IB Diploma Programme Global Politics – Core topic – Framing global politics: stakeholders, actors and systems 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 prescribed topic “Framing global politics” in IB Diploma Programme Global Politics: stakeholders and actors; systems (structures and dynamics); legal frameworks, norms and institutions. It follows the IB Diploma Programme Global politics guide (first assessment 2026, published February 2024), the course examined from the May 2026 session onwards. Question 10 trains an HL-only skill; the rest suit SL and HL.

Revise first with the study guide or the revision notes. Course links: Global Politics hub, printable checklist.

Longer answers list creditworthy points with [1] each as a revision aid. Real Paper 1 question 4 and Paper 2 essays are marked holistically against the IB markbands, not point by point.

Sources for questions 5–10

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. Norland, Port Aveline and every body named are fictional.

Norland’s national government has approved a lithium processing plant at Port Aveline, to be built by Veltra Minerals. Ministers say it will create jobs and help Norland meet a regional clean-energy agreement. The elected municipal council voted against the plan but cannot block it, because industrial permits are a national matter. The Aveline Fishers’ Cooperative fears waste water will harm the bay. Coastwatch Norland, an NGO, has asked the regional court to review the permit, and a youth climate movement holds weekly marches. Families on the small island of Tessel, who fish the same waters, were not consulted. They have no council of their own and rarely appear in national news.

Source B – fictional survey data written for Marlbridge. “Which one body do you most trust to protect the bay?” 800 Port Aveline residents.

Body	Share of respondents
Port Aveline municipal council	31%
Coastwatch Norland (NGO)	27%
Aveline Fishers’ Cooperative	19%
National government of Norland	12%
Veltra Minerals (company)	6%
No answer	5%

Source C – original text written for Marlbridge. A statement by the fictional company Veltra Minerals.

Veltra meets every standard in Norland’s law and in the regional agreement. The permit was issued by the elected national government, which speaks for all Norlanders. Our critics are a small, well-funded group. Most residents want the jobs this plant will bring.

Questions

1. (Paper 1 skills – own knowledge) Define “stakeholder” and distinguish it from “actor”. [3]

2. (Paper 1 skills – own knowledge) Distinguish between a social movement and an interest or pressure group, giving one example of each. [4]

3. (Paper 1 skills – own knowledge) Outline one formal and one informal political forum, and explain one reason why states use informal forums. [4]

4. (Paper 1 skills – own knowledge) Explain why a non-binding declaration can still shape the behaviour of states. Use one real example. [5]

5. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Identify three non-state actors named in Source A. [3]

6. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Using Source B:

(a) identify the most trusted non-state body [1] (b) calculate the combined share naming any non-state body [1] (c) calculate how many respondents named the national government. [1]

7. (Paper 1 style – source-based) With reference to Source A, explain why the families on Tessel are stakeholders but not actors in this issue. [4]

8. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Compare and contrast how Sources A and C present the national government and the plant’s critics. [6]

9. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Using all the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that the structure of a political system matters more than the type of actor in deciding who shapes an outcome. [10]

10. (Paper 3 style, HL) Recommend a course of action that would increase the Tessel families’ influence on this issue. Justify it using your understanding of actors, systems and institutions. [6]

11. (Paper 2 style – essay) “Intergovernmental organizations are only as effective as their member states allow.” Discuss, with reference to at least one thematic study. [15]

Answers

1. A stakeholder is any individual or group affected by a political issue [1]. An actor has the agency and means to act, that is, to exercise power on that issue [1]. So a stakeholder need not be an actor: for example, people downstream of a new dam who were never consulted [1]. [3] Examiner insight: “Distinguish” is AO2 – the third mark needs the difference made explicit, not two separate definitions side by side.

2. A social movement is a broad, loosely organised network seeking wide change, often through protest [1]. An interest or pressure group is an organised body influencing specific policy without seeking office, often by lobbying [1]. Example of a movement: Fridays for Future [1]. Example of a group: a national trade union or business association [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Examples must fit your definition; a political party offered as a pressure group earns nothing, because parties seek office.

3. Formal: the UN General Assembly, with founding rules in the UN Charter and a fixed membership of states [1]. Informal: the G20, which has no founding treaty or permanent secretariat [1]. States use them to coordinate quickly without binding obligations [1]; a small membership of major economies also makes agreement easier than in a universal body [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Each example needs the feature that makes it formal or informal; a name alone rarely earns the mark.

4. A non-binding declaration is soft law: no court can enforce it [1]. Example: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), a UN General Assembly resolution [1]. It sets a norm; states that break it face criticism and lose standing [1]. Its content has been written into constitutions and later binding treaties [1]. NGOs and other states use it as a yardstick to pressure governments [1]. [5] Examiner insight: “Explain” needs reasons: each mechanism must say how it changes state behaviour, not just that it exists.

5. Any three of: Veltra Minerals (company) [1]; the Aveline Fishers’ Cooperative [1]; Coastwatch Norland (NGO) [1]; the youth climate movement. [3] Examiner insight: “Identify” (AO1) earns one mark per correct item; the municipal council is a subnational government, so it scores nothing here.

6. (a) Coastwatch Norland, 27% [1]. (b) 27 + 19 + 6 = 52% [1]. (c) 12% of 800 = 96 respondents [1]. Examiner insight: Read the categories carefully – the municipal council is a local government, so including it in (b) gives 83% and loses the mark.

7. They are affected: they fish the waters that waste water may harm [1]. They were not consulted, so had no role in the decision [1]. They have no council, so no institution speaks for them [1]. They rarely appear in national news, so cannot use the media – they lack the means to exercise power [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Each mark needs a source detail linked to the actor/stakeholder distinction; definitions alone score little.

8. Both sources agree the national government issued the permit [1] and both cite jobs as a benefit [1]. However, Source A shows the elected council opposed the plan but lacked power, while Source C says the national government speaks for all Norlanders [1]. Source A describes diverse critics – a cooperative, an NGO, a youth movement – whereas Source C dismisses them as a small, well-funded group [1]. Source A notes Tessel was not consulted; Source C ignores Tessel and claims most residents back the plant [1]. Source B challenges Source C: the NGO and cooperative together are named by 46%, the company by 6% [1]. [6] Examiner insight: The guide expects a detailed running comparison for top marks; writing all of Source A and then all of Source C caps the answer even if every point is accurate.

9. Indicative points:

• Source A: the elected council cannot block the plant because permits are a national matter – structure decides [1].
• Source B: the council is the most trusted body (31%) yet has no formal power, so trust and power can separate [1].
• Counter: Coastwatch Norland uses the regional court, an institution, to shape the outcome [1].
• The youth movement’s marches change the dynamics from outside formal structures [1].
• Source C: the company’s influence rests on law and the regional agreement [1].
• Own knowledge: the UN Security Council veto lets five states block action whatever wider support exists [1].
• Own knowledge: only WTO member governments can bring disputes, so companies act through governments [1].
• Counter from own knowledge: cities in C40 Cities act on climate without national approval [1].
• Evaluation: the same actor type has different power in different systems, so the two factors interact [1].
• Judgement: structure sets the limits; actors with resources and legitimacy can use or shift them [1]. [10] Examiner insight: The top markband requires synthesis of own knowledge with source material and different perspectives explored and evaluated, so an answer using only the sources cannot reach it.

10. Recommendation: the families should form a recognised association and join Coastwatch Norland’s court review [1]. An association turns affected people into an actor that can be consulted and speak with one voice [1]. The legal challenge uses a regional institution the national government does not control [1]. Allying with the Fishers’ Cooperative, which shares the waters and is trusted by 19% of residents, adds numbers and legitimacy [1]. Working with the youth movement and local media addresses their absence from national news [1]. Limitation: the court may uphold the permit, so they should also press for consultation rights in future decisions [1]. [6] Examiner insight: A recommendation must be one specific, justified action; a list of options with no chosen course and no limitation stays in the lower marks.

11. Indicative plan:

• Introduction: define an IGO (members are states) and set a clear line of argument [1].
• For: IGOs rely on members for money and troops; UN peacekeeping depends on state contributions (peace and conflict) [1].
• For: one permanent member’s veto can block Security Council action [1].
• For: since December 2019 the WTO Appellate Body cannot hear appeals because appointments were blocked [1].
• For: rulings often depend on national enforcement [1].
• Against: the WHO declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern in January 2020 through its own procedures [1].
• Against: the ICC prosecutor can open investigations, with judicial authorisation, without a state referral (rights and justice) [1].
• Against: EU Court of Justice rulings bind member states [1].
• Against: IGOs set norms and agendas that shape states [1].
• Perspectives: realist-leaning view of IGOs as tools of powerful states vs liberal-leaning view of rules changing behaviour [1].
• Link: legitimacy – widely accepted IGO action pressures members to comply [1].
• Link: interdependence – shared problems give states reasons to empower IGOs [1].
• Examples developed, not just named [1].
• Evaluation: effectiveness varies with structure (veto, consensus, binding courts) and issue [1].
• Conclusion: a justified judgement on the word “only” [1]. [15] Examiner insight: The 13–15 markband needs diverse perspectives explored and evaluated and implications considered; a one-sided answer, however detailed, cannot reach it.

Where marks are usually lost

• Treating “actor” and “stakeholder” as the same word.
• Counting a local or regional government as a non-state actor.
• Writing Source A then Source C in blocks instead of a running comparison.
• Using only the sources on an “evaluate” question, with no own knowledge.
• Naming a real example with no explanation of what happened or why it matters.
• Giving a recommendation with no justification and no limitation.

Next steps

• Revision notes for this unit
• Study guide for this unit
• Global Politics course hub
• Printable checklist
• More practice: Peace and conflict and Rights and justice
• 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). Core topics: Understanding power and global politics – prescribed topic “Framing global politics / Systems and interactions in global politics”.