At a glance. Paper 2 is common to SL and HL. You answer two essays in 1h45m: one from Section A (thematic studies) and one from Section B (integrating questions). Each essay is 15 marks; total 30 marks. For both SL and HL, Paper 2 is weighted 40% & 30% of the course grade.

What the paper is testing: You’re expected to use relevant knowledge (core + thematic studies), build sustained arguments, support them with specific cases/examples, and examine diverse perspectives—especially in Section B where you connect across themes and the core.

Section A vs Section B

• Section A (Thematic studies): choose one question anchored in a single theme (Rights & Justice, Development & Sustainability, Peace & Conflict). Depth and accurate cases matter.

• Section B (Integrating questions): choose one question that requires synthesis across the three themes and the core topics; examiners look for connections and perspective-taking.
  
  

How to plan (5–6 minutes)

1. Choose smart: pick the prompt you can argue clearly with two or three precise cases. (If you can’t name them now, pick another question.)

2. Decode the command term (discuss/evaluate/examine/“to what extent”) and set a positioned thesis that answers it directly.

3. Map structure: 2–3 body arguments + counterclaim/limitations; plan where each case and perspective fits.

4. Integrate concepts: weave in key concepts (power, sovereignty, legitimacy, interdependence, etc.) to lift analysis beyond narration.
   
   

A reliable essay structure

• Intro (≈3–4 sentences): define the debate (1 sentence), answer the question with a clear stance (1 sentence), signpost your main reasons/cases (1–2).

• Body 1 & 2 (and 3 if time):

  • Claim linked to the question.

  • Develop with explanation + specific case(s) (brief facts).

  • Perspective(s): show different views/actors; weigh them.

  • Mini-conclusion tying back to the question.

• Counterweight/Limitations: a short paragraph recognizing conditions under which your thesis is weaker/stronger (helps reach top bands).

• Conclusion: answer the question again (qualified), note implications or conditions.
  This organization targets sustained argument, accurate knowledge, examples, and perspective-taking—all priorities for Paper 2.

Evidence expectations

Use specific, contemporary cases (named actors, dates, policies/treaties/outcomes). Don’t just list examples—explain why each example supports the claim (or limits it). Use appropriate global politics terminology.

Common pitfalls (and fixes)

• Descriptive answers with thin analysis → always link facts to the argument and the command term.

• Under-developed examples → add 1–2 concrete details per case (who/what/when/so-what).

• Single perspective → name at least two perspectives (e.g., state vs. NGO; Global North vs. South; marginalized group vs. government) and weigh them.

Time management (suggested)

• 6 min plan, 2 × ~18 min to write each essay, 3–5 min to proof & tighten claims/examples. That pacing leaves space for perspective and evaluation (key to high marks).

Paper 2 rubric (markbands summary, per essay | 15 marks)

• 13–15: Fully addresses demands; clear, coherent, compelling arguments; all main claims justified & evaluated; effective use of accurate knowledge; examples well developed; diverse perspectives explored & evaluated.

• 10–12: Demands understood & addressed; well-structured; claims justified; accurate knowledge throughout; examples adequately developed; perspectives explored.

• 7–9: Partial address of demands; adequate structure; most claims justified; relevant knowledge; examples partly developed; perspectives identified but not explored.

• 4–6: Some understanding; structure lacks clarity; limited justification; some knowledge; undeveloped/unclear examples; no perspectives.

• 1–3: Limited understanding; poorly structured; little relevant knowledge; descriptive/unsupported.

Quick checklist before you move on

• Have I answered the command term directly in the first and last paragraphs?

• Do I have 2–3 precise cases with clear relevance (not just names)?

• Did I compare perspectives (and not just list them)?

• Did I integrate concepts (power, sovereignty, legitimacy, interdependence…)?