IB Global Politics: Complete Guide
Syllabus breakdown, paper strategy, and engagement activity guidance for the IB Diploma Global Politics course (SL & HL).
Power & Sovereignty
Unit 1 — Power, Sovereignty & International Relations
The first core unit anchors the whole course: it asks how power is exercised, contested, and legitimized in the international system. The IB expects you to move fluently between theoretical lenses (realism, liberalism, constructivism, critical theory) and contemporary cases. You are not asked to memorize IR theory for its own sake — you are asked to use it to interpret real events.
Key Points
- Key concepts: power, sovereignty, legitimacy, interdependence, the state, non-state actors.
- Distinguish hard, soft, smart, structural, and relational power — and be able to cite examples of each.
- Sovereignty is contested: Westphalian sovereignty, Responsibility to Protect (R2P, 2005 World Summit), and supranational bodies (EU, UN) all complicate it.
- Examiners reward case studies from the last 5–10 years over textbook examples from the Cold War.
States and non-state actors
Map the global system as a layered set of actors: states, IGOs (UN, NATO, ASEAN, AU), MNCs, NGOs, social movements, and violent non-state actors. The IB pushes you to ask which actors hold real power on a given issue, not just which are formally authorized.
Key Points
- IGOs: be precise about mandate (e.g., UNSC = binding under Chapter VII; UNGA = non-binding).
- MNCs: Apple, Amazon, and ExxonMobil have revenues exceeding the GDP of many member states — a structural-power point examiners love.
- NGOs and movements: Amnesty, HRW, Fridays for Future, BLM as examples of agenda-setting power.
- Violent non-state actors: ISIS, Hezbollah, cartels — challenges to the Weberian monopoly on violence.
Legitimacy and global governance
Legitimacy is the unit's quiet center of gravity. The IB wants you to interrogate the gap between legal authority and felt legitimacy — for example, whether the UN Security Council's P5 structure is legitimate in 2026 given that India, Brazil, and the African continent lack permanent seats.
Key Points
- Input vs. output legitimacy (Fritz Scharpf): is the process fair, or are the outcomes good?
- Case: UNSC reform debate, G4 vs. Uniting for Consensus.
- Case: WTO dispute settlement crisis since the US blocked Appellate Body appointments in 2019.
Human Rights
Unit 2 — Human Rights
This unit asks where human rights come from, how they are codified, and who enforces them. Anchor your knowledge in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the two 1966 Covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR), and regional systems (ECHR, IACHR, African Charter).
Key Points
- Generations of rights: civil-political (1st), socio-economic (2nd), solidarity/collective (3rd).
- Universalism vs. cultural relativism — the Bangkok Declaration (1993) is the canonical relativist source.
- Justiciability gap: ICCPR rights are more enforceable than ICESCR rights in most jurisdictions.
Enforcement and contestation
Enforcement is the weak link in the human rights regime. You should be able to explain the difference between treaty bodies (monitoring), special rapporteurs (reporting), and courts (binding). Use specific cases — Al-Skeini v. UK at the ECtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez at the IACHR — rather than generalizations.
Key Points
- ICC jurisdiction: only over states parties to the Rome Statute (1998/2002) or UNSC referral.
- R2P (2005): pillars 1 (state responsibility), 2 (international assistance), 3 (collective response).
- Selectivity critique: why Libya 2011 but not Syria, Yemen, Gaza?
Suggested case studies
Pick two contrasting cases and know them deeply. Examiners reward depth over breadth in Paper 2 essays.
Key Points
- Uyghur detention in Xinjiang — sovereignty vs. R2P, OHCHR August 2022 report.
- Rohingya — ICJ provisional measures case (The Gambia v. Myanmar, 2020).
- LGBTQ+ rights — Yogyakarta Principles, contrast EU and Uganda 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act.
Development
Unit 3 — Development
Development is contested before it is measured. The IB expects you to distinguish economic growth (GDP per capita), human development (HDI, Amartya Sen's capability approach), and sustainable development (Brundtland 1987, SDGs 2015–2030).
Key Points
- HDI components: life expectancy, education (mean + expected years), GNI per capita (PPP).
- Critiques: HDI ignores inequality (IHDI corrects for this), gender (GII), and environment.
- Capability approach: development = expansion of substantive freedoms, not just income.
Factors that promote or inhibit development
You will be asked to weigh competing explanations. Be ready to discuss geography (Sachs, Diamond), institutions (Acemoglu & Robinson's Why Nations Fail, 2012), dependency theory (Prebisch, Wallerstein), and cultural explanations — and to push back on each.
Key Points
- Inclusive vs. extractive institutions (Acemoglu & Robinson; 2024 Nobel in Economics).
- Resource curse: Nigeria, Venezuela, DRC.
- Aid debate: Easterly (skeptic) vs. Sachs (advocate) vs. Moyo (Dead Aid, 2009).
SDGs and global development governance
The 2030 Agenda and its 17 SDGs (193 UN members, adopted September 2015) are essential reference points. The IB likes candidates who can name 2–3 specific SDG targets (e.g., 4.1 universal primary and secondary education, 5.5 women's political participation) rather than just listing goal numbers.
Key Points
- Financing gap: UNCTAD estimated $4 trillion/year shortfall for developing countries in 2023.
- Debt distress: 60% of low-income countries are in or near debt distress (IMF, 2024).
- China's Belt and Road as alternative development finance — contrast with World Bank conditionality.
Peace & Conflict
Unit 4 — Peace and Conflict
Start with Galtung's distinction between negative peace (absence of direct violence) and positive peace (absence of structural violence). Conflict is not always violent; violence is not always physical. The IB explicitly tests this distinction.
Key Points
- Galtung's triangle: direct, structural, cultural violence.
- Conflict types: interstate, intrastate (civil war), internationalized civil war, asymmetric, hybrid.
- Causes: greed vs. grievance (Collier & Hoeffler), security dilemma, identity (Kaldor's new wars).
Conflict resolution and peacebuilding
Move from ceasefire to peace agreement to peacebuilding to reconciliation. Each step has different actors and tools. Be precise about UN peacekeeping mandates — traditional (Chapter VI) vs. robust (Chapter VII).
Key Points
- Track 1, 1.5, and 2 diplomacy — official, semi-official, civil society.
- Transitional justice: trials, truth commissions (South Africa TRC), reparations, lustration.
- DDR: disarmament, demobilization, reintegration of combatants.
Live conflict cases
Have at least three current cases ready: one interstate, one civil, one frozen/protracted. Examiners reward 2024–2026 detail over older examples.
Key Points
- Russia–Ukraine: interstate, post-Budapest Memorandum, ICC arrest warrant for Putin (March 2023).
- Sudan: 2023–present civil war between SAF and RSF — under-reported but examiner-friendly.
- Israel–Palestine: post–October 7 2023, ICJ South Africa v. Israel (provisional measures Jan 2024).
HL Extension
HL extension topics
HL students study two of six extension topics through case studies and produce video presentations on each. The six topics: Environment, Poverty, Health, Identity, Borders, and Security. Pick topics with strong contemporary cases and clear linkages to the core units.
Key Points
- Each HL case must engage at least one core concept (power, sovereignty, human rights, etc.).
- Assessment: two oral presentations (10 minutes each), one on each chosen topic.
- Strong combinations: Environment + Security (climate-conflict nexus); Borders + Identity (migration).
Environment
Focus on climate governance (UNFCCC, Paris Agreement 2015, COP cycle), environmental justice, and the climate-security nexus. The IB rewards engagement with the equity dimension — common but differentiated responsibilities, loss and damage fund (COP27, operationalized COP28).
Key Points
- Paris: NDCs are nationally determined; the 1.5°C target is aspirational, 2°C is the legal anchor.
- Loss and Damage Fund: pledged ~$700M at COP28; small relative to need.
- Climate refugees have no legal status under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Security
Move from traditional (state-centric, military) to human security (UNDP 1994 Human Development Report) to societal and cyber security. The IB wants you to interrogate whose security counts and who decides.
Key Points
- Human security: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, political.
- Securitization theory (Buzan, Wæver, Copenhagen School): security as a speech act.
- Cyber: Stuxnet, SolarWinds, Tallinn Manual 2.0 — international law in cyberspace.
Paper 1 Strategy
Paper 1 format (SL & HL)
Paper 1 is source-based and 1 hour 15 minutes. Four questions, all compulsory, drawn from 3–4 unseen sources covering one of the four core units. Total 25 marks. Time discipline is the single biggest predictor of a 7.
Key Points
- Q1 (4 marks): definition or short knowledge question — 4–5 minutes.
- Q2 (4 marks): explain a source — 6–7 minutes.
- Q3 (8 marks): compare and contrast two sources — 15 minutes.
- Q4 (9 marks): evaluate a claim using sources + own knowledge — 25 minutes.
- Leave 5 minutes to reread Q4 and add an example.
Cracking Q3 (compare and contrast)
Q3 is where most candidates lose marks. Examiners want a running comparison — not two separate summaries followed by a one-line 'they differ.' Use comparative connectives in every paragraph: similarly, by contrast, whereas, both, neither.
Key Points
- Aim for 3 points of similarity and 3 of difference, each cross-referenced to both sources.
- Quote sparingly — examiners want analysis, not extraction.
- Address tone and perspective, not just content.
Q4: evaluation with own knowledge
Q4 demands a thesis, source integration, and external examples. Treat it as a mini-essay: introduction with a clear stance, 2–3 body paragraphs each pulling from at least one source plus one outside case, and a conclusion that returns to the thesis.
Key Points
- Use at least two sources by name (Source A, Source C) in your answer.
- Bring in one outside case — current, specific, and verifiable.
- Engage counterarguments explicitly: 'A realist would object...'
Paper 2 Strategy
Paper 2 format
Paper 2 is extended-response essays. SL: 1h 45m, answer two essays from a choice of eight. HL: 2h 45m, answer three essays from a choice of eight. Each essay is marked out of 25 against four criteria (A: understanding, B: analysis, C: synthesis & evaluation, D: examples). Total 50 (SL) or 75 (HL) marks.
Key Points
- Choose questions where you have at least two well-developed case studies ready.
- Spend 5 minutes planning before writing — examiners can tell.
- Aim for 800–1,000 words per essay at HL pace.
A high-scoring essay structure
The IB rewards a clear thesis defended through structured argument. Introduce with definitions and stance, then 3–4 body paragraphs each making one argument with a case study, then a conclusion that handles the strongest counter-position.
Key Points
- Define every concept in the question in the first paragraph — sovereignty, legitimacy, development, etc.
- Each body paragraph: claim → reasoning → case → mini-evaluation.
- Avoid the 'on one hand / on the other' essay — examiners call this 'fence-sitting' and cap marks.
Stock of examples to prepare
Build a personal example bank of ~12 cases — three per core unit — that you can deploy flexibly. Each case should have: a one-sentence summary, two relevant concepts it illustrates, and one critical evaluation.
Key Points
- Bias toward 2022–2026 cases: Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, climate finance, AI governance.
- Include at least one African and one Latin American case — avoids Eurocentric framing.
- Have one 'flexible' case (e.g., Rwanda) that works across rights, development, and conflict.
Engagement Activity
What the Engagement Activity is
The EA is the internal assessment: a 2,000-word written report on a political issue you have engaged with through a real organization or community over an extended period. It is worth 20% (SL) or 25% (HL) of your final grade and is the easiest place to bank marks before exams.
Key Points
- Word limit: 2,000 words — examiners stop reading after that.
- Must include sustained engagement (months, not a single afternoon).
- Must integrate course concepts explicitly — at least 3–4 from the core units.
Choosing an issue and partner
Pick an issue narrow enough to investigate in depth and a partner organization willing to give you genuine access. Examiners reward students who clearly worked with — not just observed — an organization.
Key Points
- Good: volunteering with a local refugee resettlement NGO and analyzing integration policy.
- Weak: 'researching climate change' with no partner organization.
- Stay local where possible — easier evidence, richer engagement.
Report structure and assessment
The EA is marked against four criteria: A (issue & engagement, 4 marks), B (explanation & analysis, 8 marks), C (other perspectives & complexity, 6 marks), D (synthesis & evaluation, 4 marks). Total 22 marks. Structure the report to address each criterion in turn.
Key Points
- Introduction: state the political issue, your engagement, and your guiding question.
- Analysis: link to specific course concepts and theoretical perspectives.
- Multiple perspectives: present at least two competing views grounded in your engagement.
- Conclusion: a reasoned evaluation, not a personal opinion essay.
Continue learning
Explore related MUN guides to deepen your skills.