IB DP Global Politics – HL extension – Global political challenges and Paper 3 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 IB Diploma Programme Global Politics HL extension – global political challenges – and Paper 3. 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 is HL only. Questions 1–4 check recall; questions 5–11 train the Paper 3 question types.

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

The real Paper 3 uses question-specific markschemes throughout, plus best-fit markbands for questions 2 and 3. The [1] points below are a revision aid, not IB marks.

Questions

1. (Paper 3 preparation, HL – recall) List the eight HL topic areas named in the guide. [2]

2. (Paper 3 preparation, HL – recall) Outline the HL extension’s minimum research requirement and the two suggested ways to start an inquiry. [3]

3. (Paper 3 preparation, HL) Distinguish between the role of a source in Paper 1 and the role of the stimulus in Paper 3. [3]

4. (Paper 3 preparation, HL) Explain one way the guide suggests linking a thematic study to an HL topic area. [3]

5. (Paper 3 style, HL) Read Source A.

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. The Lakeland Basin is shared by two fictional states: Norland (upstream) and Estavia (downstream).

	2015	2025
Water withdrawn by Norland (million m³ per year)	420	610
Water withdrawn by Estavia (million m³ per year)	380	390
Lake surface area (km²)	1,250	980

Norland says the extra water irrigates farms that feed its growing population. Estavian fishing towns report falling catches. Estavia’s government now calls the withdrawals “a threat to national security”.

Using Source A, analyse how the situation connects more than one global political challenge. [3]

6. (Paper 3 style, HL) With reference to a researched case study, analyse a political issue raised by sharing a cross-border resource. [4]

7. (Paper 3 style, HL) Recommend one course of action to address the political issue you analysed in question 6. [6]

8. (Paper 3 style, HL) “Global political challenges are best addressed by states rather than by intergovernmental organizations.” To what extent do you agree? Refer to at least two researched case studies from different HL topic areas. [15]

9. (Paper 3 style, HL) Read Source B.

Source B – original text written for Marlbridge. The council of Marrow, a fictional city, has installed facial-recognition cameras in its central market after a run of thefts. The council says recorded crime there fell in the first six months. A residents’ association says minority-community stall-holders are stopped far more often than others, and asks who stores the images, and for how long.

Using Source B, explain how the situation links the HL topic areas of technology, security and equality. [3]

10. (Paper 3 style, HL) Recommend a course of action for the council of Marrow, supported by evidence from beyond the source. [6]

11. (Paper 3 style, HL) To what extent does the interconnection of global political challenges make them harder to address? Refer to at least two researched case studies from different HL topic areas. [15]

Answers

1. Any four of: borders, environment, equality, health, identity, poverty, security, technology [1]. All eight correct [1]. [2] Examiner insight: List wants brief items with no explanation; paragraphs earn nothing extra.

2. At least two case studies [1] and at least two topic areas [1]. Start from a topic area and find a case, or start from a case and link it to topic areas [1]. [3] Examiner insight: “Two case studies” alone misses the topic-area half of the minimum.

3. In Paper 1 you identify, analyse or explain the information and claims in the source itself [1]. In Paper 3 the stimulus mainly focuses you on a topic or item, or opens a discussion [1]. So in Paper 3 most of your evidence must come from the case studies you researched, not from the stimulus [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Distinguish needs an explicit contrast; describing each paper separately loses the comparative mark.

4. The guide suggests expanding a prescribed topic, for example treating environmental rights as part of human rights [1]. This links the rights and justice thematic study to the environment topic area [1]. A case such as the Cape Town drought can then be analysed as fair access to water, a right the UN General Assembly recognised in 2010 [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Explain needs a reason or effect; naming the link without showing its use stops at two marks.

5. Total withdrawals rose from 800 to 1,000 million m³ (25%), Norland accounts for 190 of the 200 million m³ increase (95%), and the lake shrank by 270 km² (21.6%) [1]. Estavia calls this a national security threat, so an environmental change has been reframed as a security issue between two sovereign states [1]. Costs fall on downstream fishing towns and gains go to upstream farms, so the border splits who benefits from who pays (borders, poverty, interdependence) [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Question 1 uses an analytical markscheme, so three distinct points tied to the stimulus beat one general paragraph.

6. The issue: does an upstream state’s sovereign right to develop a river outweigh downstream claims to water they have relied on? Case: the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile [1]. Ethiopia began building it in 2011. Egypt and Sudan are downstream, and Egypt’s claim rests partly on its 1959 agreement with Sudan, which Ethiopia did not sign [1]. Ethiopia frames the dam as development and sovereign choice; Egypt frames it as water security, so each side claims a different source of legitimacy [1]. The 2015 Declaration of Principles set no binding operating rules, and filling began in 2020 without a full agreement: interdependence with no enforcer [1]. [4] Examiner insight: The 3–4 band needs clear analysis plus accurate context; a date-order story of the dam stays in 1–2.

7. Recommendation: a permanent tripartite technical commission that shares river-flow data and agrees release rules for drought years [1]. Actor: the three governments, as only they can consent to limits on their sovereignty, with the African Union, which has facilitated talks, as convenor [1]. Evidence: the Mekong River Commission (1995) shows data sharing can work, but is weaker because the main upstream state, China, stays outside as a dialogue partner, so Ethiopia must be a full member [1]. Challenge: Egypt may accept nothing short of guaranteed volumes, while Ethiopia may see release rules as outside control [1]. Unintended consequence: fixed drought rules could cut Ethiopia’s electricity output and give it a reason to defect [1]. Mitigation: start with data sharing, then add release rules with a review clause [1]. [6] Examiner insight: The 5–6 band requires challenges, implications or unintended consequences; with no downside considered, 4 is the ceiling.

8. Model plan. Define: states hold sovereign authority and enforcement; IGOs coordinate and pool resources [1]. Claim: states usually decide outcomes because they control law, money and force [1]. Case A (environment): in the Cape Town drought, a 50-litre daily limit from February 2018 cut demand and Day Zero never came [1]. Performance-based legitimacy and local knowledge worked without an IGO [1]. Case B (health): in Liberia’s 2014 Ebola outbreak the state was weak, and the August 2014 West Point quarantine led to clashes [1]. The WHO declared a public health emergency of international concern in August 2014; the UN created UNMEER in September 2014 [1]. The WHO’s early response was widely criticised as slow [1]. Epidemics cross borders, so one state alone is not enough [1]. Realist view: IGOs depend on state consent and funding [1]. Liberal view: IGOs cut the costs of cooperation [1]. Case C: African Union facilitation on the GERD has not produced a binding deal [1]. Synthesis: it depends on whether the challenge crosses borders and on state capacity [1]. Counter: the split is false, as IGOs act through states [1]. Evaluate: Cape Town’s recovery also depended on rain [1]. Judgement: states are necessary but rarely sufficient for cross-border challenges [1]. [15] Examiner insight: The 13–15 band needs claims and perspectives evaluated, so two narratives with no judgement stay in the middle bands.

9. Technology gives the council a new form of surveillance power over public space [1]. The council justifies it on security grounds (fewer thefts), which creates a tension between collective security and individual privacy [1]. The reported extra stops of minority stall-holders suggest the technology may reproduce inequality, and the unanswered question of who stores images raises accountability and legitimacy concerns [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Each named topic area needs its own point; skipping the minority stall-holders loses the equality mark.

10. Recommendation: suspend live identification; keep cameras only under a published policy with an image-retention limit and an oversight panel including minority-community members [1]. Actor: the council has this authority, and a representative panel adds legitimacy [1]. Evidence: the EU’s AI Act (2024) restricts real-time remote biometric identification by police in public spaces except in narrow cases, showing a major regional body judged the risks serious [1]. Publishing stop data by group lets the residents’ claim of bias be tested, which addresses the equality concern directly [1]. Challenge: the council may argue thefts will rise [1]. Unintended consequence: theft could move to streets without cameras, so review after a fixed period [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Recommend requires supporting evidence; a proposal with no similar case, law or data stays in the adequate band at best.

11. Model plan. Define interconnection: challenges that overlap and feed each other [1]. Claim: it multiplies the actors and interests involved [1]. Case A (equality, identity, borders): Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law left most Rohingya without citizenship [1]. Military operations in 2017 drove hundreds of thousands into Bangladesh [1]. Identity, security and poverty now reinforce each other, and return has stalled [1]. The Gambia’s 2019 ICJ case against Myanmar is a legal route, but slow [1]. Case B (health, security, poverty): Liberia’s Ebola outbreak met a weak health system, and a security-led quarantine backfired [1]. Counter: linking health to security brought resources, including UNMEER and foreign military logistics [1]. Community involvement in safe burials helped cut transmission [1]. Compare: Ebola had a clear shared goal; the Rohingya case needs identity politics to change [1]. Securitisation can speed action but may override rights [1]. Liberals see overlapping institutions as helpful; realists see states putting interest first [1]. Evaluate: political will may matter more than interconnection itself [1]. Limitation: two cases cannot prove a general rule [1]. Judgement: much harder when identity and sovereignty are involved, less so when actors share a clear goal [1]. [15] Examiner insight: Question 3 rewards synthesis of researched cases, so describing two cases without comparing how each was addressed cannot reach the top bands.

Where marks are usually lost

• Summarising the stimulus instead of analysing it and linking it to global political challenges.
• Using one case, or two from the same topic area, when the question asks for more.
• Leaving the political issue unnamed at the start of a 2a-style answer.
• Recommendations with no actor able to act, or no supporting evidence.
• Ignoring challenges or unintended consequences in 2b, which caps the answer at 3–4.
• Case detail with no dates, actors or outcomes.
• One-sided question 3 answers with no counter-argument or final judgement.

Next steps

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

Official syllabus

Written to the International Baccalaureate Organization, Diploma Programme Global politics guide, first assessment 2026 (published February 2024): the HL extension and Paper 3 details and markbands.