VCE Global Politics Question Thread

[stephfur]

Hi !

I'm currently in Year 11 and attempting to decide what subjects to do;

I am currently dropping history, as I don't think I can manage the work load next year (with methods + chemistry as well), and I've elected to pick up further maths but I'm debating picking up Further maths or Global Politics (which I've never taken before, but I am very interested in politics and am quite political).
I know that to do well in further you have to go the extra mile to battle the scaling down + tonnes of students doing the subject, but i was just wondering what anyone would reccomend? my friends are currently arguing over which subject I should do and I'm really struggling to make a decision.

[hums_student]

Hi !

I'm currently in Year 11 and attempting to decide what subjects to do;

I am currently dropping history, as I don't think I can manage the work load next year (with methods + chemistry as well), and I've elected to pick up further maths but I'm debating picking up Further maths or Global Politics (which I've never taken before, but I am very interested in politics and am quite political).
I know that to do well in further you have to go the extra mile to battle the scaling down + tonnes of students doing the subject, but i was just wondering what anyone would reccomend? my friends are currently arguing over which subject I should do and I'm really struggling to make a decision.

Hey stephfur!
I don't do further so I can't really offer any advice on that subject except for the fact that you really shouldn't take scaling into too much consideration. At the end of the day the scaling is there to balance things out.
As for global, it's definitely a rewarding subject and one of the most interesting VCE subjects out there. It is also highly enjoyable for people interested in politics (which you said you are). Also, as you said that you're dropping history, global could be a good subject to pick up as both are humanities subjects, the difference is that global is considerably less content-heavy and there are less essays - so if you had the foundation of 1/2 history then you would probably find 3/4 global to be quite manageable.
Just my 2 cents. You might want to ask someone who does both further and global for some deeper insights.

[charlotte1120]

Hi !

I'm currently in Year 11 and attempting to decide what subjects to do;

I am currently dropping history, as I don't think I can manage the work load next year (with methods + chemistry as well), and I've elected to pick up further maths but I'm debating picking up Further maths or Global Politics (which I've never taken before, but I am very interested in politics and am quite political).
I know that to do well in further you have to go the extra mile to battle the scaling down + tonnes of students doing the subject, but i was just wondering what anyone would reccomend? my friends are currently arguing over which subject I should do and I'm really struggling to make a decision.

I do History Revs, Further and GloPol this year, and would say History is by far the most time-consuming subject. I would highly recommend Global over Further, Further is very boring... It's not particuarly mind blowing math and really only worth it if you know you can do well. Politics however is so rewarding, and going on from what Lsjnzy13 said, I actually wrote more essays in Politics are our SACs were all essay+coursework, unlike in History where we only did an essay for one AoS. But the amount of essays doesn't mean anything, I really love Politics, it's my favourite subject this year. It isn't necassarily content heavy either, I use the same case studies for nearly all the AoS's sometimes haha. Bonus, the exam is towards the end aswell, leaving you extra study time.

[humma23]

Hey guys, just having some difficulty with the exact roles that Islamic State play. I am aware of their aims (devotion, territory and the apocalypse) but hesitant on the roles - would it be what they do to achieve those aims such as war crimes, minority persecutions, stuff along the line of that? Any help would be awesome, thanku!!

[Hala119]

Hey guys, just having some difficulty with the exact roles that Islamic State play. I am aware of their aims (devotion, territory and the apocalypse) but hesitant on the roles - would it be what they do to achieve those aims such as war crimes, minority persecutions, stuff along the line of that? Any help would be awesome, thanku!!

Hey, a fellow student.

Not sure if this is exactly correct but my teacher informed me that the role is to use violence to achieve a political aim.

[enricoyu]

Does anyone have sample essays they could share? trying to get a grasp on structuring the whole thing.
Cheers!

[Remy33]

Does anyone know if we are still allowed to use the US invasion of Iraq as a case study? It's TECHNICALLY outside the 10-year limit but the last US troops didn't withdrawn until 2011. My teacher said yes but I want to double check.
Thanks a bunch.

[ethanlewis27]

Hey guys! My name is Ethan, I am doing global politics 3/4 this year, but I was wondering if anyone had any advice or any notes, at the moment I am doing UNIT 3 AOS 2 and writing an essay of pragmatism and idealism for China. So I was wondering if anyone has done any essay writing on pragmatism and Idealism for China's national interests, or to do with Foreign policy!
Thanks guys, would be greatly appreciated!!!

[hums_student]

Does anyone know if we are still allowed to use the US invasion of Iraq as a case study? It's TECHNICALLY outside the 10-year limit but the last US troops didn't withdrawn until 2011. My teacher said yes but I want to double check.
Thanks a bunch.

As far as I know, VCAA is quite stringent with the 10-year rule, so it's best to not risk it. On the cover page of the final exam, there's a special line of instructions which specifies you are only allowed to use examples from the past decade, i.e. 2009 onward. As most of the analysis-worthy parts of the invasion happened in 2003, I'd suggest to go for other case studies. If you must use Iraq, then maybe just stick to the 'withdrawal' part.

Hey guys! My name is Ethan, I am doing global politics 3/4 this year, but I was wondering if anyone had any advice or any notes, at the moment I am doing UNIT 3 AOS 2 and writing an essay of pragmatism and idealism for China. So I was wondering if anyone has done any essay writing on pragmatism and Idealism for China's national interests, or to do with Foreign policy!
Thanks guys, would be greatly appreciated!!!

Hey there, I can't help too much with China as I didn't do it for the exam, but I've uploaded full copies of my Unit 3 AOS 1 and Unit 4 AOS 1 notes from 2018 in this post. You can also find plenty of notes from past high-scoring students in the 'notes' tab on the ATAR Notes website.

Good luck with your essay.

[Jimmmy]

Hello fellow/former Politics students! I have a question for you.

Military Power, what is it? Is it always hard? Sometimes soft?

According to VCAA: 'Military Power' Refers to the use of a state’s military to exert influence over the actions of other global actors. This may not need to be implemented through a use of force as placement and capacity of the military may be enough to influence other global actors.

But, according to some very high scoring students I've spoken to, alongside many textbooks, I come across phrases like;
*'Military Power refers to the actual or threatened use of violence or force to influence actions of another global actor'
*'Military Power is always hard by nature'

So, what do we all think? Our AOS2 SAC is on Tuesday and this has me panicking a little.

[hums_student]

___

Hey Jimmmy,

Military power is a form of hard power. However, hard power does not mean that it must be carried out, or that it must inflict some form of damage, it just means that it has the potential to do so.

'Power' by definition in global politics refers to the ability to influence, control, or manipulate the actions of another global actor. This refers to both hard and soft power. I know that 'influence' sounds like something exclusively reserved for 'soft power', but it's not.

Soft power would be referring to the usage of things such as culture and history to influence, control, or manipulate other global actors into seeing something (for example, an agreement or a treaty) as more appealing.

To put simply (in very un-technical terms), 'hard power' is coercing the other party into doing something reluctantly because they fear the alternative would be much worse, while 'soft power' is enticing the other party into doing something willingly. Military power would definitely fall into 'hard power' in this regard.

Tl;dr - the definitions by VCAA and the info from textbooks and past students are not contradictory. Military power is indeed a form of hard power.

Hope that makes sense. Good luck with your SAC!

[Jimmmy]

Hey Jimmmy,

Military power is a form of hard power. However, hard power does not mean that it must be carried out, or that it must inflict some form of damage, it just means that it has the potential to do so.

'Power' by definition in global politics refers to the ability to influence, control, or manipulate the actions of another global actor. This refers to both hard and soft power. I know that 'influence' sounds like something exclusively reserved for 'soft power', but it's not.

Soft power would be referring to the usage of things such as culture and history to influence, control, or manipulate other global actors into seeing something (for example, an agreement or a treaty) as more appealing.

To put simply (in very un-technical terms), 'hard power' is coercing the other party into doing something reluctantly because they fear the alternative would be much worse, while 'soft power' is enticing the other party into doing something willingly. Military power would definitely fall into 'hard power' in this regard.

Tl;dr - the definitions by VCAA and the info from textbooks and past students are not contradictory. Military power is indeed a form of hard power.

Hope that makes sense. Good luck with your SAC!

Hi Hums,

I'm still a little bit confused, perhaps an example might help clarify? We're doing Australia as our A-P state. We've investigated a range of joint AUS/U.S. military bases across W.A/N.T (eg. Pine Gap, North-West Cape etc). Obviously, they're 'military' bases, would you categorise them as hard power? Similarly, Australia has participated in 'training' many Pacific state's militaries (eg. Solomon Islands during RAMSI mission) and their military has helped in clean-up efforts after (eg. Cyclone Pam, 2016). Would you classify these as 'hard power'?

Our teacher mentioned that 'the Australian military wouldn't really be a 'threatening' force to international states', so that its roles in joint-partnerships/training/clean-ups are more soft than hard.

Thoughts?

[hums_student]

____

Regarding your examples, they would both be considered hard power.

VCAA's distinctions between soft and hard power are very clear:

Military and economic = hard power
Cultural and diplomatic = soft power

Australia's military is definitely not a threatening force but we're also allies with the US Even if we're not, any usage of military power would be considered hard, no matter how weak it is.

The thing to remember is that hard power does not necessarily have to be threatening. For example, offering economic aid to another state would be considered hard power. I do agree that this is quite confusing, because offering aid seems more like 'the carrot' than 'the stick'. However the thing is most countries do not offer aid on pure altruism, it's more of a 'I'll help you with this, in exchange for that you must listen to what I say' kind of thing.

So going back to your examples, military bases would be 100% hard power because they send the message of 'don't mess with me'. Australia training Pacific Island states can be seen as aid, which is also hard power.

It's weird that your teacher would classify Australia's usage of military power as more soft than hard. I would suggest double checking with your teacher on that, because it doesn't line up with other sources.

Soft power would be referring to stuff like Australia letting foreign politicians pet koalas.

Have you read upon the distinctions between soft and hard power by Joseph Nye? He was the one who came up with the terms and VCAA stick very closely to his definitions and examples.

[Jimmmy]

Regarding your examples, they would both be considered hard power.

VCAA's distinctions between soft and hard power are very clear:

Military and economic = hard power
Cultural and diplomatic = soft power

Australia's military is definitely not a threatening force but we're also allies with the US Even if we're not, any usage of military power would be considered hard, no matter how weak it is.

The thing to remember is that hard power does not necessarily have to be threatening. For example, offering economic aid to another state would be considered hard power. I do agree that this is quite confusing, because offering aid seems more like 'the carrot' than 'the stick'. However the thing is most countries do not offer aid on pure altruism, it's more of a 'I'll help you with this, in exchange for that you must listen to what I say' kind of thing.

So going back to your examples, military bases would be 100% hard power because they send the message of 'don't mess with me'. Australia training Pacific Island states can be seen as aid, which is also hard power.

It's weird that your teacher would classify Australia's usage of military power as more soft than hard. I would suggest double checking with your teacher on that, because it doesn't line up with other sources.

Soft power would be referring to stuff like Australia letting foreign politicians pet koalas.

Have you read upon the distinctions between soft and hard power by Joseph Nye? He was the one who came up with the terms and VCAA stick very closely to his definitions and examples.

Alright, I think I understand now how Australia's use of military power (eg. bases, training etc.) is hard power on international states, but in relation to (eg. our relationship with the U.S.), would having those military bases be fostering a regional relationship through the use of diplomatic power? As obviously, without discussion and negotiation, the bases wouldn't exist, and Australia aren't really coercing/threatening the U.S. to have a military relationship with them, nor are they threatening violence with them.

If that's correct, I think it all makes sense. My teacher hasn't classified Australia's use of military power as only soft, we've addressed Sovereign Borders & Operation Okra (missiles on Iraq/Syria) as hard, but he's 100% told us that the examples I've just given you are more soft than hard, which partially concerns me for the SAC.

In terms of Nye, we obviously learnt the VCAA definitions and have gone briefly over Smart power, but less so into the specific examples and distinctions he has said. I'm investigating that now.

[hums_student]

____

The thing is, military power does not automatically correlate to violence and/or threats, it really just refers to using the state's military to achieve certain aims, which could very well extend into the field of aid and diplomacy.

Regarding military and diplomacy though, it is definitely a bit of a grey area and can be interpreted both ways. Back when I did global, I played safe and classified all military power as hard (that was what my teacher said anyway, so it'd be unwise to go against the teacher for a SAC). It could potentially be a factor that distinguishes between a low and high 40s response on the exam (potentially. I'm not 100% on this). I never went down that route for global though, but if you think you can argue it then go for it!

I think it's definitely safe for you to classify military power through the use of diplomacy as 'soft power' for your SAC as your teacher will be the one marking.

Good luck! I hope I didn't make it more confusing lol.