Global Politics Higher Level Extension
Present on something you know a lot about already
I know I’ve already emphasised this in IOP (for English Lit.) but I firmly believe that you should know what you’re talking about really well before you present. This eliminates the need for a script. I’m a fan of the idea that if you do enough research, you’ll know sufficiently about the subject - so much so that you won’t really find the need for a script - you’ll just rely on your own knowledge. As the rubric states very nicely, “The student demonstrates an excellent understanding of a political issue“.
Perhaps it’s a topic you’re really interested in - or perhaps it’s from a region of the world you’ve spent some time in - or perhaps it concerns you directly for some reason. If there is some personal connection, it’s best to use something like this to build your knowledge upon - otherwise it’ll be boring for you to do and can often be boring for the rest of the class.
Draw out a key debate and present either side of the argument then synthesise
As with most other parts of Global Politics, you need to talk analytically - not just descriptively. The IB rubric puts it very nicely, “a clear and focused analysis and an exploration of different perspectives on the issue” - in other words, it is necessary that you give analysis through exploring different perspectives - you cannot just describe your case study.
I would ask you to consider the self-interest vs. collective good debate, which is relevant in most case studies - most Global Politics case studies seem to boil down to this idea in some way or other. This larger-picture debate is also vital when exploring the implications of your case study in the wider context of Global Politics.
Study from the other presentations
I really liked the Global Politics presentations, as they were a really good opportunity to study for my exams. Because each classmate had different perspectives from the various countries that had been to, I got access to 20 high quality presentations of case studies. Remember - the more high-quality examples you can use for Paper 1 Question 4 and Paper 2 the better.
An exemplary student should not sit idly by whilst classmates present - you should take notes of the key ideas and debates that are presented - and you should ask questions at the end of each presentation to get the opinions of your peers and the key concepts that they have linked to, as well as any additional details they might have, which may be of interest to you. Don’t be afraid to ask critical questions, as critical thinking is expected both fro you and from your peers - especially in Global Politics.
Please note: Whilst my school did record these originals, I could not access these - please understand that I have gone to the trouble of recording these again. Both presentations scored quite highly, which removed much pressure when my IB exams came.
Environment: The Carbon Tax in Australia
In this presentation, I argued that a major challenge to global governance in democratic states is legitimising environmental policies. I suggested that there is often a perceived conflict between legitimacy by the people and legitimacy from a higher, universal set of ethics, which liberalists would claim are needed for global governance and collective security.
I argued that the vast unpopularity of the carbon tax in Australia, as well as the success of the Opposition Coalition to delegitimise the move as not elected by the people is a clear representative example of how the immediate self interest of the majority can often conflict with liberalist notions such as universal ethics and the inviolable nature of Human Rights.
Borders: Post-Brexit Border Dynamic for the UK
In this presentation, I argue that globalisation is inevitable for economic development, which provides the hard power necessary to survive. I suggest that given this, and given that states will act in their self-interest despite the democratic will, it is unsurprising that despite Brexit being framed during the campaign as protectionist and anti-globalisation, state actors are still discussing pro-globalisation alternatives to a completely hard (or “no-deal” Brexit).
The fact that the UK is looking to new trade partners in the Commonwealth, as well as working to maintain ties with the EU shows that globalisation is deemed to be in the best interests for state survival, no matter what the popular view.
Similar backlash from state actors, against anti-globalisation can also be seen, I argue, in the US, France and across the world, whereby the so-called “checks and balances” and state institutions are often preventing the anti-globalisation sentiment (even against the express will of the people), which seems to show that globalisation is deemed necessary for economic development, and therefore, for state survival in international anarchy.