30-mark questions

1Rights are entitlements that protect individuals from unjust treatment, and to be ‘poorly protected’ is to lack secure legal and political safeguards. 2The source presents a contest between those who see a strong legal framework and civic commitment to rights, and those who see that framework as vulnerable and narrow. 3This essay argues that rights in the UK are poorly protected, because their protection ultimately depends on the will of the government of the day.

1. 1
   Defines both key termsDefining “rights” and “poorly protected” keeps the essay on rights, rather than drifting into the constitution in general (AO1).
2. 2
   Frames the source’s debateShows from the start that the essay will work from the source’s two sides.
3. 3
   Clear line, with a reason“…because their protection ultimately depends on the will of the government” gives a thread every paragraph returns to (AO3).

1The first theme is the strength of the UK’s legal framework for rights. 2The source argues that current legislation “provides strong legal protection for civil and political rights”, citing the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010. 3The Human Rights Act allows citizens to enforce Convention rights in UK courts rather than in Strasbourg, while the Equality Act brought together protection from discrimination across nine protected characteristics. 4As a result, rights are set out in law and can be enforced at home, which suggests they are well protected. 5However, the source also warns that this framework is “vulnerable to political attack” and that governments “have been repeatedly able to introduce legislation weakening rights”. Because the Human Rights Act is an ordinary statute, it is not entrenched, and judges can only issue a declaration of incompatibility rather than strike down an Act of Parliament. 6This weakness was exposed when, after the Supreme Court ruled the Rwanda policy unlawful in 2023, Parliament passed the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024, which declared Rwanda safe and disapplied key parts of the Human Rights Act. 7Therefore, the argument that rights are poorly protected is more convincing: legislation can grant rights, but under parliamentary sovereignty it can just as easily remove them, so the strength the source describes exists only for as long as Parliament allows.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceNames a theme that both source arguments address, which makes a genuine pair.
2. 2
   Counter-point from the sourceA short quotation shows the argument comes from the source.
3. 3
   Own knowledge develops itThe HRA in UK courts and the Equality Act’s nine protected characteristics: precise AO1 that extends the source’s point rather than adding a new argument.
4. 4
   Weight of the counter-pointExplains why the opposing case matters before turning against it (AO2).
5. 5
   Opposing source pointThe directly opposing argument from the source, so the two can be weighed.
6. 6
   Contemporary evidenceThe Rwanda ruling (2023), then the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024: a recent, precise case used to prove the point (AO1/AO2).
7. 7
   Interim judgement, justifiedExplains why one side wins, linked to the line in the introduction (AO3).

The second theme is the role of the courts. 1The source argues that “common law has long protected civil liberties such as the freedom of speech and jury trial” and that these “are protected by the judiciary”. 2Judges have shown they will defend these liberties: in the Unison case in 2017, the Supreme Court ruled employment tribunal fees unlawful because they prevented access to justice. Thus the courts provide a long-standing safeguard that does not depend on any single Act. 3Nevertheless, the source notes that “leaving the EU has made weaker the protection for certain migrant and labour rights” because “the EU’s Fundamental Charter of Rights no longer applies”. 4This matters because, while the UK was a member, the Charter allowed courts to set aside Acts of Parliament that conflicted with EU law, as the Supreme Court did in the Benkharbouche case in 2017; this was the strongest legal remedy UK rights have ever had, and it has gone. Meanwhile, in cases touching national security the courts have been cautious, as in the Begum case in 2021, when the Supreme Court deferred to the Home Secretary’s judgement. 5For this reason, the argument that rights are poorly protected is more persuasive: the judiciary can uphold common law liberties against ministers, but it cannot override Parliament, and the loss of the Charter has removed the one route by which it could.

1. 1
   Paired source pointsThe common law protected by the judiciary, against the loss of the EU Charter: both concern legal protection through the courts, so they genuinely answer each other.
2. 2
   Evidence on both sidesUnison (2017) for the courts; Benkharbouche (2017) and Begum (2021) for the limits. Balanced, precise examples (AO1).
3. 3
   ECHR and EU kept distinctCorrectly links the Charter with the EU, avoiding a common confusion with the ECHR (AO1).
4. 4
   Explaining the weightExplains why losing the Charter matters, not just that it happened (AO2).
5. 5
   Interim judgementConnects back to paragraph 1 (parliamentary sovereignty), so the argument builds (AO3).

The final theme is the political and civic support for rights. 1The source suggests that the UK has “a strong commitment to rights, values and activism” and that “the public have the freedom to protest in order to protect and advance rights”. 2Pressure groups such as Liberty and Amnesty International monitor and challenge government action; in 2024, Liberty successfully challenged regulations that had lowered the threshold for police to restrict protests. This shows that civil society acts as a powerful check, which suggests that rights are defended in practice. On the other hand, the source argues that “little political consensus exists on the nature and meaning of human rights” and that social and economic rights “are the most poorly established and protected”. The Public Order Act 2023 created new protest offences, and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 restricted the right of some workers to strike, showing how far protection shifts with the government in power. Meanwhile, there is no enforceable legal right to a given standard of healthcare. 3Consequently, the view that rights are poorly protected is more credible: activism is valuable, but the fact that rights must constantly be defended by campaigners is itself evidence of their insecurity, and whole categories of rights lack protection altogether.

1. 1
   A sensible pairingCivic and pressure group support, against the lack of consensus and weak social and economic rights. Pressure groups often campaign on social and economic issues, so the pair is genuinely connected.
2. 2
   Own knowledge on both sidesLiberty’s 2024 challenge, the Public Order Act 2023 and the Strikes Act 2023: recent legislation used as evidence for each side (AO1).
3. 3
   Perceptive interim judgementTurns the counter-argument into support for the line: perceptive evaluation (AO3).

1Rights in the UK enjoy real legal, judicial and civic support, as the source shows. 2However, each safeguard can be overridden: statutes can be amended, courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament, and campaigners can only react to change. 3With the EU Charter gone and no consensus on what rights should mean, protection rests on political will rather than secure guarantees, so rights in the UK are poorly protected.

1. 1
   Acknowledges the other sideThe judgement is weighed, not one-sided.
2. 2
   Draws on each paragraphStatutes (paragraph 1), courts and the Charter (paragraph 2), campaigners and consensus (paragraph 3). Nothing new appears.
3. 3
   Returns to the opening reason“…political will rather than secure guarantees” echoes the introduction, so the thread is sustained (AO3).

1Sovereignty is ultimate legal authority; parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can make or unmake any law and cannot bind its successors. 2The debate is whether developments such as the Human Rights Act, devolution, referendums and executive dominance have moved sovereignty away from Parliament. 3This essay argues that, although political power is now shared, legal sovereignty still lies in Parliament alone, which makes the view unconvincing.

1. 1
   A sharp definitionDefines sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty precisely, the foundation for the whole essay (AO1).
2. 2
   Context that lists the themesSets up the four pressures the essay will weigh.
3. 3
   The legal/political distinction“…although political power is now shared, legal sovereignty still lies…” is the key idea that lets the answer weigh rather than list (AO2/AO3).

The first theme is the relationship between Parliament, the courts and rights. 1Supporters of the view argue that the Human Rights Act 1998 has given the courts a real influence over legislation. 2When the Law Lords ruled in the Belmarsh case in 2004 that the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects was incompatible with Convention rights, the government responded by replacing it with control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. As a result, judicial rulings carry moral and political weight that Parliament finds hard to ignore, so rights act as a practical limit on its sovereignty. 3However, a declaration of incompatibility does not affect the validity of an Act, and Parliament is free to ignore it. 4Parliament did so for over a decade after the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Hirst v UK in 2005 that the blanket ban on prisoners voting breached the Convention. Moreover, the Human Rights Act is itself an ordinary statute that Parliament could repeal by simple majority. 5Therefore, the view that sovereignty lies in Parliament alone is more convincing: the courts can persuade and embarrass, but they cannot override, and the decision on how to respond always remains with Parliament.

1. 1
   Synoptic link: rightsThe Human Rights Act and Convention rights: a Paper 1 topic used naturally within the argument (AO1).
2. 2
   Counter-point with weightBelmarsh (2004), then the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, shows the courts’ practical influence, the strongest form of the opposing case.
3. 3
   The right focusDeclarations of incompatibility, not judicial review of ministers. The question is about Parliament’s sovereignty, so the relevant mechanism is what courts can do to Acts of Parliament.
4. 4
   Point, with decisive evidenceHirst v UK (2005), not acted on for over a decade, proves that Parliament can ignore rulings, which directly answers the counter-point (AO2).
5. 5
   Interim judgementA justified verdict with a reason (AO3).

The second theme is devolution and popular sovereignty. Supporters of the view argue that power has moved to the devolved bodies and to the people. 1The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd were created after referendums in 1997, and the Scotland Act 2016 declared the Scottish Parliament a permanent part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements that cannot be abolished without a referendum. 2Similarly, after the 2016 EU referendum, Parliament implemented Brexit even though most MPs had backed Remain, suggesting that popular sovereignty now binds Parliament in practice. Thus the UK can be seen as quasi-federal, with sovereignty shared. In contrast, Parliament retains the legal power to override both. 3In the Miller case in 2017, the Supreme Court held that the Sewel Convention, under which Westminster does not normally legislate on devolved matters without consent, cannot be enforced by the courts. 4Parliament then passed the UK Internal Market Act 2020 despite the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd refusing their consent. 5Likewise, referendums exist only because Parliament legislates for them, and the 2016 referendum was not legally binding. Consequently, the argument that sovereignty lies in Parliament alone is more persuasive: devolution and referendums create strong political pressures, but they operate within limits that Parliament sets and can change.

1. 1
   Strong counter-caseThe permanence clause in the Scotland Act 2016 and the “quasi-federal” argument give the opposing view its full weight, so the judgement is earned.
2. 2
   Synoptic link: referendums and democracyThe 1997 devolution referendums, the 2016 EU referendum and popular sovereignty link to democracy and participation in Paper 1 (AO1).
3. 3
   Accurate use of MillerMiller (2017) upholds parliamentary sovereignty, so the case is used correctly, as evidence for Parliament’s sovereignty (AO1).
4. 4
   Evidence that answers the counterThe UK Internal Market Act 2020, passed without devolved consent, shows that the Sewel Convention is not enforceable in practice (AO2).
5. 5
   Precise on referendumsAccurate: the 2016 referendum was advisory, although Parliament can make a referendum binding.

The final theme is the power of the executive. Supporters of the view argue that political sovereignty has passed to the government. 1Lord Hailsham described the UK system as an ‘elective dictatorship’, because first-past-the-post usually produces single-party majorities, which party whips then turn into reliable control of the Commons. 2The large majorities won in 2019 and 2024 allowed governments to pass their legislative programmes with little effective resistance. For this reason, it can be argued that sovereignty lies with the executive rather than with Parliament. Conversely, the government’s power exists only because it commands a majority in Parliament, and it disappears when that support is withdrawn. 3In January 2019, Theresa May’s Brexit deal was rejected by 230 votes, the largest government defeat in modern history, and later that year MPs passed the Benn Act against the Prime Minister’s wishes. When the government tried to prorogue Parliament in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled the prorogation unlawful precisely to protect Parliament’s sovereignty. 4Therefore, the view that sovereignty lies in Parliament alone is more credible: executive dominance is political and conditional, while Parliament’s authority is legal and permanent.

1. 1
   Synoptic links: elections and partiesFirst-past-the-post and party whips explain the elective dictatorship: natural links to Paper 1 topics on electoral systems and political parties (AO1).
2. 2
   A chain of reasoningFirst-past-the-post leads to majorities; whips turn them into control; so the government dominates. A logical chain for the counter-case (AO2).
3. 3
   Contemporary, precise evidenceThe 2019 defeat by 230 votes, the Benn Act and the prorogation ruling: specific events used to prove that government power depends on Parliament.
4. 4
   Interim judgement“…political and conditional… legal and permanent” brings back the legal/political distinction from the introduction, so the thread is sustained (AO3).

1The Human Rights Act, devolution, referendums and executive dominance have all limited Parliament politically, and power in practice is now widely shared. 2Yet in every case Parliament retains the final legal word: it can ignore declarations of incompatibility, legislate without devolved consent, decide whether to hold or follow referendums, and withdraw support from governments. 3Sovereignty therefore still lies in Parliament alone, and the view is unconvincing.

1. 1
   Concedes the political realityA nuanced conclusion, not a flat “no”.
2. 2
   One clause per pressureSummarises the interim judgements from all three paragraphs, so the conclusion is no surprise.
3. 3
   Fully justifiedThe judgement follows from the legal/political distinction set up in the introduction (AO3).

1The United Nations is the universal intergovernmental organisation of 193 member states, created in 1945 to maintain international peace and security and promote cooperation. 2Its strengths lie in its legitimacy and reach; its weaknesses in a Security Council that great powers can paralyse. 3This essay argues that its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, because most of its failures are failures of its member states rather than of the institution itself.

1. 1
   Precise definition193 members, founded in 1945, with a stated purpose: accurate AO1 from the first sentence.
2. 2
   Context in one sentenceIdentifies the core tension (legitimacy against great-power paralysis) that the essay will weigh.
3. 3
   Line, with a reason“…failures of its member states rather than of the institution itself” is a distinctive argument that every paragraph tests (AO3).

The first theme is peace and security, where the UN’s weaknesses are most visible. 1The veto allows any permanent member of the Security Council to block action, even when it is itself a party to the conflict: Russia vetoed a resolution condemning its own invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and repeatedly blocked action over Syria, while the United States has vetoed draft resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. 2As a result, the UN appears powerless in precisely the conflicts that matter most, which supports the realist view that international organisations simply reflect the interests of powerful states. However, where the great powers’ interests do not directly clash, the UN has a strong record. 3It authorised collective action to reverse Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and its peacekeeping missions have helped stabilise Cyprus since 1964 and supported East Timor’s transition to independence in 2002. Even over Ukraine, 141 states voted in the General Assembly to condemn Russia’s invasion, isolating it diplomatically. 4Therefore, the view that the UN’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses is more convincing in this area: the veto shows the limits that great powers place on the UN, not a failure of the UN itself, and the UN delivers security wherever its members allow it to.

1. 1
   The counter-case at full strengthVetoes by Russia (Ukraine, Syria) and the US (Gaza): balanced, contemporary evidence from more than one permanent member (AO1).
2. 2
   Theory used to analyseApplies the comparative theories to explain why the weakness exists: perceptive AO2.
3. 3
   Range of evidence for the pointKuwait (1990), Cyprus (since 1964), East Timor (2002) and the General Assembly vote of 141 span collective security, peacekeeping and the General Assembly, showing depth and breadth (AO1).
4. 4
   Interim judgement“…the limits that great powers place on the UN, not a failure of the UN itself…” applies the line from the introduction directly: a substantiated judgement (AO3).

The second theme is human rights and humanitarian action. 1Critics argue that the UN’s human rights machinery lacks credibility, because states with poor human rights records, such as China and Saudi Arabia, have sat on the Human Rights Council, and because the UN responded slowly to the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar. Thus the UN can appear to legitimise the abusers it should be holding to account. Nevertheless, the UN has done more than any other body to set and enforce global human rights standards. 2The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 established the founding statement of universal rights, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, established by the Security Council, convicted the Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladić of genocide in 2017. 3Agencies such as UNICEF, the UNHCR and the World Food Programme, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020, provide aid to millions of people every year. 4For this reason, the argument that the UN’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses is more persuasive: its failures in human rights reflect the reluctance of some members to be scrutinised, while its achievements in setting standards, prosecuting atrocities and relieving suffering could not have been delivered by any single state.

1. 1
   Specific counter-evidenceHuman Rights Council membership and the slow response to the Rohingya crisis: precise and accurate, with its significance explained (“…legitimise the abusers…”) (AO1/AO2).
2. 2
   Accurate institutional knowledgeThe ICTY was established by the Security Council: this correctly places a UN body, avoiding the common confusion with the ICC, which is not part of the UN (AO1).
3. 3
   Three types of strengthSetting standards (the UDHR), prosecution (Mladić) and humanitarian aid (UNICEF, the UNHCR, the WFP): breadth that supports a weighed judgement.
4. 4
   Interim judgementWeighs the two sides and links back to the line: failures belong to members, strengths to the institution (AO3).

The final theme is the UN’s legitimacy as a forum for addressing global issues. 1Critics argue that the Security Council is unrepresentative, reflecting the balance of power in 1945: it has no permanent member from Africa or Latin America, while emerging powers such as India have no permanent seat. The UN also depends on contributions from member states, which leaves it financially vulnerable when major contributors withhold funding. 2Consequently, its decisions can lack legitimacy in the Global South, and its capacity to act is fragile. On the other hand, the UN remains the only organisation with near-universal membership, which gives agreements made through it a unique authority. 3The Sustainable Development Goals of 2015 were adopted by every member state, the Paris Agreement of 2015 was negotiated through the UN climate framework, and the Security Council endorsed the Iran nuclear deal in the same year. 4This supports the liberal view that international organisations enable cooperation by giving states a forum, rules and shared goals. 5Therefore, the view that the UN’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses is more credible: an imperfect Security Council does not cancel out the value of the only body through which all states can agree common action.

1. 1
   Structural weaknessesAn unrepresentative Security Council (no permanent African or Latin American member; India) and dependence on funding: criticisms of power concentration and financial vulnerability, made specific (AO1).
2. 2
   Consequence explainedMoves from fact to significance (AO2).
3. 3
   Global issues as evidenceThe SDGs, the Paris Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal (all 2015) cover development, the environment and security, showing the UN’s reach across the global politics course (AO1).
4. 4
   Theory balanced across the essayThe liberal view here answers the realist view in paragraph 1: understanding of both comparative theories, used to explain the evidence, not just label it (AO2).
5. 5
   Interim judgementA clear, reasoned verdict that builds to the conclusion (AO3).

1The UN’s weaknesses are real: the veto paralyses it in the most serious conflicts, its human rights bodies include abusers, and its structure reflects 1945. 2Yet in each case the fault lies mainly with its members, while its strengths in peacekeeping, human rights and global cooperation are distinctive and could not exist without it. 3The UN’s strengths therefore outweigh its weaknesses.

1. 1
   Concedes the weaknesses preciselyOne for each paragraph, which shows the judgement is weighed.
2. 2
   Returns to the line’s reason“…the fault lies mainly with its members…” completes the argument set up in the introduction (AO3).
3. 3
   No new materialThe conclusion follows entirely from the interim judgements.