12 Mark Global Question Advice

An example answer. 

Examine the differences in the impact that rogue States and failed states may have on global politics. 12 marks.

 A rogue state is 1 which is considered not to abide by the norms of the rules based international order. A failed state is one which is considered unable to exercise the basic functions of a sovereign government. 

This is a good introduction. Because it is straight to the point. And very short. Only defining key terms. 

'One key difference is that rogue states are more likely to threaten international peace and security than failed states. Rogue states, since they don’t follow the rules of the international order, are likely to violate treaties prohibiting the development of weapons of mass destruction, such as North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons in 2006 after withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty three years earlier. With strong governments, they have the capacity to build advanced militaries, and because they often disregard norms against aggression, they may use these forces against other countries, as in Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, undermining global stability. Failed states, on the other hand, are politically fragmented and lack the structure, resources, and technological capability to develop and deploy advanced militaries. For example, Somalia, the Central African Republic, and Afghanistan may have limited authority within their borders but lack the military power to invade neighboring states, possessing little more than basic air and naval forces—the Central African Republic, for instance, has only six aircraft. As a result, while failed states may struggle to prevent internal conflict, they are far less likely than rogue states to launch external wars or jeopardize international peace'.

 This paragraph works well. It opens with a clear point or theme that sets up what it’s about. It compares both types of state in a way that makes it easier to earn marks for analysis, using words like “conversely” and “more or less” to highlight the differences. It uses straightforward explanatory language, with words like “since” and “therefore” to show the significance of points and evidence. Detailed examples for both types of state back up the argument, and there’s no need for a mini judgment or for weighing up the different arguments. 

There should be two more paragraphs in this essay. They might be based on the following.

 That rogue states often participate in international politics and diplomacy. For example Russia as part of the UNSC and G20 where's failed states don't. 

That rogue states are able to control their borders, so overspill of problems like terrorism is less likely. Failed states can't, so overspill is more likely. Failed states are less likely to engage. In organised terrorism abroad, but may become the unwilling. Or passive hosts to terrorists.