renders below this block, the homepage copy came first, so every share of every blog post or PYQ page rendered the homepage card with og:url=upscanswercheck.com. Removed 2026-08-09; do not reintroduce. --> %sveltekit.head%
Political Science & IR 2025 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Paper II — Q4

(a) Latin America has made moderate success in countering US-led global economic order by forming various organizations…

(a) Latin America has made moderate success in countering US-led global economic order by forming various organizations emphasizing regional sovereignty, economic integration and alternative development. Discuss. (20 marks) (b) How successful has the 'ASEAN Plus Three' been in addressing regional problems? Support your answer with specific examples. (15 marks) (c) "Trump's return to the White House is a jolt to push the European Union to invest in its own defence and economic and technological revival." Comment. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्षेत्रीय सम्प्रभुता, आर्थिक अखण्डता और वैकल्पिक विकास पर बल देने वाले विभिन्न संगठनों की स्थापना के आधार पर लैटिन अमेरिका ने यू एस के नेतृत्व में स्थापित वैश्विक आर्थिक व्यवस्था का विकल्प प्रस्तुत करने में सीमित सफलता प्राप्त की है। चर्चा कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) क्षेत्रीय समस्याओं को सम्बोधित करने में 'आसियान प्लस थ्री' किस हद तक सफल रहा है? सुस्पष्ट उदाहरणों द्वारा अपने उत्तर को समर्थित कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) "ट्रम्प की व्हाइट हाउस में वापसी यूरोपीय संघ को अपनी रक्षा तथा आर्थिक और तकनीकी पुनरुत्थान में निवेश करने के दबाव के लिए एक झटका है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'discuss' requires a balanced, multi-dimensional treatment of all three sub-parts with critical engagement. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction framing regionalism vs. US-centric order → body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesizing how regional organizations are reshaping global governance amid great power shifts.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Analysis of Latin American organizations (UNASUR, CELAC, ALBA, MERCOSUR) as counter-hegemonic instruments; assessment of 'moderate success' through achievements (de-dollarization efforts, Banco del Sur) and limitations (USMCA dominance, internal divisions, Venezuela crisis)
  • Part (a): Evaluation of structural constraints—geographic proximity to US, commodity dependence, IMF/WB conditionalities—that limit autonomous regionalism
  • Part (b): Assessment of APT's institutional mechanisms (Chiang Mai Initiative, rice reserve, RCEP precursor) with specific examples of success (1997-98 financial crisis response) and failure (South China Sea, Myanmar crisis, COVID-19 coordination gaps)
  • Part (b): Critical analysis of 'ASEAN centrality' erosion versus Chinese dominance within APT framework
  • Part (c): Examination of Trump's transactional NATO skepticism, tariff threats, and withdrawal rhetoric as catalysts for EU strategic autonomy (PESCO, European Defence Fund, chips act)
  • Part (c): Balanced evaluation of EU's capacity constraints (fiscal fragmentation, German economic stagnation, Visegrad dissent) versus renewed Franco-German convergence on 'Zeitenwende'

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10Demonstrates precise grasp of 'discuss' by presenting multiple perspectives on each sub-part: for (a) weighs autonomy gains against structural dependency; for (b) balances institutional achievements with geopolitical limitations; for (c) evaluates both catalytic and constraining dimensions of Trump factor without partisan biasAddresses all sub-parts descriptively but lacks critical tension; treats 'discuss' as mere narration without weighing contradictions or presenting counter-argumentsMisreads directive as 'describe' or 'list'; provides one-sided treatment (purely celebratory or dismissive) of any sub-part; ignores comparative or evaluative dimensions
Content depth & accuracy20%10Displays command of institutional specifics (e.g., CELAC's 33-member exclusion of US/Canada; APT's $240bn CMIM pool; EU's €8bn EDF) with accurate chronology and causal mechanisms; correctly identifies 2023-24 EU defence spending commitments and Trump's 2025 policy signalsCovers major organizations but with factual gaps or anachronisms (e.g., conflating UNASUR and MERCOSUR functions; misdating Chiang Mai Initiative); superficial on causal driversMajor factual errors (e.g., treating NATO as EU institution; confusing ASEAN+3 with ASEAN+6); omits critical developments; relies on outdated Cold War framework
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite organization with explicit sub-headings; smooth transitions between regional cases demonstrating comparative regionalism; integrated conclusion drawing thematic threads (autonomy vs. dependency; institutionalism vs. power politics) across all three casesAddresses all parts but with uneven development; abrupt shifts between cases; conclusion merely summarizes without synthesisDisorganized or merged responses; missing sub-part (b) or (c); no discernible introduction or conclusion; bullet-point dump without paragraph coherence
Examples / case-law / data20%10Rich empirical grounding: for (a) cites Banco del Sur (2007), ALBA-TCP, Lula's 2023 CELAC presidency; for (b) specifies 1997-98 crisis response, 2010 CMIM expansion, 2012+6 rice reserve, RCEP 2020; for (c) references von der Leyen's 'geopolitical Commission,' 2024 Draghi competitiveness report, Trump's 2025 tariff announcementsNames organizations but lacks specific events, dates, or figures; generic references ('financial crisis,' 'defence spending') without precisionNo concrete examples; purely theoretical treatment; invented or irrelevant cases (e.g., citing African Union for Latin America)
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesizes three cases into coherent argument about ' contested multilateralism' and regional hedging strategies; offers forward-looking assessment (e.g., Lula's BRICS-CELAC convergence, EU's 2024-29 strategic agenda, APT's AIIB/BRICS+ dilemmas); demonstrates independent judgment on whether regionalism genuinely challenges or reinforces hierarchical orderRestates main points without theoretical elevation; predictable conclusion about 'need for cooperation'; no prognostic elementAbsent or perfunctory conclusion; introduces new, undeveloped arguments at end; purely normative wish-list unrelated to analysis

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Political Science & IR 2025 Paper II