PYQ Vault · Paper 2 · Contemporary Global Concerns — II
Discuss the efficacy of global conventions to combat international terrorism.
How the answer moves
The flow snapshot — the routes in, the body, the counter-view and the routes out.
Flow snapshot — how the answer moves
Intro routes
R1 conventions have multiplied since 1963 → terrorism has not receded → efficacy only partial R1 a widening web of counter-terror law built → but the keystone, an agreed definition, is missing → efficacy capped
Body flow
phased instruments (1963 aircraft treaty, first of its kind + five sectoral in the 1970s → aviation/shipping) → post-9/11 widening (bombings, financing, nuclear) → institutional support (FATF grey-listing, SCO’s RATS, UNSC 1267/1373/1624 → freezes, incitement) → instruments do curb finance and safe havens → definitional deadlock (no comprehensive convention, CCIT stalled, one state’s terrorist another's freedom fighter → Heywood, “essentially contested concept”) → selective enforcement (China vs Hafiz Saeed listing under 1267 → “double standards; BRICS/India protest) → persistence (Afghanistan, Syria)
Counter-view
conventions genuinely constrain terrorist finance, movement and safe havens set against definitional deadlock + politicised, selective enforcement +
Conclusion routes
terrorism still engulfing whole regions → net verdict is partial efficacy, not decisive result R1 conventions manage terrorism, do not defeat it → finalise CCIT + end “good”/“bad” distinction + tie enforcement to rule of law GQ Annan → a global scourge demands a global response → grounded in law and human rights, not selective convenience
Model answer
Handwritten, in the form it would be written in the examination hall.
