IB Global Politics SL common mistakes
IB Global Politics SL · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In Paper 1, the candidate describes what each of the four sources says in turn and never compares them or links them to a concept such as power, sovereignty or legitimacy.
The source-based paper rewards synthesis, but the four-source format invites a source-by-source summary, and candidates treat 'comprehension' as the whole task rather than a starting point.
What to do instead
Before writing, annotate each source with the concept it speaks to and one point of agreement or tension with another source. Build each paragraph around a claim ('Sources A and C both show hard power, but disagree on its legitimacy') and cite sources inside the argument rather than describing them separately.
The candidate defines a key concept once in the introduction (for example 'power is the ability to influence others') and then never returns to it, so the essay could have been written without the concept.
Candidates memorise a definition and treat it as a box to tick, not realising that the assessment criteria reward sustained conceptual analysis across the whole response.
What to do instead
After drafting, highlight every paragraph that mentions the concept. If fewer than half do, rewrite topic sentences so each one names a dimension of the concept (hard vs soft power, structural power, relational power) and applies it to the specific case.
When asked to evaluate a claim such as 'state sovereignty is being eroded by globalisation', the candidate lists examples of globalisation and never argues whether sovereignty is actually reduced, leaving no judgement until a one-line conclusion.
Command terms like 'evaluate' and 'to what extent' are read as 'describe a lot', and candidates run out of time before reaching the evaluative part.
What to do instead
Plan with a two-column table: evidence that sovereignty is eroded versus evidence it is reasserted (border controls, renegotiated treaties, sovereignty over data). Write a mini-judgement at the end of each body paragraph and make the conclusion state a position with a criterion for that position.
In the human rights topic, the candidate asserts that a treaty 'protects' a right without naming the instrument or explaining the enforcement mechanism, and treats ratification as equivalent to enjoyment of the right.
Candidates learn instruments as a list and do not distinguish legal obligation, monitoring, and actual compliance, which are the analytical distinctions the questions target.
What to do instead
For each right discussed, write a three-part chain: instrument (which treaty or declaration), mechanism (committee, court, special rapporteur, universal periodic review), and outcome (reservation, non-compliance, domestic court ruling). Use a real case to show the gap between obligation and practice.
The candidate treats 'development' as synonymous with economic growth, quoting GDP or GDP per capita as the sole indicator and ignoring multidimensional measures or the politics of who benefits.
GDP is the easiest figure to recall and is heavily used in media, so it crowds out the Human Development Index, Gini coefficient, and gendered or colonial critiques that the course foregrounds.
What to do instead
For every development claim, pair a growth indicator with at least one distributional or capability indicator, and state what each hides. Add one sentence naming a theoretical lens (modernisation, dependency, post-development) and what it would say about the same evidence.
In peace and conflict questions, the candidate describes a conflict's chronology and casualties but never analyses causes, the nature of the conflict (intrastate, interstate, asymmetric), or why a peace agreement failed.
Narrative is easier to write than analysis, and dramatic events feel like they earn marks, so the response becomes a history summary.
What to do instead
Structure the response around analytical categories from the course: grievance versus greed, identity, resources, weak state institutions, and the conflict's level of analysis (individual, state, system). Use chronology only as evidence inside those categories, and always evaluate one peacebuilding or intervention attempt.
The candidate's engagement activity is a one-off act (a single donation, petition signature, or awareness post) and the written report cannot show sustained participation, research, or evidence of political efficacy.
Candidates choose something quick to guarantee completion, not realising the report must demonstrate genuine political engagement and reflection on its effectiveness.
What to do instead
Choose an activity with a defined issue, identifiable actors and a measurable outcome (a campaign meeting with a representative, a school policy proposal, a sustained local project). Keep dated evidence logs from the start and record what changed, what did not, and why.
The internal assessment report spends most of its words describing what the candidate did, with only a sentence or two on why the engagement mattered politically or what it reveals about power, citizenship or change.
Reflection is often left to the end and written in a rush, and candidates confuse describing activities with analysing them.
What to do instead
Reserve roughly a third of the report for analysis and write it against explicit prompts: what type of power was used, who held influence, what constrained the outcome, what this shows about how change happens. Link back to course concepts by name.
The candidate's examples are vague or outdated placeholders such as 'some countries' or a crisis from a decade ago presented as current, with no dates, actors or figures.
Candidates fear getting details wrong, or rely on case studies learned early in the course and never update them.
What to do instead
Maintain a case-study bank of eight to ten contemporary examples, each with date, key actors, one statistic and one source. Verify figures before the exam and drop any example you cannot date or attribute; a precise small case beats a vague global claim.
In the engagement activity, the candidate picks a topic they already have strong opinions about and writes a report that advocates rather than examines, omitting evidence that contradicted their position or any limitation of their activity.
Personal commitment drives the choice, and reflection feels like admitting failure, so candidates present a success story instead of an inquiry.
What to do instead
Include a dedicated paragraph on counter-evidence and limitations: what did not work, whose voices were excluded, what an opponent would say. Frame the report as an investigation of political engagement, not a defence of the candidate's campaign.