Skills

International Relations Case Study

10 weeks · 0 milestones

Analyse a real diplomatic, conflict, or cooperation case using a specific named IR theory (realism, liberalism, constructivism, or equivalent). Draw on primary sources throughout (UN documents, treaty texts, official government statements). Proof is the case study plus a Q&A with an IR practitioner or someone with a postgraduate IR qualification who challenges your theoretical framing — specifically, what a different IR theory would conclude about the same case and why. Your written response engaging with that challenge is a required part of the proof.

Part of: Social Sciences, Law & Humanities · Proves for: UG

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Powstik Guide

What the case means for the wider order, plus a recommendation.

Steps

Say what the case shows about today's international order.
Name the precedents it sets.
List the realistic options each key actor had.
Pick one actor and recommend one option.
Test the recommendation for feasibility.

Template

Systemic implication:
Precedents set:
| Actor | Options really available | Constraints |
|-------|--------------------------|-------------|
Recommendation for (actor):
Feasibility check: support / resources / timing / risks

What gets sent back

A recommendation with no feasibility test.
Only one possible course of action found.
No link to the wider order.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Powstik Guide

Your IR analysis, challenged by an IR academic or practitioner.

Steps

Note where your chosen theory predicts the wrong outcome.
Prepare how you explain that anomaly.
Book an IR academic, diplomat or policy practitioner.
Ask for three challenges to theory and recommendation.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (a theory anomaly or recommendation):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer unfamiliar with IR theory.
No answer to the anomaly challenge.
No update after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Political Science & Public Policy →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Analyse a real international relations case using IR theory

4 weeks

Proof required

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Assess systemic implications and produce a policy recommendation

3 weeks

Proof required

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

Powstik Guide

What the case means for the wider order, plus a recommendation.

Steps

Say what the case shows about today's international order.
Name the precedents it sets.
List the realistic options each key actor had.
Pick one actor and recommend one option.
Test the recommendation for feasibility.

Template

Systemic implication:
Precedents set:
| Actor | Options really available | Constraints |
|-------|--------------------------|-------------|
Recommendation for (actor):
Feasibility check: support / resources / timing / risks

What gets sent back

A recommendation with no feasibility test.
Only one possible course of action found.
No link to the wider order.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend analysis under challenge from an IR academic or practitioner

1 week

Proof required

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

Powstik Guide

Your IR analysis, challenged by an IR academic or practitioner.

Steps

Note where your chosen theory predicts the wrong outcome.
Prepare how you explain that anomaly.
Book an IR academic, diplomat or policy practitioner.
Ask for three challenges to theory and recommendation.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (a theory anomaly or recommendation):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer unfamiliar with IR theory.
No answer to the anomaly challenge.
No update after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.