Recent Papers 03-29-2022

Taiwan has been recently defined the ‘most dangerous place on Earth’ (The Economist, 1 May 2021). Taking into consideration political (China vs US), historical (the origins of RoC Taiwan), strategic (the geographical location of the island)

CRCK- International Relations & Diplomacy

University of Cumbria and Robert Kennedy College

General Instructions – Please read carefully

You are required to complete the assignment outlined below and submit your completed final document through the RKC Online Campus by the end of Unit 6.  Your grade will be based 100% on this final document, to which you will also receive written feedback.

In addition, you must upload part of your draft of the above document by the end of Unit 3 (see Interim Assignment, below).  This draft will not be graded, but it is an important way of monitoring your progress.  Formative feedback on your draft will be given, and general feedback with respect to the topic(s) covered in the interim assignment will be posted on the Forum after Unit 3 has been completed.

Your paper must have a clear structure and must include:

  • Cover page (an example is available to you in Induction/Unit 4)
  • Abstract (no more than 150 words, a single paragraph)
  • Table of contents (Table of tables/figures if necessary) – numbered sections, page numbers
  • A subsection for each of the four questions of the assessment - no more than 4’000 words in total
  • A list of references – at Master level you must use in-text citations to support your arguments and any work cited must appear in the References list at the end of the work.

Please ask any questions about the interim assignment and final assignment in the class discussion forums.

Final Assignment – 4,000 words

Questions:

The expression ‘resource wars’ covers a wide list of categories (from oil and minerals to timber and more exotic items). And, while there have been in history a few instances of (both civil wars and international conflicts) related to them, the term itself has evolved over time and now requires a more insightful, policy-conscious analysis. Discuss.

Weight: 20% of the final mark (roughly 1’000 words)

1. Taiwan has been recently defined the ‘most dangerous place on Earth’ (The Economist, 1 May 2021). Taking into consideration political (China vs US), historical (the origins of RoC Taiwan), strategic (the geographical location of the island) and economic (microchip industry) aspects, draw possible scenarios of the next ten years in Taiwan’s global policy.

Weight: 30% of the final mark (roughly 1’500 words)

2. The European Green Deal (The EU Commission, 2019) is one of the most ambitious and far-reaching initiative ever launched to tackle climate change on a regional scale. After an analysis of the most relevant aspects of this framework programme, explore the Deal impact on the EU’s foreign relations.

Weight: 20% of the final mark (roughly 1’000 words, with use of graphics)

3. The Copenhagen School defines the ‘Speech Act’ as a crucial aspect of the securitisation process. Looking at the current political discourse, select and analyse one instance as an example of the securitisation dynamics.

Weight: 15% of the final mark (roughly 500 words)

4. The remaining 15% of the final mark will be dependent on the quality of Harvard referencing and overall presentation professionalism of the paper.

Interim Assignment

The Interim assignment requires you to submit, by the end of Unit 3, a draft of the final assignment through the OnlineCampus.

Formative feedback will be given to you on it, so do try to have roughly a 1’500 to 2’000 words paper, with a full structure for the final paper, and some content on each of the questions (a plan for what you intend to do is ok too).

Criteria and Weighting

To obtain 70% or above:

To obtain 60% or above:

To obtain 55 – 59%:

To obtain 50% - 54%:

To obtain a Fail grade of between 49 - 40 %:-

To obtain a substantial fail of between 39 - 0%:-

A critical literature review on International Relations & Diplomacy (20%)

An excellent review, demonstrating independent research (relevant and recent sources, from academic as well as practitioner sources) and critical thinking (engaging with sources rather than taking them at face value; discussing their limitations, strengths and weaknesses)

A good review that demonstrates some independent research and critical engagement with sources.Taiwan has been recently defined the ‘most dangerous place on Earth’ (The Economist, 1 May 2021). Taking into consideration political (China vs US), historical (the origins of RoC Taiwan), strategic (the geographical location of the island) and economic (microchip industry) aspects, draw possible scenarios of the next ten years in Taiwan’s global policy.

A good review, showing independent research, although sources are not always trustworthy, are taken at face value, or are outdated.

A reasonably good review, showing little independent research, although sources are not always trustworthy, are taken at face value, or are outdated.

A poor review, showing little or no evidence of independent research and critical thinking.

A very poor review, with little or no sources, and/or little or no critical engagement with said sources.

Problem definition (30%)

An excellent problem definition, very well written, making full use of one or more theoretical frameworks to structure the section.

The audience is clearly considered and the questions to be answered and preparation for analysis are clearly tailored to the audience.

A good problem definition, well written, with some integration of theoretical frameworks in its presentation.

The audience is partially considered in defining the questions to be answered.

A good problem definition, making some use of existing theoretical frameworks to build and support the argument, which may sometimes lack in clarity. Few issues may be weakly explored.

The audience may be weakly considered.

A reasonably good problem definition, making some use of existing theoretical frameworks to build and support the argument, which may sometimes lack in clarity.

The audience may be weakly explored.

A poorly written problem definition, with limited support from existing theoretical frameworks, and no or little consideration of the audience.

A very poor or missing problem definition, with little if any link between theory and practice, or not at all attempted.

Communication of findings and application of the analytical framework (20%)

An excellent communication of the analysis’ findings, with excellent choices of examples and real-life case studies that fully support the argument and apply the analytical framework.

A good communication of the analysis’ findings, with good choices for examples and real-life case studies that support the argument and apply the analytical framework.

A reasonably good communication of the analysis’ findings, with reasonable choices for examples and real-life case studies that partially support the argument and apply the analytical framework to some extent.

The communication of the findings is relatively weak, needing stronger support from examples and real-life case studies and a stronger application the analytical framework.

The communication is confusing and/or incomplete, with little or no examples and real-life case studies and application of the analytical framework.

Little evidence of understanding of the issues surrounding communication of findings and application of the analytical framework.

Critical review of your analysis and its limitations (15%)

An excellent review of the analysis and its strengths and weaknesses, using appropriate theoretical frameworks.

A good review of the analysis and its strengths and weaknesses, using appropriate theoretical frameworks.

A reasonable review of the analysis and its strengths and weaknesses. Stronger use of appropriate theoretical frameworks was needed.

A shallow look at the strengths / weaknesses of your own analysis, with little if any use of theoretical frameworks to structure the review.

A poor review of the analysis and its limitations, with no use of theoretical frameworks.

Little evidence of understanding of the issues surrounding data analysis limitations.

Referencing and presentation (15%)

Excellent Harvard referencing throughout the paper and an excellent bibliography/references list. The paper itself is presented in a clear, logical way, and would be appropriate for peer-review publication.

Very minor Harvard referencing errors throughout the paper and bibliography. The paper itself is presented with some style

Minor Harvard referencing issues throughout the paper and bibliography which does not detract from the academic level of the work. The paper itself is presented clearly and coherently

Harvard Referencing issues throughout the paper and bibliography detract from the academic level of study and/or the spelling and grammar errors cause the whole to be poorly presented.

Very poor Harvard referencing throughout the paper and bibliography and/or a poorly constructed paper.

Either no Harvard referencing and/or spelling and grammar detracts from the academic level required. The paper is not adequate for Master level work.

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions
paypal checkout

Our Giveaways

Plagiarism Report

for £20 Free

Formatting

for £12 Free

Title page

for £10 Free

Bibliography

for £18 Free

Outline

for £9 Free

Limitless Amendments

for £14 Free

Get all these features for
£83.00 FREE

ORDER NOW