This page will give you just the questions themselves and the examiner's comments. I'll create another page to add ideas and plans (tha again)....
Last modified 31 January 2007. (S2006 Analysis put in).

A2 Index l Home

Questions (only) from Unit 5D : [For analysis see further down the page].

S2002

1. Outline why there is tension between the EU and the USA over defence issues.
2. In what ways has the international community attempted to tackle the problem of poverty?
3. Why is it difficult to achieve concerted international action on climate change?
4. In what ways are states now more determined to uphold human rights and justice?
5. ‘The end of the Cold War replaced ideological conflicts with nationalist and ethnic rivalries.’ Discuss.
6. ‘The varied international reactions to the events of September 11 2001 reveal how widespread and complex a problem terrorism is.’ Discuss.
7. To what extent has ‘interventionism’ in recent years depended on US involvement?

S2003
1. Why has the OSCE been sidelined in recent crises in Europe?
2. What are the main difficulties associated with the enlargement of the EU?
3. Why is it so difficult to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
4. Outline why the anti-globalisation movement has attracted so much support.
5. ‘The USA is now unilateralist, not isolationist.’ Discuss.
6. To what extent is the distinction between civil wars and inter-state wars still meaningful.
7. Do the events of September 11, 2001 show that there is now a ‘clash of civilisations’?

S2004
1. Why are there tensions between the United States and the European Union’?
2. Assess the recent impact of the World Bank.
3. Have war crimes trials been effective?
4. What are the main aims of the anti-globalisation movement’?
5. There are few legitimate grounds for international intervention.’ Discuss in relation to conflicts.
6. Is the EU ‘broadening’ at the expense of ‘deepening”?
7. ‘The “war on terrorism” has rendered the UN redundant.’ Discuss.

S2005
1. Outline reasons why the divide between the North and the South is still growing.
2. Why was it difficult to achieve agreement over the content of the European Constitution?
3. How is the protection of human rights becoming more significant in international politics?
4. Outline reasons why it is difficult to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
5. Why has the 2003 war in Iraq provoked such international controversy?
6. To what extent is the EU acting as counterweight to the USA?
7. ‘International politics is becoming less stable.’ Discuss.

S2006
1. Outline three reasons why peace between Israel and the Palestinians has been difficult to achieve.
2. Why has the issue of global environment protection been so controversial?
3. Explain the implications of EU enlargement for European integration.
4. Why have human rights become more important in international politics?
5. ‘Nuclear proliferation is a major threat to peace.’ Discuss.
6. Did September 11, 2001 give rise to a ‘clash of civilisations’?
7. Does the ‘peaceful rise’ of China threaten global stability?


Questions with analysis: (Note I don't have S2002 at present)

Questions from Unit 5D :

S2002
1. Outline why there is tension between the EU and the USA over defence issues.
2. In what ways has the international community attempted to tackle the problem of poverty?
3. Why is it difficult to achieve concerted international action on climate change?
4. In what ways are states now more determined to uphold human rights and justice?
5. ‘The end of the Cold War replaced ideological conflicts with nationalist and ethnic rivalries.’ Discuss.
6. ‘The varied international reactions to the events of September 11 2001 reveal how widespread
and complex a problem terrorism is.’ Discuss.
7. To what extent has ‘interventionism’ in recent years depended on US involvement?

S2003
1) Why has the OSCE been sidelined in recent crises in Europe?
This question was rarely answered.
2) What are the main difficulties associated with the enlargement of the EU?
Very popular but a disturbingly large number seemed ignorant of who was actually joining the EU. Many did not spell out the significance of such problems as the CAP and the QMV.
3) Why is it so difficult to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
Quite popular and most candidates provided good answers. A few explored the hypocrisy of the established nuclear powers and particularly US branch of the ABM and test ban Treaties. One or two cited US threats (axis of evil) as a motive for arguing different capabilities.
4) Outline why the anti-globalisation movement has attracted so much support.
Quite popular, with all managing good definitions of globalisation but only strong candidates managing to analyse the antis.
5) ‘The USA is now unilateralist, not isolationist. ‘Discuss.
Many confused the terms and quoted multi-lateral agents, involving NATO, as unilateral initiatives. Discussion if isolationism often settled on the inter-
war years rather than the start of the Bush presidency.
6) To what extent is the distinction between civil wars and inter-state wars still meaningful?
Not a popular question and restricted to the stronger candidates so a good discrimination.
7) Do the events of September 11, 2001 show that there is now a ‘clash of civilisations’?
Very popular and it did provoke some emotional responses around definitions of ‘civilisation’. Surprisingly, few identified the Palestinian issue as a source of anti- Americanism. Though most did narrow the issue down to a minority of Islamic extremists v USA.

1. Why has the OSCE been sidelined in recent crises in Europe?
Level Three Descriptor (13-20 marks)
The OSCE has been sidelined in recent crises in Europe, such as the war over Kosovo, because it is seen as an untried and untested institution and states preferred to look to established bodies such as NATO to resolve the problem. The OSCE was supposed to be the centrepiece of the post-Cold War security arrangements but it has failed to live up to expectations.
Level Two Descriptor (7-12 marks)
Should recognise at least one reason why the OSCE finds it difficult to establish itself as an effective body.
Level One Descriptor (1-6 marks)
Merely a description of the OSCE.

2. What are the main difficulties associated with the enlargement of the EU?
Level Three Descriptor (13-20 marks)
The main difficulties associated with enlargement of the EU are the economic costs it would impose, particularly through the CAP, and the political difficulties it would lead to particularly with the European Commission. The states lining up to join the EU are poorer than existing members and have huge agricultural sectors. If the CAP is not further reformed then the subsidies which would go to the new members would swallow up a large part of the EU budget. Each member state is entitled to at least one commissioner each. So if expansion occurs the Commission would either have to expand or reform. There are also obvious problems to do with expansion and the Euro.
Level Two Descriptor (7-12 marks)
Should recognise at least one reason why there are problems with enlargement.
Level One Descriptor (1-6 marks)
Merely a description of the process of enlargement.

3.Why is it so difficult to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
Level Three Descriptor (13-20 marks)
It is so difficult to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons because states that do not possess such weapons believe that they must acquire
them in order to guarantee their security in a nuclear world. Non-nuclear states understandably feel that the nuclear club has no right to exclude
them. This is particularly true of states which are involved in intractable conflicts such as the Middle East and Central Asia. Such weapons have
become easier and cheaper to make and therefore available to more states. Clinton attempt at restricting the spread of nuclear weapons was
rejected by the Senate.
Level Two Descriptor (7-12 marks)
Should recognise at least one reason why there are problems with preventing proliferation.
Level One Descriptor (1-6 marks)
Merely a description of the process of proliferation.

4. Outline why the anti-globalisation movement has attracted so much support.
Level Three Descriptor (13-20 marks)
The anti-globalisation movement has attracted so much support because it has tapped into a variety of anxieties and concerns. It has a
very broad base of support ranging from labour movements which are concerned that globalisation damages the living standards of the
workers to environmentalists who believe that globalisation does huge damage to the planet. The movement is typical of a new social
movement in that it is inchoate and fluid and is able to mobilise a lot of people to engage in intermittent activity. The very absence of precise
goals maximises its appeal.
Level Two Descriptor (7-12 marks)
Should recognise at least one reason why the anti-globalisation movement has attracted support.
Level One Descriptor (1-6 marks)
Merely a description of the anti-globalisation movement.

5. ‘The USA is now unilateralist, not isolationist.’ Discuss.
Level Three Descriptor (39-60 marks)
Under the Bush Administration the US has acted unilaterally on a number of issues. These range from opposition to the International
Criminal Court to a rejection of Kyoto and other international agreements and to independent action in its war on terror. The US is
not isolationist because it is engaging internationally but it is sometimes doing so in way which suggest that it pays little regard to the rest of the
international community. Over the Iraq issue above all the USA has made it clear that it will not feel restrained by the lack of a mandate from
the UN. This is borne out by the conduct of the war and the post-war arrangements.
Level Two Descriptor (21-38 marks)
Should recognise at least one reason why the US is seen as acting unilaterally.
Level One Descriptor (1-20 marks)
Merely a description of current US foreign policy.

6. To what extent is the distinction between civil wars and inter-state wars still meaningful.
Level Three Descriptor (39-60 marks)
Traditionally there has been an important distinction made between civil wars which are wars within states and therefore not susceptible to
external intervention and inter-state wars which transcend a concern for sovereignty. However over the past few years it has become harder to
maintain this distinction. The wars in the former Yugoslavia from 1991 onwards were ostensibly civil wars but external forces felt it legitimate to
intervene. Arguably in an age of globalisation and the decline of the nation state sovereignty becomes less important and states feel less
constrained by traditional notions of state supremacy. This is especially true where genocide is involved. The idea of a ‘war on terror’ has further
blurred the distinction.
Level Two Descriptor (21-38 marks)
Should recognise at least one reason why the distinction may be blurring.
Level One Descriptor (1-20 marks)
Merely a description of recent wars.

7. Do the events of September 11, 2001 show that there is now a ‘clash of civilisations’?
Level Three Descriptor (39-60 marks)
The notion of a clash of civilisations popularised by Huntington posits a West versus the Rest scenario in which cultural conflicts replace
ideological conflicts as the most likely source of conflict. This an alternative interpretation of the new world order to that of Fukuyama
and the end of history argument. It could be argued that September ~ is a good example of the Huntington thesis as it involved the clash
between parts of the Islamic or at least non-Western world and the West as exemplified by the USA. However the thesis has been much
criticised as too deterministic and pessimistic and there are alternative interpretations of September 11th
Level Two Descriptor (21-38 marks)
Should recognise at least one reason why the notion of a clash of civilisations has arisen.
Level One Descriptor (1-20 marks)
Merely a description of recent cultural conflicts.

S2004

1. Why are there tensions between the United States and the European Union’?
2. Assess the recent impact of the World Bank.
3. Have war crimes trials been effective?
4. What are the main aims of the anti-globalisation movement’?
5. There are few legitimate grounds for international intervention.’ Discuss in relation to conflicts.
6. Is the EU ‘broadening’ at the expense of ‘deepening”?
7. ‘The “war on terrorism” has rendered the UN redundant.’ Discuss.

1. Why are there tensions between the United States and the European Union?
Since the end of the Cold War tensions between the US and the EU have developed over a number of areas. The USA emerged as the only superpower and has been more willing to play the role of international policeman. However some in the US have become frustrated that the EU has not been able or willing to become more involved in a policing role of its own. Bosnia illustrated the EU’s reluctance to exert power and influence on its own doorstep. The US has urged the EU to take more responsibility and not to rely on the US alone to provide stability and security. On the other hand, some resent plans for a Common Foreign Policy for the EU, and any extension of the Rapid Reaction force, which could threaten the existence of NATO.
Overall the EU is a challenge to US hegemony. The EU and the USA have disagreed significantly about ways of handling the Middle East peace process in particular the role of Arafat, of how to prosecute the war on terror and particularly the war with Iraq. They also disagree about economic issues such as steel quotas and bananas and genetically modified food.
Level Three Descriptor (13—20 marks)
Explanation is essential.
Level Two Descriptor (7—12 marks)
Students describe the tensions, but answers include little analysis and no real explanation of why the US view differs from the EU view.
Most candidates referred to the EU as a potential rival power-bloc to the US. The quality of answer was then dependent upon students providing sufficient explanations for this. In general there was awareness that there are political, military and economic causes of tension, such as the Iraq conflict, the RRF/NATO issue and trade disputes.
Better answers went beyond merely describing the tensions into actual analysis of why they occur. Only a few answers suggested that the EU was attempting to undermine US hegemony, or that the US was determined to establish its hegemony over the international system.

Question 2
Assess the recent impact of the World Bank?
Students should outline the activities of the World Bank and analyse whether the Bank has achieved its aims. Students should use examples to illustrate the effectiveness of the World Bank and to show its impact. The World Bank acts as a lender to countries who find loans difficult to obtain from the private sector. The World Bank (alongside its sister the IMF) has been criticised for its impact on CDG, LDCs, MDCs — the SAP has made governments cut expenditure on programmes which promote development (education, health care).
World Bank is also seen to be dominated by the HDG, particularly the USA. Critics argue that World Bank loans are given for political reasons i.e. to favour states which support US foreign policy goals e.g. which promote neo-classical economies. However, others note how the World Bank has moved away the IMF position and puts greater emphasis on alleviating poverty.
Level Two Descriptor (7—12 marks)
Less assessment as to the effectiveness of the World Bank and merely descriptive answers.
Most candidates summed up the role of the World Bank and assessed its impact on the Global South. Together with the IMF the World Bank had introduced the discipline of the free market into fragile, emerging economies. In addition, when loans had been approved, liberal economic solutions had been imposed (reduced government subsidies and spending, devaluation and higher interest rates) resulting in plummeting living standards. Only the stronger candidates described the recent change in World Bank policy with its emphasis on human development.
Question 3
Have war crimes trials been effective?

This is a controversial issue about which there is no consensus. The fact that there have been convictions as a result of the trials does not in itself indicate effectiveness. That would depend upon what it is the trials are intended to achieve. If the purpose is to act as a deterrent then arguably they have failed. If it is to achieve justice for the victims then arguably there have been some successes. It is probably too soon to tell. Students must mention some trials; especially that of Milosevic.
Level Two Descriptor (7—12 marks)
Descriptive answers that are less successful at addressing the effectiveness of war crimes trials.
Candidates were able to identify a number of weaknesses in the Tribunals and ICC, and identified the trial of Milosevic and those in Rwanda as examples. However only the better answers addressed their effectiveness.

Question 4
What are the main aims of the anti-globalisation movement?

The anti-globalisation movement is disparate, amorphous and inchoate. Therefore it is difficult to pin down any concrete aims other than to put pressure on the richer states to be more sensitive to labour, environmental and poverty concerns (Trade Unions campaign for high pay, full employment).
The main aim must be to make the MDCs more aware of the consequences of globalisation, e.g. the exploitation of labour. However the movement has conflicting aims. It tends to be anti-American, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. To make rich states more aware that their wealth imposes poverty on others.
Level Three Descriptor (13—20 marks)
Main aim is to expose poverty in the South and exploitation of global system by capitalist North.
Level Two Descriptor (7—12 marks)
Little attempt to rank the importance of aims
The anti-globalisation movement was frequently seen as a movement against multinational corporations which were involved in the exploitation of workers in LDCs.
Weaker answers gave detailed narratives describing an issue or case study, but included little information on the protestors’ aims.
Question 5
‘There are few legitimate grounds for international intervention.’ Discuss in relation to recent conflicts.

Blair, and other leaders, has occasionally articulated the grounds for intervention. They tend to include a threat to neighbours and to the region, the possession of weapons of mass destruction and a lack of respect for human rights sometimes leading to genocide (Kosovo and ethnic cleansing). The problem is that many would question whether any of these — except for genocide — are legitimate grounds for intervention. The pre eminence of state sovereignty dictates that there are no legitimate grounds for intervention.
Others would argue that the situation in Iraq in 2002 was unacceptable. Sanctions and the no-fly zones were unsustainable. The US wanted regime change in Iraq, but Blair was determined to work through the UN in an attempt to provide legitimacy and to bind the US closer to the UN. Blair therefore had to argue that Iraq was a threat to regional security and that the existence of WMDs in Iraq, breaking a number of UN Resolutions, warranted the use of ‘pre-emptive’ strikes.
Level Three Descriptor (39—60 marks)
Students discuss Iraq and at least one other conflict.
Level Two Descriptor (21—38 marks)
An unbalanced, one-sided view
A popular question — weaker answers were overly critical of the US for its unilateral actions based on serving the US national interest. There were many excellent answers that gave clear analysis of the grounds for intervention in the UN Charter, supported with wide-ranging and accurate examples. The better answers were also able to discuss the international acceptance of humanitarian issues and highlighted Blair’s speeches.

Question 6
Is the EU ‘broadening’ at the expense of ‘deepening’?

Broadening refers to the expansion of the EU to 25 member states on 1st May 2004. Expansion will entail the absorption into the EU of the relatively poorer states of Eastern Europe whose economies are heavily dependent upon agriculture. This will increase the cost of the CAP. It will also make it more difficult to operate the Euro as well as introducing logistical problems for example the size of the European Commission. 8 of the 10 new members are former Communist states that have experienced the difficulty of economic transition from command to market economies. They have also only recently tasted full independence and so are reluctant to commit to full political union and are likely to defend their national interest and sovereignty.
Deepening refers to a continuation of the process of’ ever closer union’. This process is made more difficult by expansion, since maintaining unity and reaching consensus is increasingly difficult, particularly given the pro-US views of many of the new members. Thereby developing a
foreign and defence policy will be difficult. On the other hand, it could be argued that expansion speeds up the need to modernise the workings of the EU. The Nice Treaty and the EU Constitution reduce the ability of a single state to influence EU policy making. QMV is being extended to a range of new areas, but notably not to taxation and foreign policy. Perhaps expansion has shifted the balance of opinion inside the EU away from political union, and that the federalists will no longer be able to dictate EU policy.
Level Three Descriptor (39—60 marks)
Real debate over the effect of broadening. Answers display clear understanding of the concepts and their inter-relationship.
Level Two Descriptor (21—38 marks)
Not so clear as to why there is a relationship.

A number of answers were poorly disguised repetitions of answers to Question 6 on paper 6503. Weaker students struggled to show an understanding of the relationship between widening and deepening. Many answers were able to describe broadening and the threat to consensus imposed with broadening, but few described the deepening which has arisen from a need to streamline decision making in the 25-member union. Nor were many candidates able to recognise the reluctance of new members and some existing members to ‘pool’ sovereignty, particularly as their recently regained sovereignty is cherished. Furthermore, only a minority of answers noted the threat to a common foreign policy posed by the expansion, given the widespread support of US foreign policy and respect for NATO in some of the new member states.



Question 7
‘The “war on terrorism” has rendered the UN redundant. ‘Discuss.

The answer to this depends upon what it is that the UN is supposed to do. If it is seen as a product of the Cold War and of decolonisation then arguably the international situation has changed so much since 1989 that the UN could be seen as superseded by e.g. the USA acting alone or the ‘international community’ acting in concert or even by institutions such as the EU and the WTO. However if the UN is seen as the only legitimate body representing the vast majority of the world’s states as an attempt at resolving international disputes without recourse to war then no of course it has not outlived its usefulness.
The main role of the UN was to maintain peace between states. Terrorism tends to be carried out by non-state actors, and therefore challenges the ability of the UN to maintain peace.
Level Three Descriptor (39—60 marks)
Students display a good knowledge of terrorism, and the challenge of dealing with terrorism. They also need to examine the relationship between the UN and the USA.
Level Two Descriptor (21—38 marks)
Answers display knowledge of the war on terrorism, but are less able to explain why it is a threat to the UN.

The majority of candidates dealt solely with the US sidelining of the UN over the Iraq War. Many argued that the UN was redundant because Hegemons would ignore the organisation unless it suited their purpose, and therefore turned the question into one of realist state power vs functionalist international co-operation and collective security.
Very few actually dealt with the specifics of the question, though some did examine the problems of dealing with an unseen, stateless, network of cells with no negotiation possibilities. The UN deals with state-on-state, or intrastate, issues in an objective way, which makes it structurally unsuited to the present ‘war’ not least because of the subjective manner in which the US is conducting it.

S2005
1. Outline reasons why the divide between the North and the South is still growing.

2. Why was it difficult to achieve agreement over the content of the European Constitution?

3. How is the protection of human rights becoming more significant in international politics?

4. Outline reasons why it is difficult to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

5. Why has the 2003 war in Iraq provoked such international controversy?

6. To what extent is the EU acting as counterweight to the USA?

7. ‘International politics is becoming less stable.’ Discuss.
Question 1
Outline reasons why the divide between the North and South is still growing.
This question was answered by many candidates and most answers were factually knowledgeable in some areas, but rather biased against the North and lacking in balance. Level 3 answers gave many reasons for the imbalance, such as debt, bad governance, terms of trade and natural reasons such as a lack of resources, drought and flooding. However, they also gave balance to their analysis. They criticised the IMF’s structural adjustment programme, for example, but they also noted how the World Bank particularly was more focused in promoting human development rather than simply reducing government expenditure. Few answers were aware of the lack of private enterprise in much of the South, but that a number of NICs had developed because their privately owned companies were engaging in trade. Only strong candidates were confident enough to actually challenge the question and suggest
that in some cases the gap is narrowing.
Level 2 answers were too descriptive and offered little balanced analysis.
Outline reasons why the divide between the North and the South is still growing.

The gap between the industrialised, relatively rich countries of the global north, and the relatively poor countries of the global south is huge. The North (including the rich countries of N America, W Europe and Japan plus the former Soviet bloc) contains only 20% of the world population, yet consumes 60% of world production. The South (including Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia) has 80% of the world population, but consumes only 40% of world production. Many argue that the divide is growing, as the North continues to absorb more and more of global production, yet the South remains stuck in a poverty trap of Low income, Leading to low levels of saving, which restricts investment. Low Levels of investment in turn restrict the development and progress of firms, thereby restricting income growth, and therefore savings etc.
There are a number of reasons for the Lack of development in the South, which candidates should be able to describe and illustrate. These include: political leadership (ineffective policy making, wasteful government spending and corruption), political instability (including civil war and violence), debt, lack of resources, restricted access to western markets, economic dumping (EU food), and natural disasters (earthquakes, famines, floods etc).
Better candidates will suggest that the divide is not growing in some regions, particularly in South and East Asia, where a number of states have experienced rapid economic development and where consumption levels are also rising (S Korea, Thailand, Singapore etc).
It could also be noted that a number of states in the North have seen a sharp fall in Living standards since 1990 (notably many former communist states).
Better candidates may also wish to criticise the behaviour of the North in failing to address this imbalance, such as the Limited success of the Jubilee 2000 project, the Structural Adjustment Programme of the IMF and the belief reinforced by the African Commission that quantity of aid is simply not enough.

• Understanding of the concept of the North-South divide
• Knowledge of factors widening the divide
• Evaluation of a range of factors affecting the divide and awareness that the divide is narrowing in some areas.

Question 2
Why is it difficult to achieve agreement over the content of the European Constitution?
This was not a popular question, but those candidates that did attempt it were split between the weak and the strong with little middle ground. A number of candidates appeared to misunderstand the question and concentrated on the French and Dutch referenda results rather than problems associated with drafting the EU Constitution itself. Level 3 answers analysed the issue of political integration, and particularly the speed at which member states were willing to progress towards fuller integration. Few candidates were aware of the Convention that tried to deal with difficulties.

A constitution is a set of rules, practices and laws that set out how a state is to be governed, and the relationship between the state and the individual. Inevitably the creation of an EU Constitution would be highly contentious. Supporters of a federal EU enthusiastically awaited the publishing of the proposed constitution. They saw the constitution as a crucial step on the path of ‘ever closer union’ towards a federal ‘superstate’. Critics of federalism and defenders of the sovereignty of the individual member states, however, were opposed to any attempt to usher political union on an unsuspecting EU population.
Eurosceptics were therefore determined to resist the introduction of a constitution, a document or set of documents which, by definition, would set out ‘how a state is to be governed’. Confederalists also had reason to be suspicious of such a document, since their aim was for the EU to continue as an intergovernmental organisation, where all major decisions would continue to be made at the Council of Ministers, by elected representatives of member states, each with the ability to veto decisions on matters deemed crucial to the national interests of the member state.
Answers should demonstrate a clear understanding of the difficulties involved in negotiating a constitutional document when such contrasting views dictate that building a consensus is particularly hard, given that each member state negotiates in the knowledge that any sign of concession is seen as a sign of weakness. Indeed, the European understanding of the constitution is that the confederalists, such as Britain, got exactly the kind of constitution they would hope for, yet in the UK it appears unlikely that the constitution will be ratified in the future referendum.

• Knowledge of the enlargement process
• Analysis on the impact of enlargement on democracy, human rights, migration the EU budget etc
• Evaluation of the impact on the widening versus deepening argument

Question 3
How is the protection of human rights becoming more significant in international politics?
Candidates tended to display good knowledge of recent international events and were generally able to link this knowledge to the question, thus achieving high Level 2 / Level 3. However few candidates displayed knowledge of the legal bodies set up to protect human rights, nor was there great analysis of the roles of the UN and EU.

Human rights protection is concerned with the development of universal rights of humans against abuse by their own government. However the most important principle of international relations has arguably been the supremacy of state sovereignty. Clearly, human rights challenge state sovereignty. States that have been criticised for human rights violations typically argue that other international actors have no right to interfere in their domestic affairs. Certainly, human rights law has little authority. However, human rights Legislation and norms continue to develop. The world is increasingly interconnected
and abuses in one state can spill over into neighbouring states, or even distant states. Ethnic conflicts can result, or at Least the stability of the international community can be threatened. Thus human rights, it can be argued, are a legitimate topic of international law. Global leaders, such as Clinton and Blair, argued that the international community can no longer ignore the plight of groups suffering abuse at the hands of their government. Bush has argued that promoting democracy, and thereby respect for human rights, is a worthy foreign policy aim.
Good answers will note that punishment for crimes against humanity began with the Nuremberg trials, and continued in 1994-95 when the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia issued indictments for genocide. Answers which suggest that there is evidence of double-standards will be given credit; such as the US criticising China for torturing political prisoners and prohibiting free speech, yet itself being accused of torture in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison. Mention of the UN Commission on Human Rights and the position of High Commissioner for Human Rights also deserve credit.

• Knowledge of human rights and their increasing prominence
• Analysis and evaluation of the role of the ICJ, the ICC and the war crimes tribunals in promoting human rights
• Evaluation of the role of the US, EU and UN in promoting human rights

Question 4
Outline reasons why it is difficult to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
A popular answer but most students ignored biological and chemical weapons which was inexcusable, particularly given the recent amount of media interest in WMDs. It is assumed that centres had prepared students for an earlier question on nuclear weapons and students were unable or unwilling to adapt to the wider based question. Candidates which ignored biological and chemical weapons did not reach Level 3. Weaker candidates also underestimated the difficulties in developing a nuclear weapons system, declaring that a few minutes on ‘Google’ would reveal the secrets of nuclear weaponry. Very good answers focused on NPT, CTBT, CWT and BWT, and on the limited impact of international law on WMD proliferation.

The desire for physical security is at the heart of human life. Thus, humans have throughout history used toots to provide security against violence. Of course these tools can provide greater security if they are powerful, but as they can be used also to attack and kill, their existence inevitably provokes nervousness in others. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are simply more devastating and non-selective weapons. Clearly, states wish to acquire as deadly a weapons arsenal as possible. Thus developing WMD is a standard defence policy aim. Nuclear weapons are the most powerful and awesome of all weapons of destruction. The possession of nuclear weapons is seen as a guarantee of security and many states are intent on acquiring a nuclear defence
capability. However, if one state is seen to be acquiring such weapons then the rivals of this state will begin to feel insecure. Their security, they believe, will only be maintained if they too acquire nuclear weapons. Given that national security is usually of primary importance states tend to be willing to break int’l agreements on nuclear proliferation.
WMD are made in science laboratories, not conventional armaments factories. The most significant factor in their production is knowledge. Once the secret of a particular WMD has been learnt and practiced, the secret can be passed on. The ingredients of many WMD are found in most chemical plants. Thus the development of most WMD is relatively easy and relatively cheap, yet their effect can be devastating. Whereas a conventional bomb kills those close to the initial impact, chemical and biological weapons can kill and maim over a much greater area and without sound or warning.
Level 3 answers will discuss the effectiveness of the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, as well as Chemical weapons and Biological weapons conventions.

• Understanding of attempts to prevent the spread of WMD
• Understanding of the desire to obtain WMD and to restrict them
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of a range of measures to prevent the spread of WMD

Question 5
Why has the 2003 war in Iraq provoked such international controversy?
This was a very popular question and in general the quality of answer was high. Most candidates were able to analyse the various justifications for war, including WMDs, human rights abuses, regional security and oil and were rewarded for their knowledge and analysis. Candidates tended to struggle to provide balance, and weaker answers were blinded by their personal feelings. Weak answers also tended to focus too strongly on the US desire to remove Saddam to avenge George Bush Snr and on the US need for cheap oil. They ignored the controversies in the UN Security Council, and the post war situation in Iraq which has made the war appear more obviously controversial.

The 2003 Iraq war provoked such controversy because its Legitimacy both in international Law and in morality was so doubtful. At various times different reasons have been given for the war. The war was supposedly carried out in order to prevent Saddam Hussein from attacking neighbouring states, as he had previously done (Iran and Kuwait). The war was a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, which ‘supposedly’ had been a major protagonist in the Sept 11 attacks. The war was necessary, it was argued, because Iraq was close to developing nuclear weapons, after which the cost of engaging in war against Iraq would be too great. The war was necessary to enforce the will of the UN, which Saddam had repeatedly flouted. It was necessary to rid the Iraqi people of a terrible dictator who had committed atrocities against the Kurds, and the Shi’ites. It was important to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.
No wonder such controversy existed, and still dose. Kofi Annan himself declared the war as illegal under international Law. Iraq was not the aggressor nation. No WMD were found. The threat to Western security was allegedly ‘sexed up’. Iraqis were suffering before 2003, but their suffering was not only due to an oppressive regime, but also to the sanctions imposed post Gulf War 1. It now seems that Iraq had exaggerated its own military strength, so as not to appear weak. Or the US intelligence had received information it wanted to hear, not accurate intelligence.
Many criticised the pre-emptive strike argument, but there is an accepted precedence, the Caroline case (when Britain sank a US merchant ship carrying weapons for the French Canadian independence forces). Similarly Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear plant and may attack an Iranian plant. However, not only were there no WMD in Iraq, but there was no link between Saddam and attacks against the US. The UN argument also is weak. There was no UN
resolution permitting the use of force, so the US Led coalition cannot realistically argue that they were carrying out the will of the UN.
Moreover, Iraq is less stable now than it was before the war. Thousands of Iraqis have died, yet violence continues. If pragmatists wish for the war to be judged on whether the world has become more stable; that the Middle East is more stable, that Iraq is more stable, that Iraqis at least have freedom, democracy and human rights protection, then even more controversy results. There is a lot of progress to be made.
Level 3 answers must contain a detailed, balanced analysis, with evaluation.

• Knowledge of a range of controversial aspects of the war
• Rational evaluation of the arguments for war and analysis of the impact of the war on the UN and US hegemony

Question 6
To what extent is the EU acting as counterweight to the USA?
Some candidates misunderstood ‘counterweight’ and clearly struggled to answer the question. But most students were able to address the question and draw distinction between economic power, in which the EU clearly did provide a counterweight, and military or political power, in which the capability of the EU is more limited. Level 3 answers were able to provide insightful analysis and explained how lack of unity restricted the ability of the EU to counterbalance the US. Although some EU states are keen to position the EU as a balance others prefer to support the US itself. Some candidates also argued that the EU was increasingly frustrating the US in the military sphere as well as in the WTO. NATO and Iraq were used to exemplify this point.
However weak answers argued that the European RRF provided the EU with the military strength to act as a balance to the US.
Level 2 answers contained less sophisticated analysis and more basic knowledge. They tended to ignore the EU’s influence in world politics, such as over
environmental concern, Kyoto, and poverty relief.

Economically the EU is at least the equal of the US. Its population, GDP, trade status and now currency compare favourably with the US. However militarily, politically and socially the EU is no match for the US. Military spending and research in the US far exceeds that of the combined military spending of the EU, and unless the EU is prepared to spend a far higher proportion of GDP on defence, then the US will continue to be the Lone, military superpower. More significantly, the EU is still a grouping of independent-minded member states. Although the EU states may be willing to concede economic authority to a higher body, such as the ECB, they have proved unwilling to give up sovereignty over foreign policy. Unless states are willing to accept sometimes unwanted decisions on important foreign policy matters, then the EU remain unable to act as a counterweight to the USA.
However, just as the Euro has started to rival the US Dollar, it is possible that a united EU could provide a political as well as an economic counterweight to the US.
• Knowledge extent of and limitations to EU power
• Evaluation of the economics, political and social rivalry between the US and EU
• Analysis of the EU influence over international politics (Kyoto, ICC)

Question 7
International Politics is becoming less stable.” Discuss.
There were some excellent answers to this question, where candidates analysed the growth in nationalistic conflict during the 1990s and the recent ideological terrorist threat. Level 2 answers tended to overestimate the stability of the Cold War period, which contrasts with the anarchy and instability of the current international system. They did not analyse the extent to which conflicts in the 1990s were within states rather than between states. Level 3 answers provided more sophisticated analysis, some of which was skilfully written.

Although the end of communism could be an explanation for increasing instability, given the effect on the international system and the demise of bipolarity, the emphasis of this answer has to include analysis of recent sources of instability. Candidates should analyse the growing fear of international terrorism and the increased number of wars in recent years. It could also be suggested that the fear of terrorism is arguably being used by governments to assume greater powers (anti terrorism laws) and to boost the popularity of governments that claim to be able to protect their people. Candidates should assess whether international politics is becoming more or less stable. 9/11 represented a new threat to global instability, and an unprecedented level of non-state actor violence. But the Madrid bombings were not repeated before the Australian, US and UK elections. However increasing levels of insurgence in Iraq and
the growth of ‘foreign’ fighters following Islamic causes. Candidates should assess an array of sources of instability: ethnic nationalism, religious fundamentalism, terrorism and the growth of non-state aggression.

• Knowledge of recent conflicts and threats to global stability
• Analysis of the principal actors and their influence on stability
• Evaluation of the stability of international politics in relation to previous eras.

S2006
1. Outline three reasons why peace between Israel and the Palestinians has been difficult to achieve.

2. Why has the issue of global environment protection been so controversial?

3. Explain the implications of EU enlargement for European integration.

4. Why have human rights become more important in international politics?

5. ‘Nuclear proliferation is a major threat to peace.’ Discuss.

6. Did September 11, 2001 give rise to a ‘clash of civilisations’?

7. Does the ‘peaceful rise’ of China threaten global stability?

Question 1
Outline three reasons why peace between Israel and Palestine has been difficult
to achieve.
The popular question 1 helped candidates to focus their analysis on only three reasons why peace in Palestine was difficult to achieve. This prevented answers from being too descriptive and encouraged analysis. Some candidates gave excellent answers illustrating clear understanding of the complex nature of the conflict. One
Assistant Examiner remarked “it is a shame the world’s leaders appear not to grasp things so well!” However other Examiners believed answers were too simplistic and few candidates appreciated that conflicts are difficult to solve when neither side is prepared to compromise. They are almost impossible to solve when any compromise is viewed as an example of weakness and only outright victory is seen as an acceptable outcome, or when each ‘victory’ merely creates another cause for the defeated.
Indicative Content
The Israel-Palestinian problem is not simply over a single issue. It is multifaceted. As well as being a dispute over territory, it is a religious conflict and combatants on both sides believe that their cause is more significant than mere nationalism. The struggle is not a recent phenomenon, Jews believe they are reclaiming land which was taken from them 2000 years ago by the Romans, and land which was promised them by God himself. The Palestinians also have strong historical and religious claims to the land.
Crucially, neither side is willing to compromise. Conflicts can be resolved when both sides are willing to accept a mutually beneficial solution, and outcomes arise from compromise. A solution to the conflict could be possible if moderates on both sides could take control of negotiations. However, too often extremists have been able to dominate the political agenda. Indeed, Palestinian groups have failed to recognise Israel. Even the now moderate PLO, refused to accept Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state until 1988. Similarly Israel refused to recognise the PLO as anything but a terrorist organisation untiL 1993. Sharon’s government regarded Arafat as at best an impotent leader unable to control Islamic Jihad, Hamas or Hizbollah, and at worst an active terrorist leader. Israel is not only unwilling to negotiate with Palestinian leaders, but has assassinated Sheikh Yassin, the leader of Hamas, his successor Rantisi, and Yasser Arafat himself was under threat. Minds are closed, peace offers are rejected as strategy and deceit. Third parties (the USA) are suspected as being biased to Israel, and compromise is rejected since the purpose of the conflict is the annihilation of the opponent. Nothing short of total victory is acceptable. The ‘moderates’ have lost power, Arafat was weakened by the failure of earlier negotiations following the 1995 assassination of Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin by the Jewish fanatical group Kach, and the breakdown of the Road Map for Peace.
In making judgements consider the following:
• Understanding of the recent history of the conflict (AOl).
• Understanding of the different types of conflict and of conflict resolution (AOl)
• Analysis of the extent to which a solution to the conflict is possible (AO2).
Question 2
Why has the issue of global environmental protection been so controversial?
Question 2 was a great differentiator. Many students were aware of the environmental debate, Kyoto etc, but not all were able to analyse why the issue is so controversial. Many candidates showed awareness of the reluctance of the US, and others to sign up to pollution controls, but gave a one-sided discussion as to why they refuse to ratify Kyoto etc. Many candidates criticised the USA, but few analysed the Bush argument that the environmental threat is overstated and that future technology will be able to overcome future problems. Few candidates criticised Kyoto, or discussed the economic consequences of environmental protection.
Balanced arguments were key to receiving high marks. Good answers gave a clear understanding and sophisticated analysis of the environment debate. Answers would often discuss the ‘tragedy of the commons’ dilemma, the problem of state sovereignty and the varied responses to global warming.

Indicative Content
There is now widespread agreement that climate change, or global warming, is occurring. This is almost beyond dispute. What is controversial, however, are the causes of global warming, whether global warming will have dire consequences, or if it will have beneficial consequences in some cases and in others can be addressed using modern technology. Achieving concerted international action on climate change is complicated since the tradition within International Relations is state-centric, centered around concepts of state sovereignty and the belief that states pursue their national interest. Moreover, int’l environmental problems tend not to be caused by deliberate acts of national policy, but instead are the unintended side-effects of broader socio-economic processes. Non-state actors such as firms are at least as important as states in that their activities will lead to environmental damage. However, states do legislate within their territories and so should play a central role in developing and enforcing environmental solutions. Concerted environmental action is further hindered by the ‘tragedy of the commons’ - regarding fishing stocks, C02 emissions etc.
The Rio summit in 1992 set out a path to limiting C02 emissions. However by the 1997 summit in Kyoto many LDCs had generated increasing levels of greenhouse gases, and many of the MDCs had failed to reduce their emissions. Negotiations at Kyoto were difficult because of the need to balance protection of the environment with the need to protect economic interests. The US position, put by President Clinton, was that LDCs had to have ‘meaningful participation’. The LDCs wanted promises of massive aid to help them stem pollution. The rich states were reluctant. The inevitable compromise required MDCs to reduce their C02 emissions to 7% below their 1990 levels by 2012. MDCs could trade quotas, BUT, no sanctions for failure were set. The environmentalists knew that ‘free riders’ could avoid cutting their emissions. Also, LDC emissions could rise. Given the role of US energy companies in the funding of the Bush Presidential campaign it is dear to see that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’. Bush is reading the script of environmental optimism, and will not risk the US economy or his re-election for the environment. For other nations, the knowledge that the greatest polluter of them all is unwilling to act, makes it more likely that that their own efforts to reduce C02 emissions will receive a low priority. Concerted action against global warming is a very difficult proposition and the international community will continue to ignore the environment.
In making judgements consider the following:
• Understanding of environmental concerns (AOl).
• Understanding of why global warming is controversial (AOl)
• Analysis of the extent to which a solution to environmental concerns are controversial (A02).

Question 3
Explain the implications of EU enlargement for European integration.
Weaker candidates were confused by the EU enlargement question and discussed the general implications of enlargement rather than the implications for EU integration. Many answers were too descriptive and future students should try to stress the implications of enlargement. Stronger answers included balanced analysis of the impact of enlargement in the widening versus deepening debate. Good answers also discussed the possibility that expansion would speed up integration.
Indicative Content
The EU has grown from a Community of 6 nation states in 1957 to a Union of 25 states in 2006. The Community allowed states to remain dominant through the requirement for unanimity, but as the Community grew in size it became increasingly necessary for the decision making processes to be streamlined. The introduction of Qualified Majority Voting in the decision making process of many subject areas has been necessary to speed up decision making, and in turn the Community has become a Union. The major expansion of the EU in 2004 made further integration of EU decision making necessary. Candidates should discuss the impact of expansion in promoting federalism, but they should also assess the desire of the new members for closer political integration.
Candidates may also discuss the inevitable economic and political integration within and between old and new members. In order to join the EU, states must be democratic, market- based economies. They must adapt their economies and regulations to the EU. This involves considerable degree of integration.
In making judgements consider the following:
• Understanding of recent enlargement (AOl).
• Understanding of European integration process (AOl)
• Analysis of the implications of EU enlargement for European integration(A02).
Question 4
Why have human rights become more important in international politics?
This was a popular question, but too many students relied on descriptions of human rights abuses rather than giving analysis of sovereignty or of institutions, pressure groups and the media. Most students who tried to answer the question argued that the media has been the responsible because by showing startling images of abuses, popular disgust and outrage has forced politicians to attempt to address the issue. A few, argued that abuse has become more widespread and therefore rights are more important, but are not protected. Both arguments gained credit.
Indicative Content
The belief that people have rights because they are human beings is a relatively recent concept. Traditional thinking on international law is that it applies to states and not individuals. Moreover, state sovereignty prevents intervention in the domestic affairs of other states; International Law being between states, and municipal Law between individuals. However, the ‘society of states’ concept has been challenged by the ‘global society’ approach which gives equal status to individuals as to states, and where human rights are as legitimate a policy concern as peace or economic well-being. The UN Commission on Human Rights was established in 1946 and in 1948 the UN General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Thus, there is a code of established human rights. There have been attempts to create a judiciary which investigates and punishes infringements, but enforcement remains difficult and problematic. At least there is something against which states can be compared and criticised. There have also been a number of regional measures, some of which have had more success. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, should be identified, not only identifies rights but also tries to enforce them. There have also been a number of NGOs which have sprung up in defence of human rights, most notably Amnesty International which specialises in fighting for prisoners of conscience.
Although there is no doubt that human rights are an integral part of world politics, there is debate over their emphasis. In the West emphasis is given to the individual, to have political and civil freedoms, but in the East the emphasis is given to the society, which is considered to be more important than the individual.
In making judgements consider the following:
• Understanding of the growth of human rights as an issue (AOl).
• Understanding of the organisations designed to protect and further human rights (AOl)
• Analysis of the extent to which human rights have become more important in international politics (A02).

Question 5
Nuclear proliferation is a major threat to peace.’ Discuss.
This was a popular question, and was well answered by many. Most candidates were familiar with arguments against horizontal proliferation, particularly to ‘rogue’ states such as N Korea or Iran, or to non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda and the potentially devastating consequences. Better answers also contained counter-arguments that proliferation would bring greater stability. Mutually Assured Destruction was usually
mentioned, but few candidates were able to bring this argument up to date regarding India-Pakistan, or even Iran. Few discussed the logic behind the acquisition of nuclear weapons (to deter attack or merely for status), and few discussed the threat to peace coming from those that seek to prevent proliferation rather than those states that become nuclear powers.

Indicative Content
The desire for physical security is at the heart of human life. Thus, humans have throughout history used tools to provide security against violence. Of course these tools can provide greater security if they are powerful, but as they can be used also to attack and kill, their existence inevitably provokes nervousness in others. Nuclear weapons are the most powerful and awesome of all weapons of destruction. The possession of nuclear weapons is seen as a guarantee of security and many states are intent on acquiring a nuclear defence capability. However, if one state is seen to be acquiring such weapons then the rivals of this state will begin to feel insecure. Their security, they believe, will only be maintained if they too acquire nuclear weapons. Given that national security is usually of primary importance states tend to be willing to break int’l agreements on nuclear proliferation. However it is clear that the more states that possess nuclear weapons the more likely it is that they will one day be used. It is for supposedly this reason that the existing members of the nuclear club are intent on restricting their membership, for them nuclear proliferation is a threat to world peace.
Since 1945 and particularly in recent years, the topic of weapons of mass destruction has been paramount. These weapons, whether they are nuclear, chemical or biological, cause complete destruction and can annihilate societies. However, nuclear weapons arguably prevented the Cold War from ever becoming Hot. During the 40 years of the Cold War the USA and the USSR did not fight each other directly (at least not in their own uniforms) and the conventional argument is that the fear of nuclear war and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) meant that neither side could hope to gain from war since the doctrine of second strike ensured that the nuclear threat would survive even after the destruction of the country (e.g. through nuclear submarines). Similarly nuclear weapons have arguably made Indo-Pakistani relations more stable as military conflict could escalate into nuclear war, neither side is prepared to risk a conventional war over Kashmir. The standard argument against nuclear proliferation is that the more nuclear states there are, the more likely it is that nuclear war will break out, either deliberately or accidentally. However, Kenneth Waltz argues that states act more cautiously when in a nuclear situation. They argue that Iraq would not have attacked Iran, or Kuwait, if Iran or Kuwait had had nuclear weapons. Similarly The US led coalition would not have invaded Iraq in 2003 if Iraq had had nuclear weapons. It is no surprise that Iran wants nuclear weapons, if they get them then their security from an invasion is assured. If one believes that MAD preserved the peace in the Cold War, then one should welcome the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It could do the same for Israeli-Arab relations, for example.
However, a number of arguments warn against further proliferation. Although the likelihood of accidental war is small, it does exist. The more states with such weapons, the greater the chance of an accident. Before a fully developed nuclear deterrence between 2 hostile states, one side may believe that it has a ‘window of opportunity’ in which an earlier strike against the rival will be successful. So far leaders of nuclear powers have been cautious. They have understood and respected their weapons. This could be an inevitable factor of nuclear deterrence. But a Leader who is absorbed in extreme religious, nationalist or racial ideology may be prepared to unleash a nuclear attack even if it resulted in the destruction of his own society. Even if the nuclear deterrence argument is valid in 99 occasions out of 100, these arguments make proliferation disturbing because although the world can survive conventional wars, in a nuclear war there is the real danger that everything is destroyed.
In making judgements consider the following:
• Understanding of nuclear proliferation and efforts to limit it (AOl).
• Understanding of the desire for nuclear weapons and of their threat to peace (AOl).
• Analysis of the extent to which nuclear proliferation really is a threat to peace (A02).
• Analysis of the impact of nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan would be useful (A02).

Question 6
Did September 11, 2001 give rise to a ‘clash of civilisations’?
Good answers tended to define the thesis before examining events, and there were a number of excellent responses to this question. Sophisticated answers discussed the impact of 9/11 and the ‘war on terror’ in relation to this thesis. They evaluated the extent to which a clash of civilisations is occurring or, even a clash within civilisations .Weaker answers tended to be descriptive of events rather than provide a discussion of the extent to which 9/11 was a turning point. Excellent answers discussed the extent to which a clash existed before 9/11, or even if it has simply been exaggerated by the media, Western leaders and certain non-state actors to allow themselves greater power and influence. Some candidates suggested that the Israel/Palestine issue was the running sore which prompted the clash.
Indicative Content
Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist organisations, AL-Qa’ida, reaffirmed on 9/11 their aims of demolishing western influence and power and attacking any “infidels” (Jews and Christians especially). It is their aim to create a fundamentalist Islamic influence in as many states as possible. In response the US and her allies declared a ‘War on Terror’, a struggle against the forces that wanted to destroy western democracy. Some political commentators, like Samuel Huntington, would say that the post Cold War world has increased the tension between ethnic communities, especially between Islamic cultures and liberal democracy. The War on Terror is viewed as a Holy War by Islamists, they portray the US and her allies as ‘crusaders’, wanting to dominate the Islamic world, its oil and prosperity. In their views, the civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US threats towards Syria and Iran and US disregard for Arab opinion after 9/11 all confirm that this is a “war against Islam”.
After 9/11, a number of democratic governments (Israel, India, Russia and the Philippines have used the War on Terror to repress their fringe, dissident, Muslim minorities. Islamists see this too as part of an attack on Islam. They see the conflicts in Chechnya and Kashmir as opportunities to reaffirm their aims, so as a result there are Al-Qa’ida fighters in these conflicts. They believe that the West ignores Russian atrocities in Chechnya, it ignores poverty in the Muslim world and above all, it ignores atrocities committed by the Israeli military in Palestine.
Bush and Blair claim to be acting in defence of peace and democracy. This is not a religious war; it is an ideological struggle between democracy and totalitarianism. To win, they believe that there needs to be successful, pro-Western, democracies in Muslim areas. The war in Iraq was not merely to remove Saddam from power, it was to bring democracy to Iraq, in the hope that the new Iraq would be a beacon for Muslim democracy throughout the Middle East. Similarly, Turkey would be rewarded for its pro-Western, democratic secularism by further integration into the West, and ultimately EU membership. In the meantime, there is no doubt that Guantanamo Bay has cast doubts on US respect for international law, have behaved illiberally, and democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq is far from liberal. Sept 11th 2001 was a set back, albeit a temporary one after which there may be renewed faith in liberal organisations such as the UN and in democracy.
In making judgements consider the following:
• Understanding of the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis (AOl).
• Understanding of the Al Qaeda threat before and after 9/11 (AOl).
• Analysis of the extent to which the 9/11 attacks did give rise to a ‘clash of civilisations’ (A02).

Question 7
Does the ‘peaceful rise of China threaten global stability?
Question 7 was perhaps too new and challenging for students, particularly given the more familiar alternatives. It was a very clear differentiator – better candidates discussed the impact of a second superpower and the consequences of bipolarity for global order. Weaker answers exaggerated the growth and threat of China and underestimated the strength of the US. Most candidates could chart the economic rise of China and many saw this as bonus for stability and capitalism as China’s economic interests would become tied to those of the West. Some candidates noted the possibility of regional instability, particularly regarding Taiwan, but also of consequence for Japan.
Indicative Content
Despite boasting the world’s largest military personnel, nuclear weapons, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and a population of over 1 billion, China could never have been described as a superpower, for its economic weakness, relative political isolation and rather basic technology were vastly inferior to those of the US. Despite attempting to position itself as a ‘champion of the poor’ on the SC, China was Little more than a large, regional power.
However, since 1990 China has adapted its One Party ‘Communist’ structure to encourage economic development through manufacturing and exports to the world market. As a result the Chinese economy has been transformed, with GDP growth of 10% annually. The Pacific coast of China has become an industrial powerhouse. This new prosperity will enable China to become the next superpower. Clearly, a second superpower will have significant repercussions for global stability.
Candidates should discuss the impact of a second superpower on the international system. They should discuss the return to bipolarity, or, if the EU were to strengthen and become truly united, an era of multipolarity. Candidates are not expected to prophesise, but they should compare the current system with US dominance, with one where two or three powers of the first rank dominate the international system.
In making judgements consider the following:
• Understanding of the growing power of China (AOl).
• Understanding of the relevance of the number of superpowers to stability to the
international system (AOl).
• Analysis of the extent to which the growing power of China threatens global stability
(A02).