IB DP Global Politics – Core topic – Power 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 prescribed topic Power in global politics from the core topics of 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. Every question suits both SL and HL. The set covers definitions of power and every type of power the guide lists.

Learn the content first in the study guide and the revision notes. The course hub and the printable checklist show where this unit sits. All actors and figures in the sources are fictional. The [1] points are a revision aid: real extended answers are marked against IB markbands, best fit, not point by point.

Questions

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. Extract from a speech by the foreign minister of Norland, a fictional small state.

Norland will never match the armies of our larger neighbours, and we do not try. Each year we welcome more students from partner countries on government scholarships. Our films and music travel further than our diplomats. Our development aid comes with no political conditions, and partners trust us for it. We also hold seats on the boards of two regional development banks, which gives us a say in how billions are lent. Influence that is freely given lasts longer than obedience that is forced.

Source B – original text written for Marlbridge. Extract from a commentary by a fictional analyst on sanctions against Eastmark, a fictional state.

When Eastmark’s troops crossed the border, its neighbours acted together: its banks were cut off from foreign payment systems and its main exports were banned. Eighteen months later, the troops remain, yet the sanctions were not pointless. Eastmark’s economy has shrunk, its access to advanced technology has narrowed and it now depends on a single trading partner. Attraction does not stop tanks. The certainty of cost does, and cost is felt most when an alliance stays united.

Source C – original data written for Marlbridge (fictional). Norland’s government scholarships for students from partner countries, and the share of people surveyed in partner countries who hold a favourable view of Norland.

Year	2016	2019	2022	2025
Scholarships awarded	400	900	1,500	1,600
Favourable view (%)	38	44	51	49

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge. Statement by the Coral Coalition, a fictional bloc of thirty small island states.

Alone, none of our thirty states could shift a global climate negotiation. Together we negotiate as one bloc and speak with one voice. At the last summit our proposal for a stricter timetable for reviewing emissions targets was written into the final text. We threatened no one. We simply made ourselves impossible to ignore.

1. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Identify three different types of power referred to in Source A. [3]

2. (Paper 1 style – source-based) With reference to Source C, describe the relationship between scholarships and favourable views, and state one limitation of the data. [4]

3. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Explain why the measures described in Source B are classified as hard power, even though no military force is used. [4]

4. (Paper 1 style – own knowledge) Distinguish between structural power and relational power, using a real example of each. [4]

5. (Paper 1 style – own knowledge) Outline the three dimensions of power set out by Steven Lukes. [3]

6. (Paper 1 style – source-based) With reference to Source D, explain what is meant by “power with” and how it differs from “power over”. [4]

7. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Compare and contrast the views in Source A and Source B on how states gain influence. [6]

8. (Paper 1 style – own knowledge) Using one real international negotiation, explain why smart power is described as a combination of hard and soft power. [4]

9. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Using all the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that soft power is more effective than hard power in achieving a state’s goals. [12]

10. (Paper 2 style – essay) “Structural power matters more than relational power in deciding how global challenges are addressed.” Discuss, with reference to examples from at least two thematic studies. [15]

Answers

1. Any three of: soft power – attraction through scholarships and aid “freely given” [1]; cultural power – films and music [1]; structural power – seats on the boards of development banks [1]. Also credit economic power (aid, lending). [3] Examiner insight: “Identify” (AO1) needs only a type tied to a source detail; the same type named twice in different words earns one mark.

2. Scholarships quadrupled, from 400 in 2016 to 1,600 in 2025 [1]. Up to 2022, favourable views rose with them, from 38% to 51%, a rise of 13 percentage points [1]. From 2022 to 2025 scholarships rose by 100 but favourable views fell to 49%, so the link weakens [1]. Limitation: correlation is not cause; films, aid or events may explain the change [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Quote figures from a non-textual source; “views improved” with no numbers, or a generic limitation, earns less.

3. Hard power is coercion: making an actor do what it would not otherwise do by imposing costs [1]. Source B describes penalties: banks cut off and exports banned [1]. The aim is to force Eastmark to withdraw its troops – power over it [1]. The guide lists economic sanctions as hard power; the tool is economic, but the way it works is coercive [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “Explain” (AO2) needs a reason; a bare label scores little unless you show the coercive mechanism in the source’s details.

4. Structural power comes from an actor’s position within a system of rules or institutions [1], for example a permanent member’s veto: Russia vetoed a draft Security Council resolution on Ukraine on 25 February 2022 [1]. Relational power comes from ties between actors that must be built and kept up [1], for example NATO’s Article 5 guarantee, which Finland joined in 2023 [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “Distinguish” needs the difference made clear; an example with no actor or date will not reach full marks.

5. First dimension: power seen in open decision-making, where one side wins an observable conflict [1]. Second: agenda-setting, keeping issues from being decided at all [1]. Third: shaping people’s beliefs and wants so conflicts of interest never surface [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Blurring agenda control (second) with shaping wants (third) costs a mark.

6. Power with is collective power from cooperation [1]. In Source D thirty states negotiate as one bloc and speak with one voice [1], and their proposal enters the final text though none could shift the talks alone [1]. Power over is control of another actor against its will; the coalition says it “threatened no one”, so it persuaded rather than coerced [1]. [4] Examiner insight: An answer written only from own knowledge misses the marks tied to specific references to Source D.

7. Similarity: both see influence gained without fighting – A by attraction, B by sanctions [1]. Both use economic tools: A aid and bank seats, B bans [1]. Difference: A claims freely given influence lasts longer than forced obedience, while B says attraction does not stop tanks [1]. A uses economic tools without conditions (soft), B uses them to impose cost (hard) [1]. A concerns long-term reputation; B an immediate security crisis [1]. B stresses a united alliance (relational), while A stresses one state’s reputation and its board seats (structural) [1]. [6] Examiner insight: The guide expects a detailed running comparison for top marks; all of A then all of B, or differences only, limits the mark.

8. Smart power is the chosen mix of hard and soft tools that fits a given aim [1]. Example: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015) between Iran, the five permanent Security Council members, Germany and the EU [1]. Hard element: years of sanctions on Iran’s oil and banking sectors raised the cost of its nuclear programme [1]. Soft element: diplomacy offered sanctions relief for limits, aiming at non-proliferation without war [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Marks come from naming which hard and which soft tools were combined and for what aim; “a mix of both” with no detail earns little.

9. Indicative content:

• Defines soft power (attraction, Nye) and hard power (coercion) [1].
• Source A claims scholarships, culture and aid build lasting influence [1].
• Source C: favourable views rose from 38% to 51% as scholarships rose to 1,500 [1], but fell to 49% by 2025, and correlation does not prove cause [1].
• South Korea’s cultural reach raised its profile, but soft power rarely changes another government’s policy directly [1].
• Source B: attraction does not stop tanks; sanctions shrank Eastmark’s economy [1].
• Yet Source B admits the troops remain: hard power has not met its main goal either [1].
• Sanctions on Russia since 2022 imposed costs but have not ended the war [1].
• Hard power can erode soft power: the 2003 Iraq invasion is widely seen as damaging US standing [1].
• Realist view (Mearsheimer): material power decides security outcomes, so soft power is secondary [1].
• It depends on the goal: soft power suits long-term reputation, hard power urgent security; smart power combines them [1].
• Judgement: the claim holds for long-term goals but not for urgent security threats [1]. [12]

Examiner insight: This is marked with markbands, best fit; the top band needs own knowledge synthesised with the sources and perspectives evaluated, not a source-by-source summary.

10. Indicative content for a model plan:

• Introduction: define structural power (position) and relational power (ties) [1]; argue that it depends on the challenge [1].
• Peace and conflict: Russia’s February 2022 veto blocked Security Council action on Ukraine [1]; Russia, sometimes with China, vetoed a series of draft resolutions on Syria after 2011 [1].
• Development: major IMF decisions need 85% of votes, so the US, with over 15%, can block them [1].
• Heads of state: a US president withdrew from the Paris Agreement (effective 2020); the US rejoined in 2021, then left again in January 2026 [1].
• Counter-argument: 141 states in the General Assembly demanded Russian withdrawal in March 2022, but not bindingly [1].
• Small island states pressed for the 1.5°C goal written into the Paris Agreement [1].
• Fridays for Future raised climate on political agendas through numbers [1].
• Campaigners helped secure the 2017 nuclear weapons ban treaty, though nuclear-armed states have not joined [1].
• Interaction: sanctions need coalitions; the 2022 Veto Initiative works around a structural block [1].
• Perspectives: realists stress material capacity; Arendt sees power in acting together; a decolonial reading (Mignolo) sees the 1945 veto structure as a Western-centred hierarchy [1].
• Evaluating the categories: NATO is both an alliance and an institution, so the labels overlap [1].
• Implications: pressure for Security Council reform shows structural power is contested [1].
• Conclusion: structural power decides binding outcomes; relational power shapes agendas and norms [1]. [15]

Examiner insight: Paper 2’s top markband needs claims justified and evaluated, examples effectively developed, perspectives evaluated and implications considered.

Where marks are usually lost

• Naming a type of power without tying it to a detail in the source.
• Describing Source C with no figures, or ignoring the 2022–2025 fall.
• Calling sanctions soft power because no weapons are used.
• Writing about Source A and then Source B separately in a compare-and-contrast answer.
• In the 12-mark evaluation, summarising sources with no own knowledge or judgement.
• In the essay, never showing how structural and relational power interact.

Next steps

• Revision notes for this unit
• Study guide for this unit
• IB DP Global Politics course hub
• Printable syllabus checklist
• All free 10-minute diagnostics
• Book a free trial class

Official syllabus

These questions are aligned to the International Baccalaureate Organization, Diploma Programme Global politics guide, first assessment 2026 (published February 2024): core topics, prescribed topic “Power in global politics”.