IB Global Politics HL common mistakes
IB Global Politics HL · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In Paper 2 essay answers, candidates write a general essay on the topic (e.g. 'human rights are important') and never anchor it to the named case study or the specific stimulus, so the response could have been written without reading the question.
Under time pressure candidates fall back on memorised content and rehearsed definitions, treating the question as a prompt to display knowledge rather than to apply a concept to a real case; they also fear that a specific case is 'risky' if details are uncertain.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the concept, the context and the instruction verb, then write a one-sentence thesis that names the case (e.g. 'the EU's response to the 2015–16 migration crisis shows sovereignty being pooled rather than surrendered'). Make every body paragraph open with a claim plus a named actor, date and event, and close each paragraph by linking back to the thesis. Practise by taking past-paper questions and, in five minutes, drafting only the thesis and three case-specific topic sentences.
Candidates describe events narratively ('in 2011 NATO intervened in Libya, then Gaddafi fell...') without ever using the concepts of power, legitimacy or sovereignty to analyse why the outcome occurred or what it reveals.
Case knowledge is easier to memorise as a story than as an analytical claim, and candidates confuse 'showing I know the case' with 'using the case as evidence'. Many have never been shown the difference between description and analysis in a model paragraph.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed paragraph template: claim - evidence (named case) - analytical move (which concept, which theory, what it explains) - counterpoint - mini-conclusion. After each case sentence, force yourself to write 'this shows that...' or 'this matters because...' and delete any sentence that only adds chronology. Ask a peer to mark each sentence D (descriptive) or A (analytical) and aim for at least as many A as D.
In the human rights unit, candidates treat rights as absolute and universal without engaging the universality-versus-cultural-relativity debate, or they assert relativism without evidence, so evaluation marks are lost.
Textbook definitions of universalism are learned first and are rhetorically attractive, so the counter-argument is underprepared; candidates also lack concrete cases (e.g. reservations to CEDAW, debates over the Cairo Declaration, LGBT rights at the UN Human Rights Council) to make the relativist case empirically.
What to do instead
Prepare a two-column table of arguments for universalism and for cultural relativism, each with a named case and a named actor (state, UN body or NGO). In essays, deliberately give the weaker side a paragraph of its strongest form before rebutting it. Rehearse the sentence pattern 'X is not a rejection of universality but a claim about who authorises rights, as shown by...'.
Candidates conflate development with economic growth alone, quoting GDP or GNI figures and treating them as proof of development, without using multidimensional measures or discussing who is excluded from growth.
GDP is the easiest indicator to remember and is often the only figure candidates have to hand; the syllabus's emphasis on multidimensional measures such as the HDI, GII and MPI is under-revised, and inequality and sustainability dimensions are treated as optional extras.
What to do instead
Build a one-page indicator sheet: GDP/GNI per capita, HDI, GII, MPI, Gini coefficient and at least one environmental measure, each with what it captures and what it misses. In any development essay, pair every growth claim with a distributional or capability claim, and explicitly use at least one non-income indicator as evidence. Practise writing a paragraph that shows growth rising while an HDI component stalls.
In the peace and conflict unit, candidates label a conflict 'a civil war' or 'an interstate war' and stop there, without analysing the type of conflict, its causes (grievance, greed, identity, structural factors) or the type and effectiveness of intervention.
Classification feels like analysis, and candidates often know one conflict in depth but cannot compare it to another type; causes and intervention outcomes are also the parts of the syllabus that require the most up-to-date evidence.
What to do instead
For each conflict case, prepare a grid: type (interstate, intrastate, intrastate with external involvement, 'new war'), stated and underlying causes, key actors including non-state armed groups, intervention type (peacekeeping, peace enforcement, humanitarian, sanctions) and outcome with a date. In essays, compare at least two conflicts of different types to show that the classification changes the analysis of intervention.
Candidates describe their HL engagement activity (a protest, a petition, a school campaign, a volunteering project) as a diary of what they did, without linking it to the political engagement concepts of participation, citizenship, power, legitimacy or apathy.
The activity feels personal and candidates assume the reflection is about sincerity and effort; they have not been taught to treat their own experience as a case study to be analysed with the same concepts as any other political actor.
What to do instead
Keep a running log during the activity with two columns: 'what happened' and 'which concept this illustrates'. In the written reflection, structure it as claim - evidence from your activity - concept - evaluation of your own effectiveness and limits. Explicitly use at least three syllabus concepts (e.g. conventional versus unconventional participation, political efficacy, legitimacy) and one counter-argument about why your activity may not have changed anything.
Candidates use evidence that is out of date or unverifiable - quoting 'recently' or 'many people believe', citing a statistic from memory with no source, or relying on a case that has since changed (e.g. describing a country's membership or a conflict's status as it was several years ago).
Revision notes are copied forward year after year, and candidates are not in the habit of dating their evidence; the pressure of the exam also encourages vague attribution because a precise claim feels riskier than a hedged one.
What to do instead
Maintain a case-study bank in which every entry has a date, an actor and a source (UN agency, court, reputable news outlet or academic). Before the exam, check the current status of every case you plan to use. In the exam, write dates explicitly ('in 2023...') and use hedged but precise phrasing ('UNHCR reported that...') rather than 'many people think'. If you cannot date a claim, cut it.
Candidates ignore the command term and the mark allocation - writing a 'discuss' answer as a one-sided description, or spending equal time on a low-mark question and a high-mark evaluation question.
Candidates read the topic words and stop, and under time pressure they start writing immediately; many have never analysed the difference between 'describe', 'explain', 'analyse' and 'evaluate' in terms of what the mark scheme rewards.
What to do instead
Before writing, annotate the command term and write the required cognitive operation in the margin ('evaluate = judgement plus criteria plus counter-argument'). Allocate minutes in proportion to marks and stick to it. For 'evaluate' and 'discuss', plan at least one explicit counter-argument and a concluding judgement that states the criteria on which the judgement rests.
Candidates write about states and institutions only, omitting non-state actors - NGOs, transnational corporations, terrorist and insurgent groups, international organisations, social movements - even when the question concerns power or sovereignty.
The state-centric framing of introductory textbooks and news coverage dominates candidates' mental model, and non-state actors are learned as a list of examples rather than as actors with identifiable forms of power.
What to do instead
For every topic, ask 'who else acts here?' and name at least one non-state actor with a specific action and date (e.g. an NGO's litigation, a corporation's supply-chain decision, a social movement's mobilisation). In power essays, use a typology (hard, soft, smart, structural power) and show which type each actor exercises. Build a list of five non-state actors per unit with one concrete action each.
Candidates treat 'sovereignty' as a single fixed idea, so they cannot explain pooling, delegation, humanitarian intervention, contested borders or secession, and their answers contradict themselves (e.g. claiming sovereignty is absolute while describing EU membership).
The definition learned first ('supreme authority within a territory') is presented as settled, and the distinction between legal, Westphalian, internal and popular sovereignty, and between de jure and de facto authority, is rarely made explicit.
What to do instead
Prepare a short taxonomy of sovereignty (legal, Westphalian, internal, popular/external) with one example of each being exercised, pooled or contested. In essays, state which sense of sovereignty you are using in the thesis and keep it consistent. Rehearse the argument that pooling sovereignty can be a strategy for gaining influence rather than a loss of it, using a named case with dates.