IB Global Politics Case Study Bank — All 4 Themes | TopBandGlobalPolitics

Section 1

How to Use a Case Study in Paper 2

The most common evidence mistake in Paper 2 is name-dropping. Naming "the Russia-Ukraine war" earns nothing. Explaining what a specific aspect of that case reveals about power, sovereignty, legitimacy, or interdependence — that earns marks.

Three Rules for Deploying Evidence

Be specific. Use an actor, decision, date, or consequence — not just the topic. "Russia's 2022 invasion" earns more than "the conflict in Ukraine." "The Hambantota Port lease of 2017" earns more than "China's BRI."
Explain the political significance. What does this case reveal about how the world works? What does it tell you about power, sovereignty, legitimacy, or interdependence? The case itself is not the analysis — your explanation is.
Map to a concept. Connect your evidence to at least one of the four core concepts. The examiner is looking for conceptual application, not historical knowledge — the IB is a politics exam, not a world history exam.

What Deployment Looks Like — Weak vs Strong

Weak Deployment

"The Russia-Ukraine war shows that sovereignty is important."

Strong Deployment

"Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine — justified through the NATO-expansion narrative — demonstrates how great powers can use sovereignty rhetoric strategically: invoking the right of self-determination for Russian-speaking populations to legitimise an action that simultaneously violated Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. This reveals sovereignty as a contested political construct rather than a neutral legal principle."

Theme 1

Peace & Conflict

War, Security, and the Architecture of Peace

What Happened

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 marked the largest conventional military conflict in Europe since World War II. Russia justified the invasion by citing NATO expansion, the protection of Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine, and Ukraine's alleged threat to Russian security. The invasion prompted unprecedented Western sanctions, significant military aid to Ukraine, and a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the aggression (141 states in favour, 5 against). As of 2026, the conflict continues along contested front lines in eastern and southern Ukraine.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Best deployed in questions on sovereignty, great-power competition, the limits of collective security, or the role of international institutions. The UNSC's paralysis due to Russia's permanent-member veto is a structural argument about institutional design. The energy sanctions dimension links to interdependence. The sovereignty-versus-security framing links to great-power justifications for intervention.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine exposed the structural limits of the UN's collective security framework — Russia's permanent seat on the Security Council allowed it to veto any binding UN response, illustrating how formal international institutions can be rendered ineffective by the veto power of the very actors whose conduct they are designed to constrain."

What Happened

The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova in March 2023, relating to the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. This marked the first time a sitting leader of a permanent UN Security Council member had been indicted by the court. Russia — which withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute in 2016 — dismissed the warrants as politically motivated. Several ICC member states faced political pressure over whether to arrest Putin if he visited their territory, exposing the gap between legal legitimacy and enforcement.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Best deployed in questions on accountability, international law, human rights enforcement, or the limits of international institutions. Illustrates the central paradox of international criminal justice: institutions may possess legal legitimacy while lacking the coercive power to enforce their decisions against resistant great powers. Also useful for sovereignty discussions — Russia invokes sovereignty to deny ICC jurisdiction.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"The ICC's 2023 arrest warrant for Putin illustrates the central paradox of international criminal justice: institutions may possess legal legitimacy — the formal authority to prosecute — while lacking the coercive power to enforce their decisions against resistant states, particularly great powers who can use their structural position to shield themselves from accountability."

What Happened

NATO expanded from 16 members at the end of the Cold War to 32 by 2024, with Sweden joining in March 2024 — ending 200 years of neutrality. Russia consistently framed NATO expansion as an existential threat, arguing that commitments made in the early 1990s not to expand eastward were violated. Western states rejected this interpretation, asserting that sovereign nations have the right to choose their own security arrangements. The debate is central to the geopolitical context of the Ukraine conflict and illustrates competing interpretations of sovereignty in practice.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Ideal for questions on sovereignty, security, or the architecture of international order. Shows how sovereignty claims can be deployed by opposing actors to justify contradictory positions. Sweden and Finland's accession (overturning decades of neutrality) also demonstrates how changing threat perceptions reshape state behaviour within alliance structures.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"NATO's eastward expansion since 1991 illustrates the tension between two interpretations of sovereignty: Western states assert that sovereign nations have the right to choose their security arrangements, while Russia argues that NATO expansion constitutes a structural threat that overrides this principle — revealing how sovereignty claims can be deployed by opposing actors to justify contradictory geopolitical positions."

What Happened

The Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 — which killed approximately 1,200 Israelis — triggered an Israeli military campaign in Gaza resulting in tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure. The conflict generated intense international debate about proportionality, laws of war, and accountability. South Africa filed genocide proceedings against Israel at the ICJ; in January 2024, the court issued provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide. The case marks a significant moment in the mobilisation of international legal mechanisms in asymmetric conflicts.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Deploy in questions on human rights enforcement, international law, legitimacy of state violence, or accountability in asymmetric conflict. The ICJ provisional measures illustrate both the reach of international legal institutions and their enforcement limits. The US veto of UNSC ceasefire resolutions parallels the Russia-Ukraine case in demonstrating how great powers use structural power to shield allies.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"The ICJ's 2024 provisional measures in South Africa v. Israel demonstrate how international legal institutions are increasingly being mobilised to evaluate the conduct of states in asymmetric conflicts — though enforcement remains dependent on political will, illustrating the persistent gap between legal legitimacy and effective accountability in the contemporary international order."

Theme 2

Human Rights

Rights, Accountability, and State Power

What Happened

Myanmar's military launched a clearance operation against the Rohingya Muslim population in Rakhine State in August 2017, resulting in an estimated 700,000–800,000 Rohingya fleeing to Bangladesh. The UN described it as a "textbook example of ethnic cleansing." Myanmar denied Rohingya people citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law. The ICJ began proceedings against Myanmar in 2019 for alleged violations of the Genocide Convention. Following the 2021 military coup, the humanitarian situation deteriorated significantly and international access became even more restricted.

How to Use It in Paper 2

The primary case for questions on sovereignty versus the Responsibility to Protect, ASEAN non-interference norms, or the gap between international legal proceedings and effective protection. ASEAN's non-interventionist stance — justified through sovereignty norms — illustrates how regional organisations can shield states from accountability. The ICJ proceedings illustrate legal legitimacy without enforcement power.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"The Rohingya crisis illustrates the tension between the principle of non-interference in state affairs — a cornerstone of Westphalian sovereignty — and the international community's claimed Responsibility to Protect. ASEAN's non-interventionist stance, justified through sovereignty norms, effectively shielded the Tatmadaw from coordinated regional pressure, demonstrating how sovereignty can function as a structural barrier to international accountability."

What Happened

The killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers in May 2020 triggered a global wave of protests under the Black Lives Matter movement. The protests raised questions about systemic racism within police forces, institutional accountability, and the gap between formal legal rights and substantive equality. BLM spread to the UK, Australia, France, and beyond, prompting debates about colonial histories, institutional racism, and democratic accountability in multiple political contexts — demonstrating how a domestic human rights crisis can rapidly become a transnational normative challenge.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Best deployed in questions on non-state actor influence, legitimacy of state institutions, human rights at the domestic level, or the role of social media in transnational politics. BLM is a strong example of how legitimacy crises can no longer be contained within domestic politics once they spread via global digital platforms. Useful for NSA vs state power arguments.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"BLM demonstrates how non-state actors can challenge the legitimacy of state institutions through mass mobilisation rather than formal political channels — and how legitimacy crises, once they spread across borders via social media, can no longer be contained within the domestic political space, transforming local failures of accountability into transnational normative challenges."

What Happened

Since approximately 2017, the Chinese government has operated a system of mass detention facilities in Xinjiang affecting an estimated 1–1.8 million Uyghur and other Muslim-minority populations. China describes these as "vocational education and training centres." Evidence gathered by journalists, researchers, and leaked government documents suggests systematic cultural suppression, surveillance, forced labour, and family separation. Several Western governments have described the situation as genocide. China has strongly denied these characterisations, invoking non-interference principles and framing the policy as a legitimate counter-terrorism matter.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Strongest for questions on sovereignty versus human rights, the limits of international accountability, or structural power and surveillance. The case illustrates how sovereignty can be invoked as a shield against external scrutiny — reframing systematic human rights violations as a domestic security issue. China's economic leverage over many states also limits the effectiveness of international pressure, demonstrating the interaction between economic interdependence and human rights accountability.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"China's Xinjiang policies illustrate how sovereignty can be invoked as a shield against external accountability — framing what international observers characterise as systematic human rights violations as a domestic counter-terrorism matter, beyond the reach of external scrutiny. China's economic leverage simultaneously limits the international community's capacity to impose meaningful consequences, revealing how structural power and sovereignty norms can combine to constrain accountability."

Theme 3

Development & Sustainability

Aid, Infrastructure, and the Politics of Development

What Happened

China's Belt and Road Initiative — announced in 2013 — is a global infrastructure and investment programme spanning over 150 countries, financing ports, railways, roads, and energy infrastructure primarily through Chinese state banks. Critics argue the BRI creates debt dependency (the "debt trap" thesis), undermines recipient states' sovereignty, and extends Chinese geopolitical influence. The most cited case is Sri Lanka's 2017 Hambantota Port lease — transferring operational control to a Chinese state-owned company for 99 years following unsustainable debt levels on a $1.4 billion loan. Proponents argue the BRI fills a genuine infrastructure gap in the Global South.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Primary case for economic interdependence and sovereignty, structural power, or development governance. The Hambantota case is specific enough to be analytically precise — name the port, the year, the loan value. The "debt trap" versus "genuine development" debate allows for strong evaluation. Can also be deployed in geopolitics questions (BRI as soft/structural power strategy) and environment questions (Chinese-financed infrastructure and environmental standards).

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"Sri Lanka's 2017 Hambantota Port lease — transferring operational control to a Chinese state-owned company for 99 years following unsustainable debt levels on a $1.4 billion loan — represents a concrete case of how economic interdependence can create conditions of structural dependency that constrain sovereign decision-making without formal coercion, illustrating that the most significant threats to sovereignty in the contemporary world may be economic rather than military."

What Happened

The UN Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda, established 17 goals and 169 targets for global sustainable development — the first universal development framework binding all UN member states, not only developing countries. Progress has been significantly derailed by COVID-19, conflict, and climate events. A 2023 UN assessment found that only 15% of SDG targets were on track globally, while 30% showed no progress or regression from the 2015 baseline.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Use for questions on global development governance, the effectiveness of international institutions, or the gap between normative frameworks and enforcement. The SDGs' universal scope (all states, not just developing countries) represents a normative shift worth analysing. The 2023 progress failure is a strong evaluation point: normative legitimacy alone is insufficient without enforcement mechanisms or binding commitments.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"The SDGs' universal scope — applying to all UN member states rather than only developing nations — represents a normative shift in development governance, framing sustainable development as a global responsibility rather than a North-South aid relationship. However, the 2023 UN SDG progress report's finding that only 15% of targets were on track suggests that normative legitimacy without coercive enforcement mechanisms is structurally insufficient to address collective action problems of this scale."

What Happened

Following COVID-19 and the global inflation shock of 2022, numerous developing economies faced acute debt crises. Countries including Zambia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Ghana, and Ethiopia entered IMF restructuring programmes. IMF loans are typically conditional on fiscal adjustment measures — reduced public spending, currency devaluation, and structural economic reforms. Critics argue these conditions undermine democratic decision-making and entrench dependency. Defenders argue they are necessary to restore fiscal sustainability. Sri Lanka's programme included significant public spending cuts during an acute humanitarian crisis.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Deploy in questions on sovereignty versus interdependence, development governance, or the politics of international economic institutions. IMF conditionality is a textbook example of formal sovereignty (states retain the right to set their own budgets) versus effective sovereignty (exercised under externally imposed constraints). The evaluation angle: IMF programmes have restored fiscal stability in some cases, but the austerity conditions have also generated political instability and democratic backlash.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"IMF conditionality represents a structural constraint on sovereign fiscal policy: states formally retain the right to set their own budgets, but fiscal dependency creates conditions in which that right is exercised under externally imposed constraints — illustrating the distinction between formal and effective sovereignty in the global economic system, where financial dependency can limit policy autonomy as effectively as direct political pressure."

Theme 4

Environment

Climate, Governance, and the Politics of the Planet

What Happened

The Paris Agreement (2015) established a framework for global climate action, committing states to limit warming to 1.5–2°C above pre-industrial levels through Nationally Determined Contributions — voluntary pledges rather than binding targets. The US withdrew under Trump (2017) and rejoined under Biden (2021). COP28 (Dubai, 2023) produced the first agreement to "transition away from fossil fuels" but without binding enforcement mechanisms. The 2023 UNEP Emissions Gap Report found that current pledges put the world on track for 2.5–2.9°C of warming.

How to Use It in Paper 2

The primary case for global environmental governance, collective action problems, or sovereignty versus international cooperation. The NDC framework's voluntary nature is central: it was specifically designed to accommodate state sovereignty, but this accommodation may be structurally insufficient to address a problem requiring collective binding commitments. The US withdrawal and re-entry under different administrations also illustrates the fragility of international environmental commitments.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"The Paris Agreement's reliance on voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions rather than binding targets reflects a deliberate accommodation of state sovereignty — but the 2023 UNEP Emissions Gap Report's finding that current pledges put the world on track for 2.5–2.9°C of warming suggests that voluntary frameworks, however normatively legitimate, may be structurally insufficient to address collective action problems of this magnitude."

What Happened

Small Island Developing States — including Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, and the Maldives — face existential threats from sea level rise caused by emissions primarily produced by industrialised nations. Tuvalu began negotiating agreements for its citizens to have residency rights in other countries, notably Australia, in anticipation of the country becoming uninhabitable. The Loss and Damage Fund, agreed at COP27 (2022) and operationalised at COP28 (2023), represents the first formal acknowledgement of wealthy-state liability for climate damage to vulnerable nations — though initial funding levels were widely criticised as insufficient.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Use for climate justice, power asymmetry, sovereignty, or interdependence questions. Tuvalu is analytically striking because climate change directly threatens the physical basis of state sovereignty — the territory upon which sovereign authority is exercised. The power asymmetry is extreme: SIDS have contributed negligibly to global emissions but bear the greatest costs. The Loss and Damage Fund illustrates both progress and limits in international accountability.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"Tuvalu's negotiation of residency agreements with Australia — contingent on rising sea levels rendering the country uninhabitable — represents an unprecedented case in which climate change directly threatens the physical basis of state sovereignty: the territory upon which sovereign authority is exercised. This illustrates perhaps the starkest manifestation of interdependence: states that have contributed negligibly to a global problem bearing an existential cost as a consequence of others' emissions."

What Happened

Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon accelerated significantly under President Bolsonaro's government (2019–2022), reaching record levels; Brazil argued these were matters of sovereign national development. International pressure contested this framing, arguing Amazon deforestation constitutes a global environmental threat. Under President Lula (from 2023), Brazil reversed course — pledging zero illegal deforestation and repositioning itself as a global climate leader. The contrast illustrates how rapidly domestic political change can transform a state's international environmental position without any change in international law or institutional frameworks.

How to Use It in Paper 2

Ideal for sovereignty versus environmental governance, domestic politics and international commitments, or the fragility of voluntary frameworks. The Bolsonaro-Lula contrast is analytically powerful: same state, same territory, same international obligations — radically different policy choices depending on electoral outcomes. This highlights the structural vulnerability of environmental commitments that depend on domestic political continuity rather than binding institutional frameworks.

Ready-to-Deploy Sentence

"Brazil's Amazon policy reversal between 2022 and 2023 illustrates the intersection of domestic politics and global environmental governance: the same state, same territory, and same international obligations — but radically different policy choices depending on the government in power. This highlights the structural fragility of environmental commitments that depend on electoral outcomes rather than binding institutional frameworks, reinforcing the case for legally enforceable international agreements over voluntary pledges."

Section 6

Versatile Cases — Usable Across Multiple Themes

Several cases in this bank can be deployed across more than one theme. Use this table to plan which cases you'll use for which arguments — and to avoid reaching for the same case study for every paragraph.

Case Study	Peace & Conflict	Human Rights	Development	Environment
Russia–Ukraine War	Primary	War crimes / ICC	Sanctions / energy	—
Belt and Road Initiative	Geopolitics	—	Primary	Infrastructure / standards
Paris Agreement / COP28	—	—	Climate finance / SIDS	Primary
Rohingya Crisis	Civilian targeting	Primary	—	—
SIDS / Climate Justice	—	Displacement / rights	Loss & Damage / finance	Primary
ICC (Putin warrant)	Primary	Accountability	—	—
Xinjiang / Uyghurs	—	Primary	Trade leverage / sanctions	—
IMF Conditionality	—	Austerity / rights	Primary	—

Section 7

How to Deploy a Case Study — Quick Guide

Every case study in this bank is structured for analysis, not description. Three steps separate name-dropping from analytical deployment.

Be Specific

Actor + decision + date — not just the topic. "Russia's 2022 invasion" earns more than "the conflict in Ukraine." "The Hambantota Port lease of 2017" earns more than "China's BRI." Specificity signals genuine knowledge and earns marks that vague references cannot.

Explain the Significance

What does this case reveal about how power, sovereignty, legitimacy, or interdependence operates? The case itself is not the analysis. "This demonstrates how structural power operates without coercion because..." is analysis. "This shows that China is powerful" is description.

Evaluate — Both Ways

Where does this case support your argument most strongly? Where does it complicate or limit it? A case study used only to confirm your argument earns less than one deployed with honest acknowledgement of its limits and what it fails to explain.

Need the writing method to go with these cases?

The PEELE guide shows you exactly how to build a body paragraph around any case study in this bank — from the point that introduces your argument, through to the evaluation that earns Grade 7.

Read the PEELE Writing Guide

Case Study Bank — All Four Themes, All Four Concepts

How to Use a Case Study in Paper 2

What Deployment Looks Like — Weak vs Strong

War, Security, and the Architecture of Peace

Rights, Accountability, and State Power

Aid, Infrastructure, and the Politics of Development

Climate, Governance, and the Politics of the Planet

Versatile Cases — Usable Across Multiple Themes

How to Deploy a Case Study — Quick Guide

Ready to Write with These Cases?