Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Analyse a real international relations case using IR theory
4 weeks
Select a real international case — a diplomatic dispute, a conflict, an international agreement, or a multilateral institution's decision — from recent international history (post-2000). Apply two or more IR theories (realism, liberalism, constructivism, or critical theory) to explain the actors' behaviour, the outcome, and why it unfolded as it did. Document the case with primary or credible secondary sources. Each theory must produce its own account — not a description of what happened narrated through two different vocabularies.
Proof required
IR case analysis document (700+ words) identifying the case with cited sources, applying two IR theories to produce distinct explanatory accounts, documenting where the theories converge and diverge, and explaining which account better fits the evidence and why.
What gets checked
- Case is from real international history with cited sources — not invented
- Both IR theories produce distinct explanatory accounts of the actors' behaviour and the outcome
- The comparative assessment explains which account better fits the evidence with specific reasoning
Common mistakes
- Describing the case narrative and then appending theory labels — the theories must drive the explanation, not decorate a timeline
- Choosing two theories that reach the same conclusion — if realism and liberalism both 'predict' the outcome equally well, a more challenging case is needed
- Not citing sources — IR case analysis requires real evidence, not remembered headlines
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Verify the case is from real international history — request the cited sources
- Review both IR theory applications — confirm they produce distinct explanatory accounts
- Check the comparative assessment — confirm it explains which account better fits the evidence with specific reasoning
Assess systemic implications and produce a policy recommendation
3 weeks
Extend the M1 analysis by addressing the systemic implications of the case: what does it reveal about the current international order (unipolar, multipolar, liberal internationalist, rules-based), what precedents does it set, and what alternatives were available to the key actors? Produce a specific policy recommendation addressed to one of the key actors: what should they have done differently, based on the evidence, and why would that approach have been feasible given their constraints?
Proof required
Systemic analysis and policy recommendation document (500+ words) covering: systemic implications for the international order, precedents set by the case, alternatives available to key actors, and a specific feasibility-assessed policy recommendation for one actor.
What gets checked
- Systemic implications are discussed in terms of the international order — not just the bilateral relationship
- Alternatives are identified and assessed for feasibility — not just stated as options
- Policy recommendation is addressed to a specific actor and assessed for feasibility given their stated constraints
Common mistakes
- Making a policy recommendation without assessing feasibility — 'they should have negotiated more' is not a recommendation without an account of why negotiation was available to them
- Not identifying alternatives — a case analysis that finds only one possible course of action has not engaged with the strategic choices available
- Systemic implications that are only about the case's direct parties — systemic analysis must address the broader international order
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Review the alternatives — confirm each is assessed for feasibility, not just listed
- Check the policy recommendation — confirm it is addressed to a specific actor with a feasibility assessment
- Verify the systemic implications address the broader international order, not just the bilateral relationship
Defend analysis under challenge from an IR academic or practitioner
1 week
Present the case analysis and policy recommendation to an IR academic, diplomat, or international policy practitioner for a Q&A challenge. The reviewer must probe theory application and the policy recommendation — 'realism doesn't predict this actor's behaviour here — what do you do with that anomaly?', 'your policy recommendation assumes the actor had more domestic autonomy than they actually had', 'constructivism could explain this case better — why did you give it less weight?'. Document the challenges and your responses.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's IR credentials, at least three specific challenges to the theory application or policy recommendation, your responses, and any analysis updates committed to.
What gets checked
- Reviewer has IR academic credentials or relevant professional experience (diplomat, international policy practitioner)
- At least three specific challenges to theory application or policy recommendation are documented
- At least one analysis update is committed to based on the session
Common mistakes
- Choosing a reviewer who is unfamiliar with IR theory — the challenge must probe the theoretical analysis specifically
- Not being able to address the anomalies challenge — if a theory predicts the wrong outcome, the analysis must account for that
- Not updating anything after the Q&A — a real IR case analysis almost always surfaces constraints or anomalies that require acknowledgment
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm the reviewer has IR academic credentials or relevant professional experience
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific theory or recommendation challenges are documented
- Check that at least one analysis update is committed to based on the session