IB DP Global Politics – Core topic – Theoretical perspectives 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 “Theoretical perspectives in global politics” for IB Diploma Programme Global Politics, at both SL and HL. It follows the IB Diploma Programme Global politics guide (first assessment 2026, published February 2024), the course examined from the May 2026 session onwards.

Revise first with the study guide and revision notes. Course links: IB DP Global Politics hub and printable checklist.

The [1] points below are a revision aid. Real extended answers are marked against the IB markbands on a best-fit basis, not point by point. All states in the sources are fictional.

Questions

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. Speech by the defence minister of Norland, a fictional state.

“No one will come to save us. Our neighbour Kessia has doubled its missile stock in five years. Whatever Kessia says about defence, we must judge those missiles by what they can do. Trade with Kessia has made both of us richer, but it also means Kessia could cut our gas supply in a crisis. We will buy gas elsewhere, even at a higher price, and we will strengthen our army. Treaties are useful only while they serve our interests.”

Source B – original text written for Marlbridge. Statement by the Southern Rivers Community, a fictional regional trade body.

“Since our members agreed a common tariff and a court to settle trade disputes, trade between them has grown and no member has left. Every member gains, even if some gain more than others. Because rulings are published, a member that breaks the rules loses the trust of all the others. Our ministers now meet monthly, and officials in each capital know their counterparts by name. War between us has become unthinkable.”

1. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Identify three features of Source A that show realist reasoning. [3]

2. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Explain the claim in Source B that “every member gains, even if some gain more than others”, using liberal theory. [4]

3. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Compare and contrast how Sources A and B view economic interdependence. [5]

4. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Using Sources A and B and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that interdependence makes conflict between states less likely. [8]

5. (Paper 1 skills – short answer) Distinguish between a theory and a model in global politics. [2]

6. (Paper 1 skills – short answer) Define the security dilemma and illustrate it with reference to Source A. [3]

7. (Paper 1 skills – short answer)

(a) Outline how feminist perspectives widen the meaning of security. [2] (b) Explain how UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) reflects feminist ideas. [2]

Source C – original text written for Marlbridge. Ardenia and Belmar, two fictional states, fought a border war twenty years ago over a shared river. Today a joint commission manages the river. School history textbooks in both states now call the other a “partner”. Both armies still patrol the border.

8. (Paper 1 style – source-based) Explain how realism and social constructivism would each account for the peace described in Source C. [6]

9. (Paper 2 style – essay) To what extent does realism explain how states respond to global health crises? [12]

10. (Paper 2 style – essay) “Critical theories offer more insight than realism and liberalism into the legitimacy of global governance.” Discuss. [12]

Answers

1. “No one will come to save us” shows self-help under anarchy [1]. Judging the missiles by what they can do, not by Kessia’s words, shows a focus on capabilities over stated intentions [1]. Treaties “useful only while they serve our interests” shows the national interest coming before commitments [1]. [3] Examiner insight: An “identify” question is AO1, so each mark needs a feature pointed to in the source; general definitions of realism with no reference to the text do not score.

2. Liberals hold that states judge a deal by their own absolute gains [1]. Realists, by contrast, fear a partner gaining more (relative gains) [1]. Source B’s court and published rulings share information and make cheating costly [1]. Repeated trade deepens complex interdependence, so cooperation survives uneven gains [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “Explain” is AO2 and needs reasons, not just the term; naming “absolute gains” without saying why it makes cooperation possible earns only part of the credit.

3. Both accept that trade has brought economic gains [1]. Source A treats interdependence as a vulnerability (the gas supply), while Source B treats it as a bond [1]. Source A sees rules as instrumental, while Source B sees a court and published rulings as building trust [1]. Source A responds by arming; Source B calls war “unthinkable” [1]. Overall, A reasons like a realist and B like a liberal [1]. [5] Examiner insight: The guide expects a detailed running comparison for the highest marks, so each point should refer to both sources in the same sentence rather than describing A and then B.

4. Source B supports the claim: trade has grown and no member has left [1]. Liberals say interdependence raises the cost of war [1]. Source A challenges it: Norland sees trade as leverage for Kessia and arms [1]. Realists say dependence can be used as a weapon [1]. Own knowledge: Europe’s reliance on Russian gas did not prevent Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 [1]. Own knowledge: EU integration has bound former enemies such as France and Germany into shared institutions [1]. Constructivist point: Source B’s monthly meetings suggest trust, not trade alone, sustains its peace [1]. Judgement: interdependence reduces conflict when balanced and institutionalised, but lopsided dependence between rivals can raise tension [1]. [8] Examiner insight: The top band needs synthesis of sources with own knowledge; an answer using only the sources cannot show integrated examples.

5. A theory is a set of linked assumptions that tries to explain why political actors behave as they do (e.g. realism) [1]. A model is a simplified set of categories that describes or sorts one part of politics without a full explanation, such as the hard, soft and smart power classification [1]. [2] Examiner insight: “Distinguish” asks for the difference to be made clear; two separate definitions with no contrast in the wording usually earn only one mark.

6. The security dilemma arises when one state’s measures to feel safer make others feel less safe [1]. Unsure of each other’s intentions, they arm too [1]. In Source A, Norland answers Kessia’s missiles by strengthening its army, which Kessia may read as a threat, so both end up less secure [1]. [3] Examiner insight: When a question says “with reference to Source A”, the illustration mark depends on using the source’s details; a textbook example from elsewhere does not meet the demand.

7. (a) Feminist perspectives move the focus from the security of the state to the security of people, including harms in daily life [1]. They include gender-based violence, economic insecurity and the effects of conflict on those who are not combatants [1]. (b) The resolution recognises that conflict affects women and girls in particular ways [1]. It calls for women’s participation in peace processes, reflecting the feminist argument that excluding women weakens peace and its legitimacy [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Part (b) needs the link between the resolution and a feminist idea; describing the resolution alone answers “describe”, not “explain”.

8. Realism: peace rests on deterrence – both armies still patrol [1]. The commission serves each state’s interest in water and may collapse if the balance of power shifts [1]. Constructivism: identities have changed, as textbooks now say “partner” [1]. Repeated cooperation built shared norms, so anarchy now means something different between them [1]. Evaluation: realism explains the patrols; constructivism explains twenty years without war [1]. Limit: textbooks show official views, not necessarily popular ones [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Both perspectives must be applied to details in Source C; an answer that explains realism well but treats constructivism in one line will not reach full credit.

9. Model plan (indicative points): Introduction: realism assumes anarchy, self-help and national interest [1]. Scope: COVID-19, with sovereignty as the key concept [1]. For realism: several states restricted exports of vaccines or medical supplies [1]. Border closures asserted sovereign control [1]. Some states used vaccine donations to build influence abroad [1]. Against realism: the COVAX facility, launched in 2020, pooled funding to share vaccines – a liberal institution softening self-help [1]. The virus’s genetic sequence was shared publicly in January 2020 [1]. Constructivist point: the International Health Regulations (2005) set a norm that states report outbreaks [1]. Postcolonial and feminist points: lower-income states waited longest; women form a large share of health and care workers [1]. Evaluation: realism explains the first reactions well [1]. It overlooks non-state actors such as drug companies and vaccine alliances [1]. Conclusion: realism explains much of the early response but not the lasting cooperation, so it explains only to a limited extent [1]. [12] Examiner insight: “To what extent” requires a clear judgement supported by evidence; an essay that only lists realist and liberal points with no weighed conclusion cannot show claims that are justified and evaluated.

10. Model plan (indicative points): Introduction: legitimacy as acceptance of an actor or action; global governance as rule-making without a world government [1]. Critical theories here: postcolonialism, feminism and social constructivism [1]. For the claim: postcolonialism shows Security Council vetoes reflect a 1945 hierarchy [1]. It notes the convention that a European heads the IMF and an American the World Bank [1]. Feminism shows women’s under-representation in peace talks, which Resolution 1325 addresses [1]. Constructivism shows legitimacy is shared belief: the Responsibility to Protect became more contested after critics argued the 2011 Libya intervention went beyond protecting civilians [1]. Against the claim: liberals say legitimacy also comes from consent and results – developing states use WTO dispute settlement against larger economies [1]. Realists say legitimacy follows power: since 2019 the WTO Appellate Body cannot hear appeals because the United States blocked appointments [1]. Evaluation: critical theories are strongest on whose voice is missing (input legitimacy) [1]. Realism better explains why institutions survive despite weak legitimacy [1]. Critical theories are less precise at prescribing reform, and they disagree among themselves [1]. Conclusion: they offer more insight into why legitimacy is contested, less into how governance still functions [1]. [12] Examiner insight: “Discuss” asks for a balanced review of a range of arguments; defending only the claim keeps an essay below the top band.

Where marks are usually lost

• Labelling a source “realist” without quoting or pointing to the words that show it.
• In compare-and-contrast answers, writing about one source and then the other with no running link.
• Defining theories at length but never applying them to the case or source.
• Using theory without naming the key concept it explains (power, sovereignty, legitimacy, interdependence).
• Giving critical theories one line each, so the “diverse perspectives” are identified but not explored.
• Stating a theory’s claim as a fact rather than as an argument that can be challenged.
• Ending an essay with no judgement on “to what extent” or “discuss”.

Next steps

• Revision notes for this topic
• Study guide for this topic
• Assessment revision notes and exam preparation guide
• More essay practice: peace and conflict practice and rights and justice practice
• IB DP Global Politics hub and printable checklist
• Try 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 “Theoretical perspectives in global politics”.