Essay Writing for Politics and IR

First, some reassurance: Finals are a stressful time, but remember that the most important
part of your Oxford education does not take place in Exam Schools! Your final results are but a
proxy for your mastery of the material and your ability to think critically under pressure. This
proxy is imperfect in many ways.
Second, try to remember you have spent the past year learning how to learn through your
tutorials, lectures, conversations with friends, and right now, through revision. As much as the
PPE course is about Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, it is also about learning about how to
learn. Your final exams will not test for this, but it may be the most important skill that you will
take from your Oxford experience. Do not lose sight of this!

Mastery

1. Be interested and be interesting. * If you are not interested in what you have to say then
your assessor will not be interested either. Instead, take this opportunity to figure out what you
really think about the subject and then share your passion for the topic with your reader. Just
remember that the assessor is marking 50+ scripts and is likely to see the same arguments over
and over again. If you have something different (or provocative) to say, then your reader is more
likely to pay attention.
Attention women: do not be afraid to be provocative or controversial with your thesis. You
may find you write more convincingly by arguing the opposite of what you actually believe or
taking an extreme stance on an issue. Try this in your practice timed essays. For first and second
year students, use your tutorial essays to be bold and to test ideas. You do not have to be right to
be interesting.

2. Think like an IR scholar.* Or a political scientist. Or a political theorist. Or an economist.

Or a philosopher. In other words, be mindful of what is expected in each discipline. Political
scientists and international relations scholars structure their arguments quite differently from
political theorists. Be aware of the discipline-specific norms. Structure your essay and use
language that is appropriate to that discipline.

3. Breadth. Demonstrate knowledge of multiple areas in international relations/politics.

Do not repeat material. I.e., Be careful in choosing your questions. Do not choose to cover
the same material in different essay questions on the same exam paper.

4. Cite. Cite. Cite.

i) Be aware of your audience: Ideas are the currency of academics. If you do not cite, it is
a sign of disrespect or ignorance.
ii) Associate concepts with specific scholars. E.g., Nye (2004) soft power.
iii) Read through the two excerpts at the end of this page and compare how you perceive
the author’s authority in each piece. One version includes full citations and the other version is
stripped of citations. You should notice that citations give depth and authority to the writing.

5. Have confidence in your opinion. Attention women: Avoid “I think”, “It seems”. These
terms indicate uncertainty. If you are not certain of your point, then it does not belong in the essay.
If you choose to express uncertainty, do so purposefully, not by slipping into it.
 Tactics

1. Read the question carefully. What is it getting at?

Answer the question in front of you, not the one you want to answer.

2. Thesis. Have one! Make it clear that THIS is your thesis.

i) In this essay, I will argue…. Make it as easy as possible for your reader to figure out
what your thesis is. Do not leave her hunting around for your argument.
ii) Underline your thesis in your own notes at the top! This will keep you focused on your
argument. Ask yourself: does this particular sentence contribute to my argument?
Example: War is an appropriate response to terrorism. Do you agree?
There are many different ways to approach this question. Here are a few:
i) Yes/No, followed by sub-arguments A, B, C.
ii) Yes, it is an appropriate response under conditions A, B, C.
iii) A broader frame from which an answer to the question can be deduced. “Terrorism
aims to provoke the state into overreacting on security, thus delegitimizing itself in the process.
Militarization of a conflict with terrorists falls directly into this trap. Although it may seem
counterintuitive, I will argue that the most appropriate response for ensuring state security is to
demilitarize the conflict as much as possible.”

3. Definitions. Stock definitions. E.g. globalisation.

Also consider problematic definitions. E.g., terrorism.

Think about what ‘appropriate’ means in the context of the earlier question. Appropriate
from whose point of view? The government’s? The people’s? The terrorists’?
4. Scope.
i) Where the question is vague, limit the scope. E.g., “Intervention”. Diplomatic
intervention? Military intervention? In the earlier example, does ‘war’ refer to national
governments taking military action against an internal threat or governments taking military action
in other countries? Could war refer to cyberwar?
ii) Limit the scope of the question to make it answerable in 1 hour. Do not try to do too
much!
5. Assumptions. Do you make assumptions about values or principles in your argument?
Are these assumptions critical to your argument?
E.g., In US-China relations, the US should do X and China should do Y. In your analysis,
do you implicitly want one of these countries to do better? Do you assume that democracy and
capitalism is always better? Make your assumptions clear to the reader

6. Word choice. Be precise with your words. Do not use ‘issue’ when you mean
‘argument’. Do not use ‘norm’ if you mean ‘principle’. Do not use ‘define’ if you mean ‘describe’.
Do not use ‘sovereignty’ if you mean ‘state power’.

7. Timing. 1 Hr/essay.
5-10 min planning. 45 writing. 10 min re-reading.

8. Write the intro paragraph last. Sometimes you will not be clear about your argument
until you have finished writing the entire essay.

9. Headings, Underline. Some of you (but not all of you) will benefit from using headings
or underlining in your essays. This can help keep you focused.
 10. Double space. Leave room to add in sentences.

11. Be legible. Assessors cannot mark what they cannot read.

How to revise
1. Do the readings. Use your old essays. Choose 4-7 areas to focus on. Pick issues that
you are passionate about. If you are not interested in the topic, your reader will probably find your
essay boring.
Use your revision time to develop depth in niches of the subject that you had always wanted
to learn more about. Attend talks and guest speaker seminars where relevant. Going to events may
seem like time you can’t afford, but in fact, you are likely to pick up interesting ideas at these
seminars that will impress your assessors and stimulate your own interest in the subject!

2. Empirics. You need evidence to support your arguments. Focus on cases, institutions,
countries, relationships. Learn a few of these really well and use them in your essays! E.g., China-
US. Memorize basic facts such as GDP, military info, growth rates, demographics, etc.

3. Timed essays. Work in pairs. Read each other’s essays & critique.
Writing a timed essay in one hour under a lot of pressure is a very different experience
from producing an essay for your tutor on a weekly basis (no matter how difficult you found that
to be). It is a different skill and needs to be understood as such. Doing well in your tutorial essays
will not necessarily translate into high marks for your final exams. The best way to get better at it
is to practice: write at least one timed essay each day.

4. Essay plans. 5-10 minutes. Thesis + 3 supporting arguments. Share with a friend and
discuss. Flesh them out as much as you can with evidence, citations. Pick each other’s arguments
apart. Work with the same group of friends so that you feel comfortable enough to be honest with
each other about the validity of your ideas.

5. Essay outlines.
i) Write topic sentences for each proposed paragraph. Think about how your argument is
presented to your reader. Does it flow?
ii) Take an old essay that needs structural work. Write a topic sentence for each paragraph
of the existing essay. Does the argument flow in its existing form? Move around topic sentences
to better understand the framework of your argument structure.
 Case studies:

Does peacekeeping keep peace? International

intervention and the duration of peace after civil war
Source: Virginia Page Fortna. International studies quarterly. 2004. Vol 24 Issue 2.
pg:269 -292
Version 1. No citations.

Does peacekeeping work? Do international interventions to help maintain peace in the

aftermath of civil war actually contribute to more stable peace? Since the end of the Cold War the
international community and the UN have moved beyond “traditional peacekeeping” between
states and have become much more involved in civil conflicts, monitoring and often managing or
administering various aspects of the transition to peace within states.
Scholars and practitioners of peacekeeping have debated the merits of the new wave of
more “robust” and complex forms of peacekeeping and peace enforcement developed after the
Cold War, and even over the effectiveness of more traditional forms of peacekeeping. However,
this debate is hampered by lack of rigorous testing of the effectiveness of these interventions by
the international community. We do not have a very good idea of whether they really work.
Opponents of peacekeeping often point to dramatic failures that dominate news coverage
of peacekeeping without acknowledging the success stories that make less exciting news.
Proponents are also guilty of selection bias, however. The vast literature on peacekeeping
compares cases and missions, but generally examines only cases in which the international
community intervenes, not cases in which belligerents are left to their own devices. Surprisingly,
very little work has been done to examine empirically whether peace is more likely to last in cases
where peacekeepers are present than when they are absent.
Moreover, the few studies that do address this empirical question, at least in passing, come
to contradictory findings. In one case, there is evidence that for peacebuilding in civil wars since
World War II, multilateral, United Nations peace operations have been shown to make a positive
difference. In particular, multidimensional peacekeeping, i.e, missions with extensive civilian
functions, including economic reconstruction, institutional reform, and election oversight
significantly improve the chances of peacebuilding success (measured two years after the end of
the war). There is weaker evidence that observer missions and enforcement missions improve the
chances for peace, but, surprisingly, traditional peacekeeping has no effect on the chances for
peacebuilding success. However, there is also evidence that shows that third-party involvement
(which includes peacekeeping missions) significantly and substantially increase the duration of
peace. Separately, there is further evidence that third-party peacekeeping interventions, including
those by the UN, have no significant effect on the duration of peace. The evidence suggests much
variation in the effect of a peacekeeping presence. From the existing studies, it is not at all clear
whether peacekeeping works. A closer look is clearly needed.
 Version 2. Original. With Citations

Does peacekeeping work? Do international interventions to help maintain peace in the

aftermath of civil war actually contribute to more stable peace? Since the end of the Cold War the
international community and the UN have moved beyond “traditional peacekeeping” between
states and have become much more involved in civil conflicts, monitoring and often managing or
administering various aspects of the transition to peace within states.
Scholars and practitioners of peacekeeping have debated the merits of the new wave of
more “robust” and complex forms of peacekeeping and peace enforcement developed after the
Cold War, and even over the effectiveness of more traditional forms of peacekeeping (Tharoor,
1995/96; Luttwak, 1999). However, this debate is hampered by lack of rigorous testing of the
effectiveness of these interventions by the international community. We do not have a very good
idea of whether they really work.
Opponents of peacekeeping often point to dramatic failures that dominate news coverage
of peacekeeping without acknowledging the success stories that make less exciting news.
Proponents are also guilty of selection bias, however. The vast literature on peacekeeping
compares cases and missions, but generally examines only cases in which the international
community intervenes, not cases in which belligerents are left to their own devices. Surprisingly,
very little work has been done to examine empirically whether peace is more likely to last in cases
where peacekeepers are present than when they are absent.
Moreover, the few studies that do address this empirical question, at least in passing, come
to contradictory findings. In their study of peacebuilding in civil wars since World War II, Doyle
and Sambanis (2000) “find that multilateral, United Nations peace operations make a positive
difference.” In particular, they find strong evidence that multidimensional peacekeeping, i.e,
“missions with extensive civilian functions, including economic reconstruction, institutional
reform, and election oversight” significantly improve the chances of peacebuilding success
(measured two years after the end of the war). They find weaker evidence that observer missions
and enforcement missions improve the chances for peace, but, surprisingly, that traditional
peacekeeping has no effect on the chances for peacebuilding success. Hartzell, Hoddie, and
Rothchild (2001) find that third-party involvement (which includes peacekeeping missions)
significantly and substantially increases the duration of peace. However, in a study using Doyle
and Sambanis’s data set but more sophisticated statistical techniques, Amitabh Dubey (2002)
finds, inter alia, that third-party peacekeeping interventions, including those by the UN, have no
significant effect on the duration of peace. Of the three studies that examine whether peace lasts
longer when peacekeepers are present than when they are absent, one finds that it does, one that it
does not, and one finds that only some kinds of peacekeeping are effective.2 From the existing
studies, it is not at all clear whether peacekeeping works. A closer look is clearly needed.