Edexcel Unit 4D Global political issues 13/06/14
Scroll to see replies
Original post by e12345d
did anyone do the mitigation/adaption one?
I did! Mostly talked about radicals and reformists. What did you write?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Nooo! Monday was beautiful
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by NA124
Think for the N-S divide one you needed to balance it though because it was a question..
But its a 15 mark so you don't really need to show debate?
Original post by shalini.c
This was the worst question for me I kind of made it up ...
-had a paragraph on what mitigation is, how it tackles the cause of climate change, and examples
-then saying how adaptation is however reducing our vulnerability to the effects not the causes what it is/ examples etc
-then how their short term / long term
-then sentence at end that they should be used together as we already commited to 2 degreesC
do you think thats ok...?
Original post by e12345d
But its a 15 mark so you don't really need to show debate?
They've done it before! Only had to do one on each side anyway so not too bad
Original post by NA124
They've done it before! Only had to do one on each side anyway so not too bad
Oh dear so i cant get a high mark if i explained what it is then said no cos
-emerging economies
-sub-Saran africa is 'fourth world'
-within country inequalities
that was my favourite question!
Original post by e12345d
But its a 15 mark so you don't really need to show debate?
You needed to speak initially about Brant and essentially sum up his theory of North South Divide, then move on to the other development theories which makes the term North South divide irrelevant.. so Wallerstiens "World Systems Theory", "Classical Economic Development Theory", "Structural Theory" and "Neo-Classical Development Theory" and end it with something along the lines of that Brant failed to recognize the rise of the BRIC and MINT states and the demise of the PIIGS, and that it could be argued that some states traditionally in the South can be considered Core states such as China which is currently the 2nd largest economy and is therefore no longer a relevant term! :3
Original post by SionAbes
You needed to speak initially about Brant and essentially sum up his theory of North South Divide, then move on to the other development theories which makes the term North South divide irrelevant.. so Wallerstiens "World Systems Theory", "Classical Economic Development Theory", "Structural Theory" and "Neo-Classical Development Theory" and end it with something along the lines of that Brant failed to recognize the rise of the BRIC and MINT states and the demise of the PIIGS, and that it could be argued that some states traditionally in the South can be considered Core states such as China which is currently the 2nd largest economy and is therefore no longer a relevant term! :3
I read a 15 marker that didn't go into near as much depth, but sounds like an amazing response haha, better than mine..
Original post by lpyoung
I read a 15 marker that didn't go into near as much depth, but sounds like an amazing response haha, better than mine..
Thank you, but in all honesty a few people said they had trouble with the wording across a number of questions so hopefully it will work in everyone's favor! My teacher is an examiner on the board, and mentioned that a number of people tend to find that the biggest challenge in unit 4.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by SionAbes
Thank you, but in all honesty a few people said they had trouble with the wording across a number of questions so hopefully it will work in everyone's favor! My teacher is the chief examiner of the board, *and no he wouldn't tell us the questions for obvious reasons!!* but he said a number of people tend to find that the biggest challenge in unit 4
Any word on grade boundaries haha?!
Original post by SionAbes
I can ask tomorrow if you like, but I'm going to suggest that they will be decided once all the raw results come in! Given that they need a certain percentage of each grade the boundaries are created after statistical analysis.. or so I presume, i could be wrong!
I think you're correct! I got 196/200 for the AS, and this year was the only student doing Politics and practically self taught with a tutor, was very worried as I don't think I've done my best! But in saying that, I will hopefully get the A at least!
I did the humanitarian intervention one. (15)
Cant remember exactly what I put, but it was something along the lines of:
Goes against International Law
Humanitarian intervention goes against International law, International law only clearly authorises intervention in a country in the case of self-defence. This is based on the fact that respect for state sovereignty is the guaranteed means of upholding international order. International law has largely been constructed around respect for state sovereignty and has traditionally been based on a rejection of intervention; implying that state borders should be inviolable. If humanitarian intervention is permitted than international law in regards to the principle of state sovereignty becomes confused and broken and would weaken world order.
International law on humanitarian intervention is accepted in customary international law in the UN Charter on the basis that a country is subject to humanitarian intervention when the country does not hold responsible sovereignty (In that a state’s right to sovereignty is conditional on fulfilling it duty to protect its citizens). (Then linked this to authorisation needed by UN SC - third paragraph)
Cultural differences, difficulty in establishing universal human rights
Humanitarian intervention is based on the idea that the human rights doctrine provides standards of conduct that can be applied to all governments and all people, however, this can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism, in that it is based on an essentially western notion of human rights that may not be applicable in other parts of the world. The western notion of human rights may not take into account the ethical diversity, Historical, cultural and religious differences which may make it impossible to establish universal human rights for the behaviour of governments. If liberal values such as human rights and multi-party democracy is not applicable in a state, it is difficult to see how humanitarian intervention could work. As a result, there are ‘non-interventions’ in places such as Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma. Since 2004, the conflict in Darfur has led to the deaths of at least 200,000. Nevertheless, the UN has left the task of peace-making to a relatively small African Union Force.
The UN Security council is often paralyzed/ requires authorisation (Difficulty in establishing collective security that's reliable for humanitarian intervention)
(Had to waffle on this one). The United Nations security council is made up of 5 permanent members - all with the power of the veto.
The UN has only had limited and intermittent success in establishing a system of collective security that can be reliable for peacekeeping missions. The capacity of the UN to enforce a system of collective security is severely limited by the fact that it is essentially a creature of its members; it can do no more than its member states, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council permit. Thus if one permanent member of the P-5 was to veto a resolution then measures ensuring peace and security (humanitarian intervention) would not permit. For example in order to make peace between Israel and Palestine, the General Assembly, P-4 members of the security council and the 10 members of the non-permanent members of the Security Council have all accepted Palestine the resolution to confer Palestine as a state. However, the power of a single veto from the USA does not allow the resolution to pass, even though the majority declares the resolution should pass.
Further examples: China & Russia uses veto against resolutions of sanctions against syria, despire the fact the syrian government has unleashed terror on its people 125,000 dead etc
Rwanda etc
If i had time I probably would have mentioned: States unwilling to pay, national interest and probably media coverage. Well, actually I think I did do media coverage xD cant remember now.
Cant remember exactly what I put, but it was something along the lines of:
Goes against International Law
Humanitarian intervention goes against International law, International law only clearly authorises intervention in a country in the case of self-defence. This is based on the fact that respect for state sovereignty is the guaranteed means of upholding international order. International law has largely been constructed around respect for state sovereignty and has traditionally been based on a rejection of intervention; implying that state borders should be inviolable. If humanitarian intervention is permitted than international law in regards to the principle of state sovereignty becomes confused and broken and would weaken world order.
International law on humanitarian intervention is accepted in customary international law in the UN Charter on the basis that a country is subject to humanitarian intervention when the country does not hold responsible sovereignty (In that a state’s right to sovereignty is conditional on fulfilling it duty to protect its citizens). (Then linked this to authorisation needed by UN SC - third paragraph)
Cultural differences, difficulty in establishing universal human rights
Humanitarian intervention is based on the idea that the human rights doctrine provides standards of conduct that can be applied to all governments and all people, however, this can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism, in that it is based on an essentially western notion of human rights that may not be applicable in other parts of the world. The western notion of human rights may not take into account the ethical diversity, Historical, cultural and religious differences which may make it impossible to establish universal human rights for the behaviour of governments. If liberal values such as human rights and multi-party democracy is not applicable in a state, it is difficult to see how humanitarian intervention could work. As a result, there are ‘non-interventions’ in places such as Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma. Since 2004, the conflict in Darfur has led to the deaths of at least 200,000. Nevertheless, the UN has left the task of peace-making to a relatively small African Union Force.
The UN Security council is often paralyzed/ requires authorisation (Difficulty in establishing collective security that's reliable for humanitarian intervention)
(Had to waffle on this one). The United Nations security council is made up of 5 permanent members - all with the power of the veto.
The UN has only had limited and intermittent success in establishing a system of collective security that can be reliable for peacekeeping missions. The capacity of the UN to enforce a system of collective security is severely limited by the fact that it is essentially a creature of its members; it can do no more than its member states, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council permit. Thus if one permanent member of the P-5 was to veto a resolution then measures ensuring peace and security (humanitarian intervention) would not permit. For example in order to make peace between Israel and Palestine, the General Assembly, P-4 members of the security council and the 10 members of the non-permanent members of the Security Council have all accepted Palestine the resolution to confer Palestine as a state. However, the power of a single veto from the USA does not allow the resolution to pass, even though the majority declares the resolution should pass.
Further examples: China & Russia uses veto against resolutions of sanctions against syria, despire the fact the syrian government has unleashed terror on its people 125,000 dead etc
Rwanda etc
If i had time I probably would have mentioned: States unwilling to pay, national interest and probably media coverage. Well, actually I think I did do media coverage xD cant remember now.
For the concerns of nuclear proliferation (15), I put:
Danger of nuclear imbalances
Arguably, in order for there to be peace and security, through the balance of terror, through the system of deterrence there needs to be a ‘balance of power’, there needs to be an equal amount of nuclear weapons for each state. There is no guarantee that vertical or horizontal nuclear proliferation will preserve the balance of power as nuclear proliferation inevitably creates temporary imbalances which may then be exploited by aggressive states. For example, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing is a perfect example how nuclear weapons were dropped specifically to take advantage of the military imbalance of Japan. Danger of nuclear imbalances could possibly threaten international stability it is for that reason why countries undergo arms races. For example, UK-German naval arms race that preceded WW1, and the US-Soviet nuclear arms race during the Cold War.
Irresponsible nuclear powers
Some argue that the proliferation of nuclear weapons could get into the wrong hands. The possibility of a nuclear first strike relies on the existence of a political or military leadership that is not hostile to risk-taking, or a leadership that, because of its values and beliefs, pursues symbolic violence as a method of ‘total war’. The greatest concern is therefore that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of military-based dictatorial regimes, or even non-state actors like terrorist organizations, which may have fewer moralities about using them. For example, in the case of North Korea, nuclear weapons create the prospect of a nuclear adventurism that threatens not only South Korea but also Japan and even the USA. The belief that a nuclear first strike by North Korea is a real and present danger is based on a number of factors. Most importantly, its leadership is erratic and autocratic (its leader, Kim Jong-Il (The ‘Dear Leader’) is the son of the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-sung.
Ineffective deterrence
Some view the system of nuclear deterrence as a weakness and a risk to international stability and argue that a world in which there are nuclear weapons will always carry the threat of a nuclear war: Realists use the following arguments to add further credence to their statements. Firstly, a nuclear war could commence if nuclear weapons get into the wrong hands of dictators. Leaders of dictatorships may express suicidal or psychotic attributes and may not be deterred by any form of deterrence e.g. North Korea. Secondly, country X may use NUTS to try to gain a first strike advantage by suddenly launching weapons at country Y, with a view to destroying its enemy’s nuclear launch silos thereby rendering country Y incapable of a second strike response. Thirdly, deterrence may always fail due to miscalculations and accidents. For instances, states may make miscalculations about whether other states possess an invulnerable second-strike capability or, for that matter, whether they possess nuclear weapons at all. Fourthly, conventional wars may also escalate into nuclear wars, through mistakes made in the frenetic atmosphere that often surrounds decision makers in war-time situations. Fifthly, diplomatic misunderstandings and/or opposing political ideologies may lead to escalating mutual perceptions of threat, and a subsequent arms race that elevates the risk of actual war.
(If I had time, I would have mentioned)
Destructive capacity
The argument that nuclear proliferation poses a substantial threat to peace and security derives from the massive destructive capacity of nuclear weapons. This, then enables nuclear powers to dictate to other powers, as the USA did in using nuclear weapons to bring an end to the war against Japan in 1945. Nuclear proliferation can be seen as inherently unstable on the grounds that it creates at least temporary imbalances, allowing states that seek military advantage to pursue offensive policies. Nuclear arms races therefore tend to increase the likelihood of war. Such fears have intensified in the post-Cold War era as proliferation has made regional conflicts considerably more dangerous. This applies to tension between India and Pakistan as well as to tension between Israel and Iran. Nuclear proliferation is thus more dangerous in the emerging multipolar world order than it was in the relatively stable bipolar ‘first’ nuclear age. Anxieties about nuclear weapons have been substantially heightened by the belief that recent developments make it more likely that they will be used. This is evident in the development of ‘tactical’ or ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons that are designed to be usable, but it is particularly linked to the fear that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of military-based dictatorial regimes, or even terrorist groups, which will have fewer scruples about using them. Nuclear terrorism is through of by some as the ultimate modern security threat.
Danger of nuclear imbalances
Arguably, in order for there to be peace and security, through the balance of terror, through the system of deterrence there needs to be a ‘balance of power’, there needs to be an equal amount of nuclear weapons for each state. There is no guarantee that vertical or horizontal nuclear proliferation will preserve the balance of power as nuclear proliferation inevitably creates temporary imbalances which may then be exploited by aggressive states. For example, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing is a perfect example how nuclear weapons were dropped specifically to take advantage of the military imbalance of Japan. Danger of nuclear imbalances could possibly threaten international stability it is for that reason why countries undergo arms races. For example, UK-German naval arms race that preceded WW1, and the US-Soviet nuclear arms race during the Cold War.
Irresponsible nuclear powers
Some argue that the proliferation of nuclear weapons could get into the wrong hands. The possibility of a nuclear first strike relies on the existence of a political or military leadership that is not hostile to risk-taking, or a leadership that, because of its values and beliefs, pursues symbolic violence as a method of ‘total war’. The greatest concern is therefore that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of military-based dictatorial regimes, or even non-state actors like terrorist organizations, which may have fewer moralities about using them. For example, in the case of North Korea, nuclear weapons create the prospect of a nuclear adventurism that threatens not only South Korea but also Japan and even the USA. The belief that a nuclear first strike by North Korea is a real and present danger is based on a number of factors. Most importantly, its leadership is erratic and autocratic (its leader, Kim Jong-Il (The ‘Dear Leader’) is the son of the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-sung.
Ineffective deterrence
Some view the system of nuclear deterrence as a weakness and a risk to international stability and argue that a world in which there are nuclear weapons will always carry the threat of a nuclear war: Realists use the following arguments to add further credence to their statements. Firstly, a nuclear war could commence if nuclear weapons get into the wrong hands of dictators. Leaders of dictatorships may express suicidal or psychotic attributes and may not be deterred by any form of deterrence e.g. North Korea. Secondly, country X may use NUTS to try to gain a first strike advantage by suddenly launching weapons at country Y, with a view to destroying its enemy’s nuclear launch silos thereby rendering country Y incapable of a second strike response. Thirdly, deterrence may always fail due to miscalculations and accidents. For instances, states may make miscalculations about whether other states possess an invulnerable second-strike capability or, for that matter, whether they possess nuclear weapons at all. Fourthly, conventional wars may also escalate into nuclear wars, through mistakes made in the frenetic atmosphere that often surrounds decision makers in war-time situations. Fifthly, diplomatic misunderstandings and/or opposing political ideologies may lead to escalating mutual perceptions of threat, and a subsequent arms race that elevates the risk of actual war.
(If I had time, I would have mentioned)
Destructive capacity
The argument that nuclear proliferation poses a substantial threat to peace and security derives from the massive destructive capacity of nuclear weapons. This, then enables nuclear powers to dictate to other powers, as the USA did in using nuclear weapons to bring an end to the war against Japan in 1945. Nuclear proliferation can be seen as inherently unstable on the grounds that it creates at least temporary imbalances, allowing states that seek military advantage to pursue offensive policies. Nuclear arms races therefore tend to increase the likelihood of war. Such fears have intensified in the post-Cold War era as proliferation has made regional conflicts considerably more dangerous. This applies to tension between India and Pakistan as well as to tension between Israel and Iran. Nuclear proliferation is thus more dangerous in the emerging multipolar world order than it was in the relatively stable bipolar ‘first’ nuclear age. Anxieties about nuclear weapons have been substantially heightened by the belief that recent developments make it more likely that they will be used. This is evident in the development of ‘tactical’ or ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons that are designed to be usable, but it is particularly linked to the fear that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of military-based dictatorial regimes, or even terrorist groups, which will have fewer scruples about using them. Nuclear terrorism is through of by some as the ultimate modern security threat.
The other 15 marker I did was, why has human rights increased in importance in global politics?
The 45 Mark, the economics question: First Paragraph was on global economic institutions and how rich countries dominate, refuted that with SAPS been beneficial in ghana, south korea, countries are not obliged to loan, IMF committed funds to poor countries etc
Second paragraph (free trade) How it benefits rich countries only e.g. neo-liberalism, exposes fragile markets, exposed jamaica's markets to intensified competition, only fueling the desires of rich countries etc Then refuted that with, benefits to poorer countries (allows developing countries to specialise, take advantage of the economies of scale etc)
Third paragraph (TNCs): lazy to go into details, but i spent a long time on this.
Conclusion
I was going to do clash of civilizations, but the question is too waffle for my liking and couldn't do the other question, because I only revised the 3 topics out of the 4(missed Environment out)
.
I think I was very lucky with the questions, considering I only revised 2 topics well. In regards to poverty and development i simply relied on my unit 3 notes on IMF, World Bank and slightly touched debt relief in unit 4.
The 45 Mark, the economics question: First Paragraph was on global economic institutions and how rich countries dominate, refuted that with SAPS been beneficial in ghana, south korea, countries are not obliged to loan, IMF committed funds to poor countries etc
Second paragraph (free trade) How it benefits rich countries only e.g. neo-liberalism, exposes fragile markets, exposed jamaica's markets to intensified competition, only fueling the desires of rich countries etc Then refuted that with, benefits to poorer countries (allows developing countries to specialise, take advantage of the economies of scale etc)
Third paragraph (TNCs): lazy to go into details, but i spent a long time on this.
Conclusion
I was going to do clash of civilizations, but the question is too waffle for my liking and couldn't do the other question, because I only revised the 3 topics out of the 4(missed Environment out)
. I think I was very lucky with the questions, considering I only revised 2 topics well. In regards to poverty and development i simply relied on my unit 3 notes on IMF, World Bank and slightly touched debt relief in unit 4.
Original post by Mcflaren
I did the humanitarian intervention one. (15)
Cant remember exactly what I put, but it was something along the lines of:
Goes against International Law
Humanitarian intervention goes against International law, International law only clearly authorises intervention in a country in the case of self-defence. This is based on the fact that respect for state sovereignty is the guaranteed means of upholding international order. International law has largely been constructed around respect for state sovereignty and has traditionally been based on a rejection of intervention; implying that state borders should be inviolable. If humanitarian intervention is permitted than international law in regards to the principle of state sovereignty becomes confused and broken and would weaken world order.
International law on humanitarian intervention is accepted in customary international law in the UN Charter on the basis that a country is subject to humanitarian intervention when the country does not hold responsible sovereignty (In that a state’s right to sovereignty is conditional on fulfilling it duty to protect its citizens). (Then linked this to authorisation needed by UN SC - third paragraph)
Cultural differences, difficulty in establishing universal human rights
Humanitarian intervention is based on the idea that the human rights doctrine provides standards of conduct that can be applied to all governments and all people, however, this can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism, in that it is based on an essentially western notion of human rights that may not be applicable in other parts of the world. The western notion of human rights may not take into account the ethical diversity, Historical, cultural and religious differences which may make it impossible to establish universal human rights for the behaviour of governments. If liberal values such as human rights and multi-party democracy is not applicable in a state, it is difficult to see how humanitarian intervention could work. As a result, there are ‘non-interventions’ in places such as Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma. Since 2004, the conflict in Darfur has led to the deaths of at least 200,000. Nevertheless, the UN has left the task of peace-making to a relatively small African Union Force.
The UN Security council is often paralyzed/ requires authorisation (Difficulty in establishing collective security that's reliable for humanitarian intervention)
(Had to waffle on this one). The United Nations security council is made up of 5 permanent members - all with the power of the veto.
The UN has only had limited and intermittent success in establishing a system of collective security that can be reliable for peacekeeping missions. The capacity of the UN to enforce a system of collective security is severely limited by the fact that it is essentially a creature of its members; it can do no more than its member states, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council permit. Thus if one permanent member of the P-5 was to veto a resolution then measures ensuring peace and security (humanitarian intervention) would not permit. For example in order to make peace between Israel and Palestine, the General Assembly, P-4 members of the security council and the 10 members of the non-permanent members of the Security Council have all accepted Palestine the resolution to confer Palestine as a state. However, the power of a single veto from the USA does not allow the resolution to pass, even though the majority declares the resolution should pass.
Further examples: China & Russia uses veto against resolutions of sanctions against syria, despire the fact the syrian government has unleashed terror on its people 125,000 dead etc
Rwanda etc
If i had time I probably would have mentioned: States unwilling to pay, national interest and probably media coverage. Well, actually I think I did do media coverage xD cant remember now.
Cant remember exactly what I put, but it was something along the lines of:
Goes against International Law
Humanitarian intervention goes against International law, International law only clearly authorises intervention in a country in the case of self-defence. This is based on the fact that respect for state sovereignty is the guaranteed means of upholding international order. International law has largely been constructed around respect for state sovereignty and has traditionally been based on a rejection of intervention; implying that state borders should be inviolable. If humanitarian intervention is permitted than international law in regards to the principle of state sovereignty becomes confused and broken and would weaken world order.
International law on humanitarian intervention is accepted in customary international law in the UN Charter on the basis that a country is subject to humanitarian intervention when the country does not hold responsible sovereignty (In that a state’s right to sovereignty is conditional on fulfilling it duty to protect its citizens). (Then linked this to authorisation needed by UN SC - third paragraph)
Cultural differences, difficulty in establishing universal human rights
Humanitarian intervention is based on the idea that the human rights doctrine provides standards of conduct that can be applied to all governments and all people, however, this can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism, in that it is based on an essentially western notion of human rights that may not be applicable in other parts of the world. The western notion of human rights may not take into account the ethical diversity, Historical, cultural and religious differences which may make it impossible to establish universal human rights for the behaviour of governments. If liberal values such as human rights and multi-party democracy is not applicable in a state, it is difficult to see how humanitarian intervention could work. As a result, there are ‘non-interventions’ in places such as Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma. Since 2004, the conflict in Darfur has led to the deaths of at least 200,000. Nevertheless, the UN has left the task of peace-making to a relatively small African Union Force.
The UN Security council is often paralyzed/ requires authorisation (Difficulty in establishing collective security that's reliable for humanitarian intervention)
(Had to waffle on this one). The United Nations security council is made up of 5 permanent members - all with the power of the veto.
The UN has only had limited and intermittent success in establishing a system of collective security that can be reliable for peacekeeping missions. The capacity of the UN to enforce a system of collective security is severely limited by the fact that it is essentially a creature of its members; it can do no more than its member states, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council permit. Thus if one permanent member of the P-5 was to veto a resolution then measures ensuring peace and security (humanitarian intervention) would not permit. For example in order to make peace between Israel and Palestine, the General Assembly, P-4 members of the security council and the 10 members of the non-permanent members of the Security Council have all accepted Palestine the resolution to confer Palestine as a state. However, the power of a single veto from the USA does not allow the resolution to pass, even though the majority declares the resolution should pass.
Further examples: China & Russia uses veto against resolutions of sanctions against syria, despire the fact the syrian government has unleashed terror on its people 125,000 dead etc
Rwanda etc
If i had time I probably would have mentioned: States unwilling to pay, national interest and probably media coverage. Well, actually I think I did do media coverage xD cant remember now.
See I was going to do all about those things but then I thought they were more relevant to the 'humanitarian intervention justification' sort of questions, whereas this one was asking specifically WHY it happened in some places and not others! Confusing wording but not sure which was the right way to go:/
Original post by lpyoung
See I was going to do all about those things but then I thought they were more relevant to the 'humanitarian intervention justification' sort of questions, whereas this one was asking specifically WHY it happened in some places and not others! Confusing wording but not sure which was the right way to go:/
Yeah, I was sort of confused on whether they wanted justification or why it happened in some place and not others. But luckily, I made sure I answered it both ways; to be on the safe side. But the arguments do coincide.
Original post by lpyoung
See I was going to do all about those things but then I thought they were more relevant to the 'humanitarian intervention justification' sort of questions, whereas this one was asking specifically WHY it happened in some places and not others! Confusing wording but not sure which was the right way to go:/
Did you do the human rights, importance question?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- GCSE Citizenship Revision
- How does UAL grade?
- physics question paper problem
- Paper 3B: Global politics
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- A-level Politics Study Group 2022-2023
- edexcel a level politics paper 1
- Edexcel A Level Further Mathematics Paper 4D (9FM0 4D) - 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- 4 weeks Until 1st Year Med Exams
- A-level Economics Study Group 2022-2023
- A Level Politics
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- A-level Politics Study Group 2023-2024
- How can i sit A level further maths?
- A-level Biology Study Group 2023-2024
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- BTEC Results FINAL Certificate
- history epq
- Edexcel government and politics revision question
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities - Tenth SessionLast reply 1 minute ago
LSE Economic history departmentLast reply 1 minute ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 minute ago
GCSE geography case studies CIE -urgent help neededLast reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 5 minutes ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 minutes ago
DWP EO Job Centre Work Coach - March 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official LSE Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 minutes ago
International relations or law? Should I do both?Last reply 6 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)Trending
Last reply 21 minutes ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 1 day ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 3 (7152/3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 2 (7152/2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 1 (7152/1) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 21 minutes ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 1 day ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 3 (7152/3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 2 (7152/2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 1 (7152/1) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
