Skip to main content

IB® · HL/SL

IB® Global Politics HL/SL

Power, sovereignty, legitimacy, and interdependence: analytical frameworks plus contemporary case studies for the new syllabus (first assessment 2026).

Start Unit 1 free. 1. Framing Global Politics: Actors, Systems & Power is open to everyone, no account needed. Other topics are locked.

1. Framing Global Politics: Actors, Systems & Power

HOW TO READ THIS GUIDE: PRESCRIBED CONTENT vs ENRICHMENT. The IB syllabus prescribes topics and content (the four key concepts, the three thematic studies, the HL topic areas): exam questions address these. It does not prescribe specific theories, theorists, or named case studies: no theory or theorist is required by name, and the official guide names thinkers and examples only as possible support. Throughout this guide, treat the concepts, classifications and prescribed lists as required, and the named theorists (Wallerstein, Enloe, Said, Nussbaum, Berlin, Singer, Pogge, Moyo, etc.) and specific cases as useful enrichment that deepens analysis but is not required by name. Deploy them when they genuinely illuminate a case.

THE BIG PICTURE. Global politics begins with a simple but contested question: who has the ability to influence outcomes, and how? The new course (first assessment 2026) is organised around four key concepts, POWER, SOVEREIGNTY, LEGITIMACY, and INTERDEPENDENCE, that weave through every topic. Topic 1 sets up the analytical toolkit: the actors and stakeholders that shape political outcomes, the systems and institutions in which they operate, and the many ways scholars classify power. Mastering this topic gives you vocabulary and frameworks you'll re-use across rights, development, peace, and the HL extension.

ACTORS vs. STAKEHOLDERS

The distinction matters. An ACTOR has the agency and means to act on a political issue. A STAKEHOLDER is anyone affected by the issue, whether or not they can act on it. A subsistence farmer in coastal Bangladesh is a stakeholder in climate negotiations but has limited capacity as an actor: yet good political analysis must consider both.

Major categories of actors:

  • STATES: still the foundational unit of the international system. Possess sovereignty (in principle), territory, population, and the recognised right to use force.
  • SUBNATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: provinces, states (within federations), cities. Increasingly important in climate, migration, and public health (e.g. C40 Cities network, US states acting on climate when federal government withdraws).
  • INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS (IGOs): formed by treaties between states. Examples: the UN, World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), African Union (AU), ASEAN, EU, Mercosur, NATO.
  • ORGANISED CIVIL SOCIETY: including NGOs (Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, Greenpeace), advocacy networks, professional associations, religious organisations.
  • PRIVATE ACTORS / COMPANIES: multinational corporations (MNCs/TNCs) such as Apple, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Tencent. Their revenue often exceeds that of mid-sized states.
  • SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: large, decentralised mobilisations (Black Lives Matter, Fridays for Future, the Arab uprisings, MeToo).
  • RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS: including armed groups (Kurdish forces, Myanmar's National Unity Government, the Zapatistas).
  • POLITICAL PARTIES, INTEREST AND PRESSURE GROUPS, POLITICAL LEADERS, THE MEDIA: all shape what gets onto the political agenda and what counts as legitimate.
  • FORMAL AND INFORMAL POLITICAL FORUMS (prescribed actor category): formal: parliaments, summits, courts, councils. Informal: G7, G20, BRICS, Davos, COP side-meetings, online political spaces. (Explored in depth in Topic 4.)
  • OTHER INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE ACTORS (prescribed), whistleblowers, activists, diasporas, epistemic communities, expert panels, anyone with the agency to influence a political issue.

Actors vs stakeholders in one deal The grain corridor (July 2022 to July 2023) had a handful of actors who could make or break it and hundreds of millions of stakeholders who felt its effects through food prices.

CASE STUDY: THE BLACK SEA GRAIN INITIATIVE (2022–23)

After Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine's grain exports through its Black Sea ports largely stopped, raising fears of food-price shocks in import-dependent states. On 22 July 2022 in Istanbul, Russia and Ukraine each signed the Black Sea Grain Initiative with Türkiye and the UN (in parallel documents, not with each other), alongside a separate memorandum between Russia and the UN on Russian food and fertiliser exports. A Joint Coordination Centre in Istanbul inspected ships using three Ukrainian ports (Odesa, Chornomorsk and Yuzhny/Pivdennyi). More than 30 million tonnes of grain and foodstuffs were exported before Russia declined to renew the deal after 17 July 2023, saying the commitments on its own exports had not been met.

  • Concept: actors vs stakeholders. The signatories and brokers had agency; importing states, food-aid recipients and consumers were affected but had almost no say.
  • What it shows: power over (Russia could end the deal), power with (the UN and Türkiye brokering an informal arrangement) and interdependence (a war between two states moving bread prices on other continents).
  • Exam link: a compact example of how a system (here a brokered deal, not a formal treaty) shapes what actors can do, usable in Paper 1 and as a core-topic link in Paper 2.

SYSTEMS: STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS

Actors do not operate in a vacuum. They are embedded in POLITICAL SYSTEMS: sets of rules, norms, and institutions that shape what is possible. The same type of actor (say, a private company) behaves very differently in the heavily regulated EU than in a state with weak rule of law. INSTITUTIONS here means more than formal organisations: it includes the informal social structures, norms, and expectations that constrain and channel behaviour (e.g. the norm against using nuclear weapons, the convention of presidential term limits in many democracies).

Key systemic features to look for:

  • DISTRIBUTION of power (unipolar, bipolar, multipolar; concentrated or diffused).
  • RULES and NORMS (UN Charter, WTO rules, customary international law, regional agreements).
  • DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES (consensus, majority voting, vetoes).
  • ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS (or their absence: much international politics rests on voluntary compliance).

CLASSIFYING POWER

The syllabus prescribes several power typologies. You need to be able to apply them, not just define them. Use them as analytical tools when you discuss any case.

HARD, SOFT, AND SMART POWER (Joseph Nye).

  • HARD POWER = coercion. Military force, economic sanctions, threats. Examples: U.S. air strikes on Iranian-backed militias in Iraq; Western sanctions on Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine; Chinese economic coercion against Australia (2020 trade restrictions).
  • SOFT POWER = attraction and persuasion. Culture, values, foreign policy that others want to emulate. Examples: K-pop and Korean cinema (South Korea's "Hallyu" wave); the BBC World Service; the historical attractiveness of EU membership for aspiring states; Confucius Institutes (and the controversies they generate).
  • SMART POWER = strategic combination of hard and soft tools, calibrated to the situation. The U.S. Marshall Plan (1948) is a classic example: large-scale economic reconstruction (soft) paired with the emerging US-led security architecture that NATO would formalise in 1949 (hard).

STRUCTURAL vs. RELATIONAL POWER.

  • STRUCTURAL POWER is the power to shape the rules of the game. Permanent membership of the UN Security Council (with veto) gives the P5 (US, UK, France, Russia, China) structural power. The U.S. dollar's role as global reserve currency is structural power.
  • RELATIONAL POWER operates through specific relationships: alliances, partnerships, coalitions. Example: the unusual U.S.–Taiwan relationship; the AUKUS pact (Australia, UK, US).

ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL POWER.

Different domains, often interconnected. Saudi Arabia's economic power (oil) translates into political influence; South Korea's cultural power (K-pop, K-drama) supports diplomatic and economic ambitions.

POWER TO, POWER OVER, POWER WITH (Hannah Arendt; Steven Lukes; feminist scholarship).

  • POWER TO: the capacity to act, achieve goals.
  • POWER OVER: domination of one actor over another.
  • POWER WITH: collective power generated through cooperation. Social movements often emphasise "power with."

The four prescribed power typologies on one page The syllabus wants these applied, not recited. One real case usually involves several types at once, as the EU sanctions strip shows.

PRACTICE: CLASSIFY THE POWER

Cover the right-hand columns and classify each scenario yourself first. Most scenarios fit more than one type: say which is dominant and why.

ScenarioMain type(s) of powerWhy
A state freezes a rival's central-bank reserves held abroadHard, economic, structuralCoercive, and it works through control of the financial system
A government funds scholarships and a global TV channelSoft, culturalSeeks attraction, not compliance
Small island states negotiate as one bloc at climate talksPower with, relationalJoint bargaining power none has alone
A permanent member vetoes a draft Security Council resolutionStructural, power overUses its rule-making position to block others
A city joins a climate network to copy clean-transport policiesPower to, power withBuilds capacity through cooperation
A firm threatens to relocate unless taxes are cutEconomic, relational, power overLeverage inside a specific bargaining relationship

Hard-power resources, 2025 (SIPRI) World military spending reached $2,887 billion in 2025. Bracketed figures are SIPRI estimates. Spending is a measure of resources, not of how much influence those resources buy.

WORKED EXAMPLE: PAPER 1 STYLE, READING A DATA SOURCE (Q1, 3 MARKS; Q2, 4 MARKS)

Source. The SIPRI chart above. Task 1 (AO1, written for this guide): identify three pieces of information the source gives about military spending in 2025.

Model answer. (1) The USA spent the most, $954 billion, almost three times China's estimated $336 billion. (2) Ukraine spent an estimated 40% of its GDP on its military, far above any other state shown. (3) Germany, the UK and France all rank among the ten largest spenders, alongside Russia and Ukraine. One clear, accurate point per mark: identify, do not explain.

Task 2 (AO2, written for this guide): explain why military spending may not be a reliable measure of a state's power.

Model answer. Spending measures resources, not outcomes: power is the ability to influence outcomes, and money does not convert automatically into influence. Ukraine spends far less than Russia yet has continued to resist, helped by relational power (partners' weapons, finance and intelligence) and by domestic legitimacy that sustains mobilisation. The same dollar buys different amounts in different economies, and figures for China and Russia are estimates because their budgets are not fully transparent. Finally, much influence is soft or structural (a reserve currency, a veto, cultural appeal) and never appears in a defence budget.

Why it works: Task 1 rewards precise identification from the source; Task 2 rewards applying a course concept (types of power) to explain a claim, with a developed example.

THINKERS THE GUIDE SUGGESTS

The syllabus suggests (but does not require) a range of thinkers whose ideas on power might be useful: HANNAH ARENDT (power as collective action, distinct from violence); MICHEL FOUCAULT (power as diffuse, embedded in discourse and knowledge); ANTONIO GRAMSCI (cultural hegemony: ruling-class ideas accepted as common sense); bell hooks (intersection of race, gender, class); ERIC LIU (citizen power: power as the capacity to make others do what you want, which ordinary citizens can learn to use); STEVEN LUKES (three faces of power: decision-making, agenda-setting, shaping preferences); JOHN MEARSHEIMER (offensive realism: great powers maximise relative power); WALTER MIGNOLO (decolonial thought: power and the colonial matrix); JOSEPH NYE (soft power, smart power); HANNA PITKIN (power "to" versus power "over"; the concept of representation); YAQING QIN (relational theory of international relations from a Chinese perspective). You don't need biographical detail: you need to deploy their frameworks.

APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK: A WORKED EXAMPLE

Consider Russia's invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). A Topic 1 analysis would identify:

  • ACTORS: Russia, Ukraine, NATO members, the EU, the UN Security Council (paralysed by Russia's veto), the ICC (which issued an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023), Wagner Group / private military contractors, Ukrainian civil society, refugee-host states, energy companies.
  • STAKEHOLDERS: Ukrainian and Russian civilians, Ukrainian diaspora, food-insecure countries dependent on Black Sea grain (Egypt, Lebanon, much of sub-Saharan Africa).
  • POWER: Russia's hard military power; Ukrainian relational power through alliances and information warfare; EU's structural power through energy markets and sanctions architecture; the soft-power damage to Russia's global standing.
  • SYSTEM: the UN system designed in 1945 cannot constrain a P5 member; regional security architecture (NATO, OSCE) under stress; international humanitarian law violations create demand for new accountability mechanisms.

This kind of layered analysis, actors, stakeholders, power types, systemic constraints, is what strong analysis demonstrates.

WORKED EXAMPLE: PAPER 1 STYLE, COMPARING TWO SOURCES (Q3, 6 MARKS, AO3)

Sources (described for this guide). Source A is the military-spending chart above. Source B is a short opinion article arguing that influence today depends more on attraction and storytelling than on weapons, pointing to the worldwide popularity of South Korean music, film and television.

Task: compare and contrast what Sources A and B suggest about power in global politics.

Plan a running comparison (point by point, never "A then B"):

  • Similarity: both treat power as a resource that states build and use to shape others' choices, and both imply that states can be ranked by it.
  • Difference 1, type of power: A measures hard-power resources (coercive capacity); B stresses soft power (attraction).
  • Difference 2, evidence: A offers precise, if partly estimated, figures; B relies on examples and perceptions that are harder to verify.
  • Difference 3, who is powerful: A puts the USA, China and Russia at the top; B implies that a middle power such as South Korea can gain influence out of proportion to its military budget.

Why it works: the official guide asks for a detailed running comparison and/or contrast for the highest marks. Each point names both sources in the same sentence and uses course vocabulary (hard, soft, relational power).

Key Terms

Actor vs. Stakeholder

An ACTOR has the agency and means to act on a political issue; a STAKEHOLDER is affected by it but may lack the capacity to act. Both must be considered in good analysis.

IGO (Intergovernmental Organisation)

Body established by treaty among states (UN, WTO, IMF, AU, ASEAN, NATO, EU). Operates within mandates set by member states; effectiveness depends on member compliance.

NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation)

Non-profit organisation independent of government, often operating across borders (Amnesty, Greenpeace, MSF, Human Rights Watch). Influences agenda-setting and norm-building rather than commanding force.

MNC / TNC

Multinational/Transnational Corporation operating across multiple states (Apple, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil). Revenue often exceeds mid-sized states' GDP; significant economic and political power.

Hard Power

Coercive influence: military force, economic sanctions, financial threats. Direct, often costly, and may generate resentment.

Soft Power (Nye)

Influence through attraction: culture, values, ideology, foreign policy others admire. Slower-acting than hard power but generates legitimacy and goodwill.

Smart Power

Strategic blend of hard and soft tools, calibrated to context (Joseph Nye). Recognises that pure coercion or pure attraction rarely achieves complex goals.

Structural Power

Power to shape the rules and structures within which other actors operate. UN Security Council vetoes; the US dollar's reserve-currency role; control of global supply chains.

Relational Power

Power exercised through specific relationships, alliances, and coalitions rather than through structures. AUKUS, the US–Israel alliance, BRICS coordination.

Power Over / To / With

OVER = domination; TO = capacity to act; WITH = collective power through cooperation. Feminist and progressive scholarship emphasises power-with as more sustainable than power-over.

Steven Lukes: Three Faces of Power

(1) Decision-making power (winning explicit conflicts); (2) Agenda-setting power (deciding what gets discussed); (3) Ideological power (shaping what people want and believe is possible).

Cultural Hegemony (Gramsci)

Domination achieved when the ruling class's worldview becomes accepted as natural common sense by the rest of society: making coercion largely unnecessary.

Exam Tips

  • Always classify the power you're analysing: "this is structural power because…" is far stronger than generic claims that something is "powerful."
  • Distinguish actors from stakeholders explicitly: both must appear in good political analysis.
  • Use multiple frameworks: a single case usually involves hard + soft power, structural + relational dynamics, and several actor types.
  • Cite specific theorists when their frameworks help (Nye for soft power, Lukes for hidden power, Gramsci for ideological domination).
  • Keep examples contemporary (within ~20 years). Historical cases are fine as background but the syllabus emphasises current affairs.

Now practice this topic

Test yourself on what you just read.

End of the free unit

Ready to keep going?

That was the free first unit of the IB® Global Politics Course Companion. Unlock the complete guide to continue with the rest of the course.

  • All 10 topics with full study notes
  • 228 flashcards
  • 174 practice questions with explanations
  • 39 free-response problems with worked solutions
  • Term-matching games
  • 116 key terms

$24.99 one-time, 12 months of access.

Taking more than one course? Student Pass: up to 3 guides, $49.99 · Platinum Unlimited: every guide, $74.99.

Already bought it? Sign in

Preparing for other exams? IB® History HL/SLIB® Economics HL/SLAP® European History

The Prep Den IB® Global Politics study guide is a complete companion for revising the course: topic-by-topic study notes, interactive flashcards, practice quizzes with worked explanations, a key-terms bank, and exam-technique tips. The first unit above is free to use; the full guide unlocks every topic.

Also searched as: IB Global Politics study guide, IB GloPo study guide, IB Global Politics quiz, IB GloPo quiz, IB Global Politics practice quiz, IB GloPo practice quiz, IB Global Politics practice questions, IB GloPo practice questions, IB Global Politics flashcards, IB GloPo flashcards, IB Global Politics notes, IB GloPo notes, IB Global Politics review, IB GloPo review.