Applying Comparative Theories to Global Politics Since 2000 | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: Sep 29
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 65 minutes
Applying comparative theories to global politics since 2000 A-Level Politics revision brings the whole Global Politics course together. Edexcel requires you to use realism and liberalism to explain recent political developments, then assess how far each perspective provides a convincing explanation. Case studies must be drawn from all five other Global Politics content areas, including globalisation, global governance, human rights and the environment, power, and regionalism. This lesson therefore turns your knowledge of realist theory [Realism] and liberal theory [Liberalism] into practical comparative analysis.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Apply realist and liberal ideas to developments in global politics since 2000.
Select relevant case studies from each of the other five Global Politics content areas.
Analyse how the same development can support different realist and liberal interpretations.
Compare the explanatory power of realism and liberalism.
Evaluate the extent to which each perspective explains recent developments in global politics.
Construct focused comparative arguments using accurate case-study evidence.
Revision Notes đź“š
Applying comparative theories to global politics since 2000
This final Comparative Theories topic is different from simply learning what realism and liberalism believe.
Edexcel requires an evaluation of the extent to which realism and liberalism explain recent developments since 2000. The case studies used must cover each of the other five Global Politics content sections:
the state and globalisation
global governance: political and economic
global governance: human rights and environmental
power and developments
regionalism and the European Union
This means that Comparative Theories should not be treated as an isolated sixth topic. Realism and liberalism are perspectives through which the rest of Global Politics can be interpreted.
The specification reinforces this by stating that students are expected to understand how realism and liberalism apply throughout the Global Politics content.
Start with the theoretical contrast
Before applying the theories, make sure the basic division is secure.
Realism | Liberalism |
States are the key actors | States operate within growing interdependence |
State sovereignty remains fundamental | Interdependence can constrain purely independent action |
International politics is anarchic | Co-operation and rules can create greater order |
Power and security are central | Mutual benefits and co-operation are significant |
Hard power is particularly important | Soft power and co-operation can matter |
Security dilemmas create tension | Complex interdependence can reduce conflict |
International organisations cannot eliminate state competition | International organisations can encourage co-operation |
War is inevitable | Harmony and balance are possible |
You studied these differences directly in the comparison of the theories [Realism and liberalism compared].
The key examination skill now is to connect those theoretical ideas to political developments.
How to apply a comparative theory
A useful method is to work through five stages.
1. Identify the development
Start with something taken from the Global Politics specification.
For example:
greater global interconnectedness
activity by international organisations
conflict between states
environmental co-operation
growth of regional organisations
changing distributions of global power
2. Select the relevant realist concept
Ask:
Does this demonstrate the continuing significance of states?
Does sovereignty remain important?
Is hard power significant?
Does international anarchy restrict co-operation?
Is there evidence of conflict or a security dilemma?
3. Select the relevant liberal concept
Ask:
Does it demonstrate complex interdependence?
Is there successful co-operation?
Are international organisations significant?
Is global governance developing?
Are states recognising common interests?
4. Explain the connection
Do not simply attach the label "realist" or "liberal".
Explain why the development supports the theory.
5. Compare explanatory power
Ask which theory explains the development more convincingly, or whether different parts of the same case support different interpretations.
A strong application therefore looks like:
development → theoretical concept → explanation → competing theory → comparison
Theories are explanations, not descriptions
A case study is not realist or liberal by itself.
The theory provides an interpretation of the case.
Consider a group of states co-operating through an international organisation.
A weak answer might say:
This is liberalism because countries are co-operating.
A stronger answer explains:
Liberalism can explain the development because the states recognise that their interests are interconnected and use an international organisation to co-operate over a shared issue. This supports complex interdependence and the liberal expectation that global governance can develop.
You can then introduce realism:
However, if the states retain ultimate control over whether they follow collective decisions, realism can still explain the importance of state sovereignty.
That final contrast turns application into comparative analysis.
Case-study area 1: the state and globalisation
The first compulsory case-study area is the state and globalisation.
The specification requires understanding of:
widening and deepening interconnectedness and interdependence
challenges to state control
international law
humanitarian and forcible intervention
realist and liberal interpretations of globalisation
implications for the nation-state and national sovereignty
This links directly to globalisation's impact on states [Globalisation and the state system].
Liberal interpretation of globalisation
Globalisation can strongly support liberalism.
The liberal argument is:
widening interconnectedness
↓
states become increasingly interdependent
↓
problems and interests cross national boundaries
↓
independent action becomes less sufficient
↓
co-operation becomes increasingly useful
This closely matches complex interdependence, the liberal idea that states and their fortunes are tied together.
Political globalisation and the development of international law can also support the liberal expectation that politics will increasingly involve rules, organisations and negotiated co-operation rather than autonomous state action alone.
Realist interpretation of globalisation
Realists can challenge this interpretation by emphasising the continuing importance of sovereignty.
Globalisation may constrain states, but states remain major political actors with:
sovereign authority
military capabilities
political interests
the ability to pursue power
a continuing role in international agreements and organisations
The persistence of forcible intervention and conflict can also support the realist view that sovereign states and hard power remain important.
Case study: intervention in Iraq
The 2023 examiner report noted that candidates successfully used the Iraq intervention as an example of a development since 2000. The associated mark scheme also used US actions in Iraq to illustrate the importance of hard power. Â
A realist interpretation can emphasise:
state action
military hard power
the importance of sovereign actors
continuing conflict despite greater global interconnectedness
A liberal interpretation can focus instead on why the case demonstrates the limitations of co-operation and therefore why liberal expectations are not automatically fulfilled.
The important analytical conclusion is not that globalisation proves one theory correct. Rather:
Globalisation provides strong evidence for liberal complex interdependence, while the continuing capacity of states to exercise sovereignty and hard power prevents realism from being displaced.
Case-study area 2: political and economic global governance
The second required area covers institutions including:
the United Nations
NATO
the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
World Bank
World Trade Organization (WTO)
G7/G8
G20
These institutions provide some of the clearest evidence for and against liberalism.
Your detailed institutional knowledge comes from pages such as the role of the UNÂ [The United Nations] and the wider political and economic governance unit.
Liberal interpretation of global governance
The existence and continued activity of international organisations support several liberal ideas:
complex interdependence
co-operation
global governance
common interests
international organisations having an impact
For liberals, the very fact that states repeatedly create and participate in international institutions demonstrates that power competition is not the only feature of global politics.
States can recognise that some issues require collective responses.
Realist interpretation
Realists ask a different question:
Who ultimately possesses the power?
If sovereign states can ignore, block or bypass international institutions, realism may remain the stronger explanation.
International organisations can therefore be interpreted as arenas in which states continue to pursue national interests rather than as independent replacements for state power.
Case study: economic governance and the 2008 financial crisis
The 2023 mark scheme specifically identified the IMF, World Bank, WTO, G7 and G20 when discussing how the theories could explain global economic governance, including responses to the 2008 financial crisis.
Liberal explanation
The crisis can support liberalism because economic interdependence means that economic problems are not confined neatly within state borders.
This creates:
economic interdependence → shared economic problems → need for co-operation → use of economic governance organisations
The involvement of international institutions therefore supports complex interdependence and global governance.
Realist explanation
Realists can respond that these organisations still operate within a state-centred system.
States continue to pursue their interests through them, and disagreements may prevent effective co-operation.
The institutions have therefore not removed sovereignty or international anarchy.
Case study: the UN, Afghanistan and Ukraine
The 2023 mark scheme also provides a useful contrast involving the United Nations.
It notes that the inability of international organisations to prevent certain conflicts, including Ukraine, can support realism. At the same time, UN action associated with security in Afghanistan can provide evidence for the liberal claim that international organisations can support co-operative action.
This produces a highly useful comparison:
Realist reading | Liberal reading |
Conflict continues despite international organisations | Organisations can still facilitate collective responses |
States remain decisive actors | International institutions can influence state behaviour |
International anarchy persists | Global governance can provide some order |
Organisations cannot guarantee peace | Organisations can reduce or manage some conflicts |
The sensible conclusion is often conditional:
International organisations support liberalism where states have sufficient common interests to co-operate, but realism better explains their limitations where powerful states' interests conflict.
Case-study area 3: human rights and environmental global governance
The third required area combines two particularly useful tests of the theories:
international human-rights governance
global environmental governance
The specification includes international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), special United Nations tribunals, humanitarian intervention, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and environmental agreements including Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris.
This links naturally to human rights versus sovereignty [Human rights and state sovereignty].
Liberalism and human rights
Human-rights institutions can support liberalism because they show that political relationships may be governed by more than immediate state power.
Liberalism can interpret:
international law
courts
human-rights institutions
humanitarian co-operation
as evidence that states can recognise shared moral principles and work through international arrangements.
The existence and growth of such institutions supports liberal expectations about global governance.
Realism and human rights
Realists focus on the limits imposed by sovereignty.
The specification requires students to consider:
the impact of international law on sovereignty
whether international law is accepted and enforced
controversies surrounding international courts
selective intervention
alleged double standards
These limitations can support realism because they demonstrate that international institutions do not possess an overarching sovereign authority capable of compelling all states in the same way.
The realist argument becomes:
state sovereignty → selective acceptance of international authority → limits on enforcement → international anarchy remains significant
Environmental governance: a powerful liberal case
Environmental problems are particularly compatible with liberal ideas about complex interdependence.
Environmental issues cannot always be addressed effectively by states acting entirely independently.
The existence of:
UNFCCC
IPCC
Rio
Kyoto
Copenhagen
Paris
demonstrates attempts to establish collective international responses.
This supports:
shared environmental problem → interconnected interests → negotiation → international agreement → global governance
The 2023 examiner report specifically praised strong comparative answers that used environmental developments to support both the realist and liberal perspectives.
Environmental governance: the realist challenge
The same content also provides important realist evidence.
The specification requires study of obstacles to international environmental co-operation, including:
sovereignty
divisions between the developed and developing world
disagreements over responsibility
disagreements over measurement
These obstacles demonstrate that recognising a shared problem does not automatically produce agreement.
From a realist perspective:
states retain sovereignty → states have different interests → common rules are difficult to agree → global governance remains limited
From a liberal perspective:
states nevertheless negotiate → international agreements develop → institutions facilitate continuing co-operation
Case study: the Paris agreement
Paris can therefore be interpreted in two directions.
Liberal interpretation:
it demonstrates international environmental negotiation
states recognise an issue requiring collective action
this supports global governance and complex interdependence
Realist interpretation:
environmental co-operation continues to face sovereignty and interest-based obstacles
states remain responsible for their own political choices
there is no overarching world authority enforcing a single solution
The strongest conclusion is nuanced:
Environmental politics strongly demonstrates the liberal need for co-operation, but the difficulties involved in achieving and maintaining collective action reveal continuing realist constraints.
Case-study area 4: power and developments
The fourth compulsory area is power and developments.
This includes:
hard and soft power
great powers and superpowers
the USA
emerging powers including BRICS
polarity
changing world order since 2000
different systems of government
contemporary global issues
This is especially useful for testing whether states remain the dominant actors.
Your detailed work on this appears in changing patterns of polarity [Polarity and world order].
Realist interpretation of changing power
Realism provides a powerful explanation of state competition.
Realists expect states to remain concerned with:
their power
security
relative position
military capability
economic capability
The emergence of new powers can therefore be interpreted as changes in the balance of power, rather than evidence that state-centred politics is disappearing.
The rise of BRICS and changing world order may support realism because global politics remains heavily shaped by the capabilities and relationships of states.
Liberal interpretation of changing power
Liberalism provides another interpretation because contemporary power is not limited to military capability.
The specification distinguishes:
hard power, military and economic
soft power, diplomatic and cultural
The importance of diplomatic and cultural influence can support the liberal view that political outcomes do not depend solely on coercive power.
States also interact through international organisations, trade and other forms of interdependence.
Case study: China's changing power
The 2023 mark scheme identifies China as a useful example, noting both development of military power and attempts to develop soft-power relationships.
Realist reading
China's increasing state power can support realism because:
the state remains the central actor
military and economic capability remain important
changes in one state's power affect the wider balance of power
competition among major states continues
Liberal reading
The same development can support liberalism to the extent that:
diplomatic and cultural soft power matter
economic relationships create interdependence
powerful states operate through international institutions as well as independent action
Again, the same development can support both theories in different respects.
Changing polarity since 2000
World order provides a particularly strong realist application.
Whether the system is:
unipolar
bipolar
multipolar
the question itself is about the distribution of power among major actors.
This fits realism particularly well.
However, liberalism may explain why changes in state power have not made institutions and economic interdependence irrelevant.
A useful judgement is:
Realism is especially strong at explaining changes in the distribution of state power, while liberalism can better explain why increasing numbers of interactions among those states occur through institutions and interdependent relationships.
Case-study area 5: regionalism and the European Union
The final compulsory area concerns:
economic, security and political regionalism
regional organisations
European integration
supranational and intergovernmental approaches
the EU as a global actor
sovereignty
regional responses to contemporary global issues
The course specifically includes NAFTA, the African Union, Arab League, ASEAN and the European Union.
This links directly to the EU's regional and global role [The EU as a regional and global organisation].
Liberal interpretation of regionalism
Regionalism appears to provide powerful support for liberalism.
States repeatedly choose to:
co-operate
establish institutions
create regional arrangements
develop economic and political relationships
This fits complex interdependence.
European integration can therefore be used to support the liberal expectation that co-operation between states can become increasingly structured and significant.
The reasoning is:
interdependence → shared interests → regional co-operation → institutions → deeper integration
Realist interpretation of regionalism
Realists question whether integration has actually displaced the sovereign state.
Regional organisations may remain dependent upon their member states.
States may also participate because doing so serves their own interests.
Regionalism therefore does not necessarily disprove realism.
A realist can argue:
states identify national interests → regional membership can advance those interests → states retain sovereignty → states remain key actors
Case study: the EU and Brexit
The 2023 mark scheme explicitly states that realism and liberalism can provide different perspectives on the growth of the EU and Brexit.
This creates an excellent paired case study.
Growth of European integration
This can support liberalism because it demonstrates:
continuing institutional co-operation
economic and political interconnectedness
states accepting organised regional relationships
possibilities for governance beyond isolated national action
Brexit
Brexit can support a realist interpretation because it illustrates the continuing importance of:
the nation-state
national sovereignty
state choice
The combination is analytically powerful:
European integration demonstrates why liberals believe interdependence and institutions can transform state relationships, while Brexit demonstrates why realists insist that sovereign states remain capable of reasserting national authority.
The five case-study areas at a glance
Content area | Useful development or case study | Realist interpretation | Liberal interpretation |
State and globalisation | Interconnectedness and intervention, including Iraq | Sovereignty, states and hard power remain significant | Increasing interdependence challenges purely independent action |
Political and economic governance | UN activity and the 2008 financial crisis | Institutions remain limited by sovereign states and conflicting interests | Shared problems encourage institutional co-operation |
Human rights and environmental governance | International courts and Paris | Sovereignty and differing national interests obstruct governance | Rules, institutions and agreements demonstrate global governance |
Power and developments | China, BRICS and changing polarity | State power and balance of power remain fundamental | Soft power and institutional relationships also matter |
Regionalism and the EU | European integration and Brexit | Sovereign states retain ultimate significance | Integration demonstrates complex interdependence and organised co-operation |
The specification requires coverage across all five areas, but the examiner reports show that individual examination responses do not need to turn into a rushed catalogue of every possible example.
Which theory explains global politics since 2000 better?
There is no specification requirement to reach one predetermined conclusion.
The purpose is to evaluate the extent to which each theory explains developments.
The case for realism
Developments since 2000 can support realism where they demonstrate:
continuing state sovereignty
state-centred power
hard power
conflict
security competition
limitations of international organisations
disagreements between states
obstacles to international co-operation
Realism is particularly convincing when examining developments in which the interests and security of states conflict.
Conflict despite the existence of international institutions is especially significant because it challenges the strongest liberal expectation that growing interdependence and governance can create greater harmony.
The case for liberalism
Developments since 2000 support liberalism where they demonstrate:
widening interdependence
increasing international co-operation
growth or impact of international organisations
global governance
regional integration
negotiated responses to cross-border problems
importance of soft power
Liberalism is especially useful when explaining why states repeatedly co-operate despite operating within an international system without a world government.
Why neither perspective explains everything
Global politics since 2000 contains developments pointing in both directions.
States:
retain sovereignty and participate in international institutions
use hard power and soft power
compete and co-operate
protect national interests and recognise shared problems
remain key actors and operate within complex interdependence
This means a sophisticated judgement may be:
Realism and liberalism often explain different dimensions of the same development. Realism is strongest when state sovereignty, power, security and conflict dominate, while liberalism is strongest when interdependence, institutions and co-operation shape behaviour.
The key word is extent. You are not trying to prove one theory universally correct.
Realism and liberalism as competing lenses
Think of the theories as different questions asked about the same development.
A realist asks:
Where is state power?
Whose national interests are being pursued?
Does sovereignty remain intact?
What role does hard power play?
Does conflict demonstrate international anarchy?
Can institutions actually compel powerful states?
A liberal asks:
How interconnected are the actors?
What mutual benefits encourage co-operation?
What role do international organisations play?
Is governance developing?
Are states solving shared problems collectively?
Does soft power reduce reliance on coercion?
Using both sets of questions prevents case-study description from replacing theory.
Building comparative analysis
Suppose your evidence is European integration and Brexit.
A descriptive response might say:
The EU is a regional organisation. Brexit involved the UK leaving it.
A theoretical response is better:
European integration can be interpreted through liberalism because sustained institutional and economic co-operation reflects complex interdependence. However, Brexit supports the realist emphasis on state sovereignty because a nation-state remained able to prioritise national political authority over continued integration.
A developed comparative response goes further:
The coexistence of integration and withdrawal therefore suggests that neither theory alone is sufficient. Liberalism better explains why deep regional co-operation develops, while realism better explains the continuing ability of sovereign states to determine the limits of that co-operation.
That is the type of reasoning Comparative Theories requires.
Do you need lots of case studies in one answer?
No.
The 2023 examiner report noted that candidates could use themes rather than individual events, including trends such as increasing international organisations and interdependence. It also highlighted a strong response focused in detail on only two broad developments, environment and conflict.
This is an important exam lesson.
Depth beats a list of undeveloped examples.
A case study earns its value when you use it to explain the theory.
Three well-developed comparisons are generally more useful than a long catalogue of events with little analysis.
Synoptic links to Core Political Ideas
The compulsory Comparative Theories question requires relevant links to Core Political Ideas.
The 2023 mark scheme makes this explicit. Candidates referring to only one named comparative theory could not progress beyond Level 1, while candidates making no synoptic point could not reach Level 4.
The safest approach is to make a relevant connection rather than adding a detached paragraph.
For example, liberal optimism about reason and morality can connect naturally to ideas already studied within Core Political Ideas.
Likewise, pessimistic assumptions about human behaviour can be linked where relevant to previously studied ideas about human nature.
⚠️ The synoptic link must support the actual comparison. Do not bolt on a paragraph about an ideology that has nothing to do with your argument.
Section B examination technique
Paper 3B contains a compulsory 12-mark Comparative Theories question in Section B. It assesses AO1 and AO2.
This matters because the specification asks you to develop an evaluative understanding of the theories, but the Section B question itself rewards:
accurate knowledge
relevant synoptic knowledge
comparative analysis
coherent chains of reasoning
It does not separately assess AO3 evaluation.
A strong 12-mark structure therefore looks like this:
Paragraph 1
Development or theme→ realist explanation→ liberal explanation→ direct comparison→ relevant case-study support→ synoptic connection where appropriate
Paragraph 2
Repeat with a different development.
Paragraph 3
Repeat with another development or deepen one of the existing comparisons.
The 2023 Level 4 descriptor rewards carefully selected knowledge, cohesive synoptic points and consistent comparative analysis supported by coherent logical chains of reasoning.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Realism | A theory which sees world politics as continuing conflict among actors pursuing power. | Apply it to sovereignty, state power, security, hard power and conflict. |
Liberalism | A theory which rejects power politics as the sole outcome of international relations and emphasises mutual benefits and co-operation. | Apply it to interdependence, institutions, soft power and co-operation. |
International anarchy | A leaderless global system with no universal sovereign or worldwide government. | Use it to explain continuing competition, sovereignty and limits on global governance. |
Complex interdependence | The theory that states and their fortunes are inextricably tied together. | Apply it to globalisation, economic governance, environmental politics and regional integration. |
Global governance | Political integration among transnational actors aimed at negotiating responses to problems affecting more than one state or region. | Use it when analysing international organisations, human rights, environmental agreements and regional co-operation. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Apply both named theories. The 2023 mark scheme states that an answer referring to only one named theory cannot progress beyond Level 1.
Examiner hint:Â Include a relevant synoptic link to Core Political Ideas. In the 2023 mark scheme, an answer with no synoptic point could not reach Level 4. The same issue was identified again in later examiner feedback. Â
Examiner hint:Â You may analyse themes as well as individual events. The 2023 examiner report noted successful use of trends such as increasing interdependence and the growth of international organisations, alongside specific developments such as conflict.
Examiner hint:Â Depth is valuable. One strong 2023 response focused in detail on environment and conflict rather than trying to mention every possible development.
Examiner hint:Â Use examples as evidence for analysis, not as substitutes for it. The examiner report praised depth of comparison where environmental examples were used to support both liberal and realist explanations.
Examiner hint:Â Maintain focus on the precise wording. Later examiner feedback found that weaker candidates often described realism and liberalism separately instead of analysing the particular disagreement identified by the question.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Treating the lesson as another description of realism and liberalism
Why this is incorrect: Specification section 6.5 requires the theories to be applied to developments since 2000.
How to improve: Every theoretical point should be connected to a development or case study.
Instead of:
Realists believe states are important.
Write:
The continuing use of state hard power in conflicts since 2000 supports realism because it demonstrates that sovereign states remain central actors despite growing global interdependence.
Mistake: Using only one theory
Why this is incorrect: The comparative-theory question requires comparison. The 2023 mark scheme limits responses referring to only one named theory to Level 1.
How to improve: Structure every major paragraph around realism versus liberalism.
Mistake: Listing case studies without analysing them
Why this is incorrect: Naming the UN, EU, Paris, China and the IMF does not itself demonstrate AO2.
How to improve: After every example, ask:
What does this demonstrate about the theory?
Mistake: Assuming one event can support only one theory
Why this is incorrect: Many developments contain both realist and liberal features.
How to improve: Practise interpreting the same evidence from both perspectives. The EU can demonstrate liberal integration while Brexit demonstrates continuing realist sovereignty.
Mistake: Trying to squeeze all five content areas into one 12-mark answer
Why this is incorrect: The specification requires your overall study to cover all five areas, but examiner feedback shows that strong examination answers can focus on a smaller number of developments in depth.
How to improve: Revise examples from all five areas, then select those that answer the actual question most effectively.
Mistake: Forgetting the "since 2000" requirement
Why this is incorrect: Specification section 6.5 specifically concerns recent developments since 2000.
How to improve: Make sure your selected case studies and developments fall within the required period.
Mistake: Forgetting synopticity
Why this is incorrect: Comparative Theory questions require relevant Core Political Ideas.
How to improve: Build a short, relevant ideological connection naturally into one or more analytical chains rather than attaching an unrelated paragraph at the end.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Questions
1. Define complex interdependence. (1 mark)
2. State two Global Politics content areas from which students should draw case studies when applying realism and liberalism to developments since 2000. (2 marks)
3. Explain one way in which globalisation since 2000 can support a liberal interpretation of global politics. (4 marks)
4. Explain one way in which the continuing importance of sovereignty can support a realist interpretation of global politics since 2000. (4 marks)
5. Consider the following scenario:
An economic crisis affects numerous states. Governments respond partly through international economic organisations, but disagreements remain because individual governments continue to prioritise different national interests.
Using the scenario, analyse how realism and liberalism would explain the response to the crisis differently. (6 marks)
6. Analyse how realism and liberalism provide different explanations for developments in international governance since 2000. In your answer you must discuss any relevant core political ideas. (12 marks)
7. Analyse how developments in regionalism and global power since 2000 can be interpreted differently by realists and liberals. In your answer you must discuss any relevant core political ideas. (12 marks)
8. Evaluate the view that developments in global politics since 2000 provide stronger support for liberalism than realism. You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way. (30 marks)
Answers and mark scheme
1. Define complex interdependence. (1 mark)
Award 1 mark for:
the theory that states and their fortunes are inextricably tied together.
2. State two Global Politics content areas from which students should draw case studies. (2 marks)
Award 1 mark for each valid area, up to 2 marks:
the state and globalisation
global governance: political and economic
global governance: human rights and environmental
power and developments
regionalism and the European Union
3. Explain one way in which globalisation since 2000 can support a liberal interpretation of global politics. (4 marks)
Credit a developed explanation such as:
globalisation involves widening and deepening interconnectedness
states therefore become increasingly interdependent
the fortunes and problems of states become more closely connected
this supports liberal complex interdependence and creates greater incentives for international co-operation
Higher marks require a connected explanation rather than simply stating that globalisation causes co-operation.
4. Explain one way in which the continuing importance of sovereignty can support a realist interpretation of global politics since 2000. (4 marks)
Credit:
realists regard states as key actors
states retain sovereign political authority
international organisations have not created a universal authority above all states
continuing sovereignty therefore supports the realist argument that state power remains central within an anarchic system
5. Analyse how realism and liberalism would explain the response to the crisis differently. (6 marks)
Credit analysis such as:
liberalism would emphasise that the crisis affects several interconnected states
this demonstrates complex interdependence
use of international economic organisations supports global governance and institutional co-operation
realism would emphasise the continuing disagreement among sovereign governments
states still pursue different national interests within the institutions
the case therefore demonstrates both liberal co-operation and realist limits upon that co-operation
Higher marks require direct comparison rather than separate descriptions.
6. Analyse how realism and liberalism provide different explanations for developments in international governance since 2000. In your answer you must discuss any relevant core political ideas. (12 marks)
A strong response could develop three comparative arguments.
International organisations
liberals interpret the continuing importance of organisations such as the UN and economic governance institutions as evidence of growing co-operation
this supports complex interdependence and global governance
realists argue that these organisations remain constrained by state sovereignty and conflicting national interests
Conflict and security
continuing conflict despite international institutions supports realism
it demonstrates that international organisations cannot guarantee peace within an anarchic system
liberals can nevertheless argue that organisations facilitate collective responses and can help manage international problems
Economic governance
interconnected economic problems, including the 2008 financial crisis, create incentives for collective governance
this supports liberalism
disagreement and the continuing importance of state interests provide realist counter-evidence
For Level 4 quality, use carefully selected knowledge to underpin consistent comparative analysis, include cohesive synoptic material and develop logical connections between evidence and theory.
7. Analyse how developments in regionalism and global power since 2000 can be interpreted differently by realists and liberals. In your answer you must discuss any relevant core political ideas. (12 marks)
Credit developed comparisons including:
Regionalism
growth of regional integration supports liberalism because states establish institutions and deepen interdependence
European integration can therefore be interpreted through complex interdependence
Brexit can support realism because it demonstrates the continuing ability of a sovereign state to assert national political authority
Changing power
the USA, China and emerging BRICS powers support a realist focus on state capabilities and the changing balance of power
military and economic hard power remain significant
liberalism nevertheless explains the importance of soft power, economic interconnectedness and participation in international organisations
Overall
realism may better explain the continuing competition among powerful states
liberalism may better explain why competition increasingly takes place alongside institutional and economic co-operation
Higher marks require direct comparison and a relevant Core Political Ideas connection.
8. Evaluate the view that developments in global politics since 2000 provide stronger support for liberalism than realism. (30 marks)
A high-level answer should consider evidence from across the Global Politics course.
Arguments supporting the view
Globalisation
widening interconnectedness and interdependence strongly support the liberal concept of complex interdependence
state activity increasingly occurs within cross-border economic, political and institutional relationships
Global governance
the UN, economic governance organisations and international institutions demonstrate continuing attempts at organised co-operation
the existence of negotiated collective responses supports liberal expectations about global governance
Human rights and the environment
international law, international courts and environmental agreements demonstrate attempts to create shared rules
environmental governance particularly demonstrates the need for co-operation over problems crossing state boundaries
Regionalism
growth of regional organisations and European integration demonstrate that states can develop sustained institutional co-operation
These developments support the liberal argument that power competition is not the sole outcome of international relations.
Arguments challenging the view
State sovereignty
states remain key actors and continue to retain sovereign authority
international institutions have not created a universal political authority
Conflict
significant conflict has continued since 2000 despite increased international organisation and interdependence
this supports realist arguments about international anarchy and the continuing significance of security
Hard power
military and economic power remain crucial to the position of major states
changes involving the USA, China and BRICS can therefore be explained through the realist emphasis on state power and the balance of power
Limits of governance
international institutions may be constrained when states have conflicting interests
environmental co-operation faces obstacles involving sovereignty and competing state interests
Brexit demonstrates that extensive regional integration does not necessarily eliminate national sovereignty
Judgement
A justified conclusion should assess the extent of each theory's explanatory power rather than declare one universally correct.
A defensible judgement is that liberalism explains the substantial growth of interconnectedness, international institutions and organised co-operation since 2000, while realism remains highly persuasive when explaining sovereignty, power competition, institutional limitations and conflict. The strongest overall conclusion is therefore likely to recognise that both theories explain important but different dimensions of contemporary global politics, with the relative strength of each depending on the development being analysed.
Comments