AWARDED: Some excellent examples with pleasing knowledge and analysis. Stronger responses explained security dilemma and how states attempt to increase security in anarchical system, developing new weapons capabilities leading to instability. Stronger responses provided depth of analysis on military spending. Complex interdependence well understood; students clearly explained how it makes war less likely. MISSED: Some responses missed opportunity to make synoptic points, failing to access Level 4. ADVICE: \"The most common synoptic links were between realists and some conservatives on human nature.\" KEY PRINCIPLE (from ER 2025, applicable to all questions): Address the question directly. For this question, define the key terms and establish the scope of what you need to examine. Then structure your response around two or three clear, evidence-backed points. EXAMINE TECHNIQUE: This is a 12-mark question requiring you to identify, explain and illustrate. Structure around two or three clear points with specific evidence for each. You do not need a full evaluative conclusion, but showing awareness of contrasting perspectives will reach the top marks. EXAMINER RECOMMENDATIONS (from ER 2025, applicable to all questions): 1. ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED: Focus on the specific comparison or examination demanded. Do not drift into evaluation or general description of each item separately. If the question asks for differences, give differences -- not a general account of both things. 2. CONSIDER BOTH SIDES: Even in a 12-mark question, showing awareness of alternative perspectives or complications lifts your answer into the top band. 3. USE EVIDENCE EFFECTIVELY: Each point of comparison needs specific supporting evidence -- named institutions, specific powers, concrete examples of how they operate in practice. 4. VALUE TIMED PRACTICE: The more practice you have of responding in exam conditions, the better you will perform. For the final question on each paper, time pressure is real -- practise to a strict timer.