IB DP Global Politics: Rights and Justice -- Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions – the IB holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or the IB store.

Related: Rights and Justice study guide and revision notes.

---

Section A

1. State the four core concepts every thematic study in this course is examined through. [4]

2. Name the three compulsory thematic studies of IB DP Global Politics. [3]

3. Explain, in one or two sentences, the tension “sovereignty” creates specifically for rights issues. [2]

---

Section B

4. A civil society organisation campaigns against a state’s treatment of a minority group. The state argues that how it treats its own citizens is an internal matter and rejects outside criticism.

(a) Identify which of the four core concepts is most directly at stake in the state’s argument, and explain why. [3] (b) Explain how “interdependence” could still apply to this situation, despite the state’s claim that it is a purely internal matter. [4]

5. Two states disagree publicly over whether a third state’s detention of political prisoners violates international human rights law, with one state defending the practice and the other condemning it.

(a) Identify which core concept best captures this disagreement, and explain your choice. [3] (b) Suggest one reason why international institutions might struggle to resolve this kind of disagreement decisively. [3]

---

Section C

6. “Sovereignty will always limit how effectively international human rights law can be enforced.” Using named examples, discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement. [10]

7. Explain how a student might use the engagement project to explore a Rights and Justice issue, and how the four core concepts could structure the analysis in their written report. [6]

---

Worked answers

1. Power, sovereignty, legitimacy and interdependence. [4]

2. Rights and justice, Peace and conflict, and Development and sustainability. [3]

3. Sovereignty gives a state the claimed authority to determine how rights are handled within its own borders, but this can conflict directly with universal or international human rights claims that argue certain rights should be protected regardless of a state’s internal position. [2]

4. (a) Sovereignty is most directly at stake, because the state is explicitly claiming exclusive authority to handle the treatment of its own citizens internally, and using that claim to reject external involvement. [3] (b) Even though the state frames the issue as purely internal, interdependence can still apply because the treatment of the minority group may create pressure on other states or international bodies to respond (through diplomatic statements, sanctions, or referral to an international court), may affect regional stability if the minority group has ties across a border, or may draw in international human rights law and institutions that the state has previously signed up to, creating a further layer of external obligation regardless of the state’s sovereignty claim. [4]

5. (a) Legitimacy best captures this disagreement, since the core dispute is not about who holds the power to detain the prisoners (the third state clearly does) but about whether that state’s practice is widely accepted as valid, or condemned as illegitimate, by other states and institutions. [3] (b) Any reasonable answer, for example: international institutions typically rely on member states’ cooperation and consent to act, so a divided response among powerful states can block a decisive resolution; or institutions may lack effective enforcement mechanisms against a state that refuses to comply, meaning a legitimacy judgment does not automatically translate into a change in the state’s behaviour. [3]

6. A strong answer takes a clear position and supports it with named, specific examples rather than describing sovereignty and human rights law only in the abstract. Evidence for the statement might include an example where a state has resisted international human rights findings or refused to cooperate with an international court, citing sovereign authority over its own internal affairs – illustrating how sovereignty can genuinely block enforcement even where legitimacy (wide international acceptance that a violation occurred) is high. Evidence against, or limiting, the statement might include an example where international pressure, sanctions, or reputational costs have led a state to change a rights-related policy despite initially claiming sovereign authority over the matter – illustrating that sovereignty is a real constraint but not always an absolute one, since interdependence (economic ties, alliance relationships, reputational concerns) can still create effective pressure. The strongest answers explicitly weigh these named examples against each other and reach a substantiated conclusion, for example that sovereignty limits the speed and directness of enforcement more consistently than it prevents any external influence at all, rather than simply listing examples under each heading and stopping. [10]

7. A student might engage directly with a local rights campaign, a legal case, or an advocacy organisation’s work relevant to a specific rights issue – for example, volunteering with an organisation supporting a particular group’s rights, or following a live legal case closely enough to interview someone involved. In the written report, the four core concepts can structure the analysis of the issue itself: which actors hold power to define or enforce the right in question; whether sovereignty or international authority is contested in the case; whether the position taken by the relevant actors is seen as legitimate; and how the issue connects to interdependence, for example through wider advocacy networks or international attention. Using the same four concepts that structure the taught thematic study gives the engagement project’s analysis a clear, examinable structure, and demonstrates the kind of consistency between personal engagement and course content that strengthens the analytical depth examiners look for. [6]

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Diploma Programme Subject Brief – Individuals and Societies: Global Politics, first assessment 2026, (c) 2023 – the same source cited by the study guide and revision notes. Verified 2026-09-06.