Answering Question 2 (DP IB Global Politics: HL): Revision Note

Question 2 - actors and recommendations

• Question 2 has two parts

  • Question 2a is worth 4 marks

  • Question 2b is worth 6 marks

• Read both parts before you begin writing either - they are connected and your answers must be consistent

Question 2a - actors and stakeholders

• Question 2a asks you to identify and explain the roles of actors and stakeholders in relation to a specific global political challenge

  • The challenge will be drawn from one of the 8 HL topic areas

• Question 2a is worth 4 marks and should take approximately 8–10 minutes

What the examiner is looking for

• A range of relevant actors - not just one or two

• Explanation of each actor's role, interests, and actions - not just a list of names

• Coverage of different actor types

• Specific, accurate references - named organisations, not vague descriptions

What counts as an actor?

Step-by-step approach

Step 1: Identify the challenge (1 minute)

• Read the question carefully - which specific challenge is it asking about?

Step 2: List your actors (1 minute)

• Aim for four to five distinct actors covering different types

• For each: who are they and what is their role?

Step 3: Write your response (8 minutes)

• For each actor: name them specifically → describe their role → explain their interests or actions → note the political consequence

Common mistakes

• Listing actors without explaining their roles

• Identifying only state actors - the question expects a range

• Vague descriptions ("an international organisation provided assistance") rather than specific ones ("the UNHCR coordinated the registration of refugees in Cox's Bazar")

• Confusing actors with issues - the question asks about who is involved, not what the problem is

Q2b — making a recommendation

• Question 2b asks you to make a specific recommendation to a named actor about how to address the challenge identified in question 2a

• Question 2b is worth 6 marks and should take approximately 12–15 minutes

What the examiner is looking for

• A clear, specific recommendation addressed to a named actor

• Justification - why would this recommendation be effective?

• Awareness of political context - why is this actor positioned to act, and what obstacles might they face?

• Consistency with the challenge and actors identified in question 2a

What makes a strong recommendation?

• It is addressed to a specific, named actor - not "states should..."

• It proposes a specific action - not "do more," but a named policy, mechanism or agreement

• It is justified - you explain why it would work

• It is realistic - the actor has the capacity and mandate to act

• It acknowledges at least one obstacle or limitation

Weak vs strong recommendation

Weak	Strong

Step-by-step approach

Step 1: Choose your actor carefully (1 minute)

• Which actor has both the capacity and the mandate to address this challenge?

• State actors have direct power but may be part of the problem

• IGOs have legitimacy but limited enforcement capacity

• NGOs can act quickly but have limited political authority

Step 2: Formulate your recommendation (2 minutes)

• Name the specific policy, mechanism, or agreement you are recommending

• Ask: why would this actor take this action? What is in their interest?

• Ask: what obstacle might prevent it, and how could it be addressed?

Step 3: Write your response (10–12 minutes)

• State the recommendation clearly in the first sentence

• Explain why this actor is well-positioned to act

• Justify the recommendation - why would it be effective?

• Acknowledge at least one limitation or challenge

Common mistakes

• Vague or generic recommendations ("more international cooperation is needed")

• Failing to name a specific actor

• Ignoring political feasibility - recommendations must be realistic

• Omitting justification - a recommendation without reasoning will not score well