Common mistakes · Global Politics · 7 min read
IB Global Politics tips: 11 mistakes that cost marks, and how to fix each one
Each mistake comes with a losing answer and a winning one, using real cases with real dates, so you can see what can and can't be rewarded.
On this page
The quickest way to improve in IB Global Politics is to stop losing marks to the same handful of habits: describing events instead of analysing them, using case studies without names or dates, treating power, legitimacy and sovereignty as interchangeable, and writing answers that only argue one way. Below are the eleven mistakes that cost the most, each with a version that loses marks and one that earns them. They apply to Paper 1, Paper 2, the HL Paper 3 and the engagement project alike.
Are you analysing, or describing?
1. Retelling what happened
Description shows you know a case. Analysis shows why it matters for the question. Every paragraph needs a "because" or a "which shows that" tied to a concept.
Loses marksIn 2022 Sri Lanka had a severe economic crisis. There were shortages of fuel and medicine. People protested for months, and in July 2022 President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country and resigned.
Earns marksSri Lanka in 2022 shows that a government with a large electoral mandate can lose legitimacy quickly when it fails to deliver basic goods. Fuel and medicine shortages turned economic failure into a crisis of authority, and months of largely leaderless mass protest forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee and resign in July 2022, which shows non-state actors exercising power without holding office.
The same trap catches students in the IA, where the report becomes a diary of meetings attended. Our engagement project guide shows how to turn engagement into analysis.
2. Answering the topic, not the question
A question on whether international law constrains powerful states is not an invitation to write everything you know about the UN. Underline the claim, the command term and any qualifier ("only", "most", "to what extent"), and make your first sentence a direct answer. If you are unsure what a command term demands, check our guide to IB command terms.
Loses marksThe United Nations was founded in 1945 and has 193 member states. Its main organs are the General Assembly, the Security Council…
Earns marksInternational law constrains powerful states mainly when they choose to accept it: the veto lets permanent Security Council members block action against themselves and their allies, but legal rulings still raise the political cost of ignoring the law.
Are your examples specific and current?
3. Case studies without names, dates or numbers
"In some countries" and "a few years ago" cannot be rewarded as evidence. A case study needs at least: who, where, when, what happened, and what changed as a result.
Loses marksIn some Asian countries the military has taken power and ignored elections, and other countries have not done much about it.
Earns marksOn 1 February 2021 Myanmar's military seized power, overturning the result of the November 2020 election. ASEAN's response was limited: it excluded the junta's leader from its October 2021 summit but stopped short of sanctions, which shows the limits of a regional organisation built on non-interference.
4. Outdated facts presented as current
Old cases are fine. Old facts stated as if they were still true are errors, and they make an examiner doubt the rest of your answer. Common ones:
| Out of date | Current |
|---|---|
| "The EU's 28 member states" | 27 since the UK left on 31 January 2020 |
| "The G8" | The G7: Russia was suspended in 2014 after annexing Crimea |
| "The Millennium Development Goals aim to…" | The MDGs ran to 2015; the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2015, run to 2030 |
Date your examples ("in 2011", "since 2022") and say "at the time of writing" when a situation is still developing.
5. Every example from the same place
If all your cases are about the United States, the UK and the EU, you will struggle to show different perspectives, and questions about development or non-state actors will find the gap. Build a case bank that covers several regions and several types of actor: states, international organisations, NGOs, companies, social movements and individuals.
Are you using concepts and theories precisely?
6. Treating power, legitimacy and sovereignty as synonyms
Loose use of these words is the quickest way to show loose thinking. Each one answers a different question:
| Concept | Ask yourself | Common confusion |
|---|---|---|
| Power | Who can shape outcomes or other actors' choices, and by what means? | Assuming that whoever has power is legitimate |
| Sovereignty | Who holds supreme authority over a territory, and is it recognised and enforceable? | Treating a declaration of sovereignty as the same as having it |
| Legitimacy | Who accepts this authority as rightful, and on what basis: law, consent or results? | Using "legitimate" as a synonym for "legal" or "good" |
| Interdependence | Do the actors depend on each other, so each side's choices affect the other? | Calling one-way reliance "interdependence" |
Loses marksKosovo became sovereign and legitimate when it declared independence in 2008.
Earns marksKosovo's 2008 declaration of independence shows the gap between claiming sovereignty and having it recognised. The International Court of Justice found in 2010 that the declaration did not violate international law, yet Serbia still rejects it and Kosovo is not a UN member, so its sovereignty remains contested.
7. Mixing up the theories
Misattributing a theory's core claim is one of the fastest ways to show an examiner you have memorised names rather than ideas.
Loses marksLiberals argue that in an anarchic international system states care above all about survival, so they will never trust international institutions.
Earns marksRealists argue that, in an anarchic system, states put survival first and treat institutions as tools of the powerful. Liberals accept that the system is anarchic but argue that institutions, trade and interdependence make cooperation rational. Constructivists add that what anarchy means depends on the identities and norms states share.
A quick test: realism centres on power and security, liberalism on cooperation and institutions, constructivism on ideas, identity and norms. If your sentence about a theory doesn't fit its centre, check it.
Is your argument balanced?
8. One-sided answers
"Evaluate" and "to what extent" questions reward a judgement reached by weighing more than one side. An answer that only lists arguments for the claim, however well, has not evaluated anything.
9. Counter-claims that are named but never weighed
The other common version is a final paragraph that begins "However, some people disagree", gives one sentence, and stops. A counter-claim earns marks when you develop it with evidence and then say how far it weakens your argument.
Loses marksHowever, some people think humanitarian intervention is wrong because it violates sovereignty.
Earns marksThe strongest objection is that intervention can serve other aims. Security Council Resolution 1973 authorised force in Libya in 2011 to protect civilians, with Russia and China abstaining, but critics argued the NATO-led campaign became regime change. This doesn't defeat the case for intervention, but it shows why many states now distrust humanitarian justifications, which weakens the norm's future legitimacy.
Are you working at the level the question asks for?
10. Answering about states when the question is about something else
Questions often specify a level or an actor: individuals, local communities, non-state actors, international organisations, the global system. Students default to states and governments because that is where most of their notes sit. Before you plan, ask: whose power, whose legitimacy, at which level?
Loses marksQuestion on how far individuals can influence global political issues. The answer discusses the Paris Agreement negotiations between governments.
Earns marksSame question: the answer starts from Greta Thunberg's school strike in August 2018 and the Fridays for Future movement that grew from it, then weighs how far that individual action changed agendas against the decisions that still had to be made by governments.
Are you reading sources as evidence?
11. Taking a source at face value
In Paper 1 and the HL Paper 3, sources are not neutral facts. A government speech justifies; an NGO report campaigns; a cartoon argues. Students who copy out what a source says, without asking who produced it and why, lose the marks for analysing perspective. Read the caption, name the purpose and say whose view is missing. Our Paper 1 guide works through two sources question by question.
A checklist to run on every practice answer
- Does the first sentence answer the question as asked, including any qualifier?
- Does every paragraph contain a concept used precisely, not just named?
- Does every example have a name, a place and a date?
- Is every fact still true, or clearly dated?
- Is there a developed counter-claim that you actually weigh?
- Have you written at the level, and about the actors, the question names?
- Does the conclusion give a judgement, with the conditions under which it holds?
Mark your own practice answers against this list before you look at a mark scheme, then compare. The slips are habits, so they can be trained out. Our guide on why you're not improving explains how to turn this kind of self-marking into steady progress.
Questions students ask
How do I get a 7 in IB Global Politics?
Know a small set of case studies in real detail (names, dates, numbers, outcomes), use the core concepts precisely, and make every answer an argument with a judgement and a counter-claim you actually weigh. Then practise under timed conditions, because the final, highest-mark questions are the ones that suffer when you run short of time.
How many case studies do I need?
Fewer than you think, known better. Two or three detailed cases per thematic study, chosen from different regions and including non-state actors, can be adapted to most questions. A long list of cases you only half know is harder to use than a short list you know well.
Do I have to use theories like realism and liberalism?
You don't need to name a theory in every answer, but theories are one of the clearest ways to show different perspectives. Use one when it explains something specific about your case, and make sure you attribute its claims correctly.
How recent do my examples need to be?
Recent enough that the facts you state are still true. A 2011 case is fine if you describe it as a 2011 case; it becomes a problem when you present an old situation as the current one.
Try one: Global Politics
Which sentence uses the concept of legitimacy most precisely?
- Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 showed that Russia had legitimacy, because it was able to take and keep control of the peninsula.
- The 2011 intervention in Libya had a stronger claim to legal legitimacy than the 2003 invasion of Iraq because it was authorised by a UN Security Council resolution, although critics argued it went beyond its mandate to protect civilians.
- Kosovo became legitimate when it declared independence in 2008, so its sovereignty is now recognised by every state.
- Legitimacy is when a state has supreme authority over its territory and population without outside interference.
Show the answer and why
Answer: B
B names the basis of the legitimacy claim (Security Council authorisation), compares two cases and notes the contest over it. A confuses legitimacy with power: control shows capability, not that others accept it as rightful. C is factually wrong, since several states, including Serbia, do not recognise Kosovo, and it treats a declaration as if it settled legitimacy. D defines sovereignty, not legitimacy.