: This AO2 question rewards applying knowledge to the claim; a developed real example beats restating the quotation.

3. In 2025, Norland takes 41% of its imports from Estavia, but Estavia sends only 12% of its exports to Norland, so the reliance runs mostly one way [1]. Norland now gets 55% of its gas from Estavia, so a supply cut would be hard to replace quickly – vulnerability, not just sensitivity [1]. Estavia could find other buyers for 12% of its exports far more easily [1]. The less dependent side, Estavia, therefore gains leverage it could use as power over Norland [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Marks come from using both states’ figures to show the imbalance; a definition alone earns little.

4. Treaties – written agreements that bind the states that ratify them [1]. International custom – consistent state practice followed from a sense of legal obligation [1]. General principles of law recognised across legal systems, such as good faith (or: decisions of courts; scholarly writings) [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Outline needs a brief account of each source; a bare list of names risks losing marks.

5. Government is formal institutions with authority to make and enforce binding rules over a territory [1]. Governance is steering behaviour through rules, norms and networks, possibly without a central authority, as in global governance [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Distinguish requires the contrast (authority versus steering without a ruler) to be explicit, not two unlinked definitions.

6. Collective security: members commit to respond together to a threat or act of aggression [1] – for example NATO, whose Article 5 was invoked after 11 September 2001 [1]. A strategic alliance is a partnership built around shared strategic aims, often without a formal mutual-defence commitment [1] – for example the USA and Israel [1]. [4] Examiner insight: One mark per definition and one per accurate example; an example that is not shown to fit the category earns nothing.

7. The UNHRC, created in 2006, reviews human rights across UN members [1]. Achievement: its Universal Periodic Review examines the record of every member state, so no state escapes scrutiny [1]. Limitation: states with poor rights records can be elected to it [1]. Its findings are not binding, so change depends on states’ consent – a sovereignty limit [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Explain needs reasons; linking the limitation to a key concept such as sovereignty turns a description into analysis.

8. Similarity: both accept that there is no world government or central authority [1]. Similarity: both suggest rules depend on actors’ willingness – Source A on the powerful allowing action, Source C on members choosing to follow rules [1]. Difference: Source A puts the UN and its Charter at the centre of governance; Source C places it in networks and regional bodies beyond the Security Council [1]. Difference: Source A sees binding Council decisions as the key strength; Source C sees mutual need as what makes rules work [1]. Difference: Source A deals with states only; Source C includes regulators and cities [1]. A running comparison, with brief own-knowledge context (for example, Basel Accords applied through national rules) [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Top marks need a running comparison referring to both sources in each point; separate accounts of A then C limit credit.

9. Cooperation: most states have joined, and non-nuclear states forgo nuclear weapons in return for access to peaceful nuclear energy [1]. Competition: India, Pakistan and Israel never joined, keeping their own nuclear options [1]. North Korea announced its withdrawal in 2003 [1]. Within the treaty, non-nuclear states argue the five recognised nuclear-weapon states have not disarmed as required [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Both halves must be answered; covering only cooperation cannot reach full marks.

10. Model plan. Define interdependence and set out the claim [1]. Source C supports it: mutual need gives actors a reason to follow shared rules [1]. Support: the Montreal Protocol, ratified by every UN member state, shows cooperation over a shared resource [1]. Support: WTO trade rules are widely followed because market access matters [1]. Source B complicates it: Norland’s rising reliance creates trade, but the imbalance gives Estavia leverage, a basis for competition [1]. Source A against: the veto shows powerful states still compete at the centre of global governance [1]. Against: Europe’s reliance on Russian gas did not prevent the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and gas supply became a tool of pressure [1]. Against: the NPT is cooperative, yet states outside it pursued their own nuclear programmes [1]. Evaluate the sources: Source B shows trade and energy shares only, not political relations or intentions; Sources A and C are opinion pieces, each stressing one level of governance [1]. Explore perspectives: one view holds that interdependence raises the cost of conflict; another that dependence creates vulnerability and rivalry over relative gains [1]. Synthesis: cooperation is more likely when reliance is mutual and balanced; asymmetry makes competition more likely [1]. A substantiated conclusion that answers “more likely than” directly [1]. [12] Examiner insight: The top markband needs perspectives explored and evaluated and sources synthesised with own knowledge; summarising each source in turn stays low.

11. Model plan (the real essay is marked against the Paper 2 markbands). Introduction: define international law and what “matters” means – shaping behaviour [1]. Rights and justice: the Genocide Convention gave The Gambia a route to bring Myanmar before the ICJ in 2019 [1]. Rights and justice limit: the UNHRC’s findings are not binding, so impact depends on state consent [1]. Peace and conflict: Charter Articles 2(4) and 51 frame how states justify force; even violators claim legal grounds [1]. Peace and conflict: Resolution 1973 (2011) gave legal authority for action in Libya [1]. Peace and conflict limit: a permanent member’s veto blocks enforcement, as over Ukraine in 2022 [1]. Development and sustainability: trade interdependence rewards compliance with WTO rules [1]; the Montreal Protocol shows strong compliance on a shared resource [1]. Contrast: the Paris Agreement relies on self-set national targets, so its legal pull is weaker [1]. Soft law: the Basel Accords shape bank regulation without being a treaty [1]. Counter-perspective: international law matters everywhere as a language of legitimacy, even when broken [1]. Counter-perspective: a realist view that law mostly reflects the interests of powerful states [1]. Across themes: law matters most where interdependence and reciprocity are high, least where powerful states’ core security interests are at stake [1]. Evaluate: the WTO Appellate Body has been unable to hear appeals since 2019, so even a strong area can weaken [1]. A conclusion that weighs the areas rather than listing them [1]. [15] Examiner insight: The 13–15 band needs claims justified and evaluated and perspectives explored and evaluated; naming a treaty without its effect will not get there.

Where marks are usually lost

• Describing sources instead of doing what the command term asks.
• Comparing sources in two separate blocks rather than point by point.
• Quoting source figures inaccurately, or giving a change without both years’ values.
• Treating a General Assembly resolution as binding.
• Confusing an abstention by a permanent member with a veto.
• Naming an organisation as evidence without saying what it did.
• Ignoring the source-evaluation part of the longest source question.

Next steps

• Interdependence revision notes
• Interdependence study guide
• IB DP Global Politics hub
• Printable checklist
• All free 10-minute diagnostics
• Book a free trial class

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Diploma Programme Global politics guide, first assessment 2026 (published February 2024). Prescribed topic: Interdependence in global politics, within the core topics.