BPSC 107 Solved Assignment 2024-25: Free PDF Download

BPSC 107 Solved Assignment 2024-25 (PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WORLD HISTORY). This assignment is for July 2024 and January 2025 admission or re-registration cycle. This assignment is valid up to 31st December 2025.

All the Assignment’s solution covered in this article, read carefully and make assignment for your course.

BPSC 107 Solved Assignment 2024-25

There are three sections in this assignment. You have to answer all questions in each Section.

Assignment – I

Answer the following in about 500 words each. Each question carries 20 marks.

1. Critically analyse the concept of collective security in the post-war years.

Ans: The concept of collective security has been a cornerstone of international relations since the post-World War II era, representing a shift from traditional power politics to a framework where states work together to deter or address aggression against any member state. Rooted in the idea that peace can be maintained by united efforts, collective security seeks to replace the balance of power with cooperative security mechanisms. The United Nations (UN) and regional alliances like NATO embody this principle, with the UN specifically created to prevent a repeat of the global conflicts that plagued the first half of the 20th century. However, collective security has had mixed success due to a variety of political, operational, and structural challenges.

Origins and Foundations of Collective Security

The League of Nations was the first major attempt at establishing a system of collective security after World War I, but its failure to prevent World War II revealed significant flaws. Following this, the UN was established in 1945 with a more robust structure aimed at collective peacekeeping. The UN Charter’s provisions allow for both diplomatic and military responses to breaches of peace, with the Security Council empowered to intervene collectively in conflicts threatening international stability.

Collective security rests on three principles:

1. Universal Membership: All states should participate in the security system, so threats to any state are addressed by all.
2. Commitment to Peaceful Dispute Resolution: States are expected to avoid war and resolve conflicts through negotiation.
3. Collective Response to Aggression: If one state threatens another, all members should respond to protect collective peace.

While these principles are clear in theory, the practical application has been fraught with difficulties.

Successes of Collective Security in the Post-War Years

In some instances, the collective security framework has worked as intended. The UN has played a vital role in mediating conflicts, with successes in peacekeeping missions in El Salvador, Namibia, and Cambodia. These interventions, often through UN-led missions, underscored the potential for collective security to stabilize conflict zones, supervise elections, and aid in nation-building.

Regional alliances have also strengthened collective security. NATO, for instance, established a powerful military alliance to deter Soviet aggression during the Cold War. The principle of “an attack against one is an attack against all” reinforced a united front among Western nations, reducing the likelihood of Soviet expansion into Western Europe. Post-Cold War, NATO interventions in Kosovo (1999) and its role in Afghanistan highlighted its continued commitment to collective security, albeit within a more limited regional context.

Limitations and Challenges

Despite these successes, the concept of collective security has faced significant limitations, primarily because of the political interests of major powers and the structural setup of the UN Security Council.

1. Great Power Rivalries: The UN Security Council’s structure, with five permanent members (P5) – the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France – has often led to paralysis due to competing interests. The P5’s veto power means that collective action can be blocked if even one member disagrees. During the Cold War, US-Soviet rivalry frequently immobilized the Security Council. Even post-Cold War, tensions between the US, Russia, and China have stymied collective responses, as seen in the Syrian civil war where Russian vetoes have prevented UN intervention.
2. Selective Intervention and Inconsistency: Collective security responses have often been inconsistent, with interventions occurring based on strategic interest rather than an unbiased application of the principle. For instance, interventions in the Gulf War (1990–1991) were swift due to global economic interests in oil, while conflicts in Rwanda (1994) and Bosnia (early 1990s) received delayed or insufficient responses. Such selectivity undermines the credibility of collective security as a fair and universal mechanism.
3. Resource and Logistical Constraints: Collective security often relies on member states to contribute troops and funding, creating logistical hurdles and delays. UN peacekeeping forces, for example, are frequently under-resourced and rely on voluntary contributions from member nations, impacting mission effectiveness and response time.
4. Non-State Actors and New Security Threats: Collective security frameworks are traditionally state-centric and struggle to address threats from non-state actors like terrorist groups, insurgents, and transnational crime networks. Conflicts involving non-state actors, such as the rise of ISIS in the 2010s, challenge the efficacy of a collective security model designed around inter-state conflict. The need for more adaptable, responsive frameworks has become apparent as security threats diversify.
5. Sovereignty vs. Collective Action: Collective security presupposes a degree of intervention in member states’ affairs, raising concerns over sovereignty. Many states are reluctant to allow external intervention, fearing that it may infringe upon national sovereignty or serve as a precedent for future foreign interference. This tension was particularly evident in cases like Libya (2011), where NATO-led intervention under the UN mandate raised concerns about the overreach of collective security.

Reforms and Future Prospects

There are ongoing discussions about reforming collective security structures to enhance their effectiveness. Proposals include reforming the UN Security Council to better represent the contemporary geopolitical landscape by possibly expanding the permanent membership to include countries from Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. Another proposal advocates for restricting or abolishing the veto to prevent the immobilization of collective responses to crises.

Some argue that strengthening regional security arrangements, like the African Union’s peace and security efforts, could offer more localized and effective responses to conflicts. Regional organizations can often respond more rapidly and may have a better understanding of local dynamics, complementing the global collective security efforts of the UN.

Moreover, addressing non-traditional security threats requires revising collective security mandates to encompass a broader definition of threats, including terrorism, cyber-attacks, and climate-related security issues. Developing a more comprehensive framework that can engage with these issues flexibly is increasingly essential.

Collective security remains an aspirational but imperfect mechanism in international relations. While it has succeeded in certain peacekeeping and stabilization missions, its overall efficacy is compromised by power politics, structural limitations, and emerging security threats beyond traditional state conflicts. For collective security to be a more reliable instrument of global peace, reforms in international governance and Security Council restructuring are needed to address modern-day challenges. By adapting to current realities and mitigating the influence of great power competition, collective security could become a more effective and consistent tool for ensuring peace and stability in an interconnected world.

2. Discuss the focal arguments of Realism and Neo –realism.

Ans: Realism and Neo-realism are two major theories in international relations that focus on the importance of power, security, and self-interest in the behavior of states. Though both perspectives share core ideas, Neo-realism emerged as an evolution of classical Realism, providing a more structured framework to understand international relations.

Realism: Core Arguments

Classical Realism, which has roots in the writings of thinkers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, views international relations as a struggle for power among self-interested states in an anarchic system. Realists argue that, since there is no overarching authority above states, international politics is defined by anarchy—leading to a “self-help” environment where each state must secure its own survival and interests. Key principles of Realism include:

1. State-Centrism: Realism posits that states are the primary actors in international relations, as they alone possess the authority to wage war, enforce laws, and secure their populations.
2. Power and National Interest: Realists emphasize that states act in pursuit of power, as it ensures their survival and promotes their national interests. Power is generally understood in terms of military strength and economic capability.
3. Human Nature: Classical Realism often bases its perspective on a pessimistic view of human nature. It holds that humans are inherently power-seeking, which, when extended to the behavior of states, leads to competition and conflict.
4. Security Dilemma: In an anarchic system, one state’s attempt to increase its security—such as by building up its military—can lead other states to feel threatened, prompting them to also increase their defenses. This “security dilemma” often fuels arms races and increases tensions.

Neo-realism: Structural Theory of Realism

Neo-realism, also known as Structural Realism, was developed by Kenneth Waltz in his seminal work Theory of International Politics (1979). Neo-realism shares many assumptions with classical Realism but shifts the focus from human nature to the structure of the international system. Waltz argued that the anarchic structure of the international system itself is the primary driver of state behavior, not human nature or individual state leaders. Key arguments of Neo-realism include:

1. System Structure and Anarchy: Neo-realists argue that the anarchic nature of the international system forces states into a self-help behavior. However, instead of focusing on the motivations of individual states, Neo-realists examine how the structure of the system (its distribution of power) shapes state interactions.
2. Balance of Power: Neo-realists emphasize the importance of the balance of power. In a system where no central authority exists, states will either balance against powerful states or ally with them to ensure stability. This balancing mechanism often prevents one state from becoming overly dominant.
3. Relative Gains: Unlike Realists, who may consider absolute gains (any positive gain that benefits the state), Neo-realists focus on relative gains—ensuring that a state’s gains are not disproportionately less than those of others. This view leads to competition, as states are concerned about others gaining too much power, even if they benefit themselves.
4. Defensive vs. Offensive Realism: Neo-realism branches into Defensive and Offensive Realism. Defensive Neo-realists argue that states prioritize maintaining security rather than maximizing power, suggesting a less aggressive stance. Offensive Neo-realists, however, claim that states are inherently expansionist, striving to maximize power as a safeguard against potential threats.

Key Differences and Critiques

While Realism views power as driven by human nature and the desire for dominance, Neo-realism attributes state behavior primarily to the anarchic structure of the international system. Neo-realism’s structural approach brings a more scientific, analytical perspective but has been criticized for oversimplifying state motivations and disregarding non-state actors.

Both theories offer valuable insights into the competitive and often conflict-driven nature of international relations, providing frameworks for analyzing state behavior amid ongoing global power dynamics.

Assignment – II

Answer the following questions in about 250 words each. Each question carries 10 marks.

1. Examine the significance of Regional Economic Organizations.

Ans: Regional Economic Organizations (REOs) are alliances among countries within specific geographic areas formed to promote economic integration, increase regional stability, and facilitate mutual growth. Examples include the European Union (EU), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), now superseded by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). These organizations play a vital role in shaping global economic policies, creating stronger intra-regional ties, and increasing economic resilience in an interconnected world.

Economic Integration and Trade Expansion

One of the primary aims of REOs is to foster economic integration among member countries, which involves the removal of trade barriers, harmonization of regulations, and coordination of economic policies. Economic integration enables the free flow of goods, services, labor, and capital across borders, leading to more efficient allocation of resources. This integration not only enhances trade but also attracts foreign direct investment (FDI) by creating larger, more stable markets. For instance, the EU’s single market provides seamless access to its 27 member states, making it one of the world’s largest economies and a top destination for FDI.

Trade expansion within REOs contributes to economic growth by providing firms with access to a larger consumer base and by allowing countries to specialize according to their comparative advantages. As regional trade increases, industries within these regions become more competitive on the global stage, reducing costs and increasing the quality of goods and services.

Political Stability and Security

Beyond economic benefits, REOs often contribute to political stability within their regions by promoting cooperation and diplomacy. Economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of conflict among member states, as disputes are more likely to be resolved through negotiations rather than confrontation. The EU, for example, was founded partly to ensure that major European powers would remain economically intertwined, thus reducing the risk of war on the continent. This model of economic cooperation promoting peace has been effective and influential, inspiring similar organizations around the world.

REOs also provide a platform for member states to collectively address regional security issues. ASEAN, for instance, has engaged in collaborative efforts to address issues such as piracy, terrorism, and human trafficking, which affect the security and economic stability of the Southeast Asian region.

Economic Resilience and Collective Bargaining

REOs enhance economic resilience by providing a support network for member states during times of crisis. When one member faces economic challenges, the others can provide financial aid or ease trade policies to stabilize the region. During the 2008 financial crisis, EU countries provided support to member nations facing economic downturns, helping them recover more swiftly than they might have on their own.

Furthermore, REOs enhance the collective bargaining power of member states in global economic negotiations. A united front enables them to negotiate favorable trade agreements with larger economies or blocs, protecting the interests of smaller or less-developed member nations. For example, as part of Mercosur (a South American trade bloc), Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay negotiate with larger economies as a unified entity, securing better trade terms than they would individually.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite their many benefits, REOs face challenges. Economic disparities among member states can create tensions, as more developed countries may dominate the organization’s agenda or disproportionately benefit from integration efforts. Additionally, loss of sovereignty can be a contentious issue, as countries must often conform to regional policies, sometimes at the expense of national priorities. Brexit highlighted these tensions, as the UK sought to regain control over areas it believed were compromised by EU membership.

Economic downturns or political shifts can also strain regional cooperation. For instance, the Eurozone debt crisis tested the EU’s unity, as wealthier countries faced the burden of supporting struggling economies. Similarly, Mercosur has struggled with economic and political issues among members, which have hindered its effectiveness in fostering regional cooperation.

Regional Economic Organizations have become significant players in the global economy, promoting economic growth, political stability, and resilience. By enhancing trade, supporting regional security, and strengthening collective bargaining power, REOs empower member states and provide a counterbalance to larger global powers. However, for these organizations to remain effective, they must continuously work to balance regional integration with the individual needs of member countries, address internal disparities, and adapt to shifting global dynamics. In an era of increasing economic interdependence, the role of REOs in shaping regional and global economic landscapes is more critical than ever.

2. Examine the salient features of the system approach of Kenneth Waltz.

Ans: Kenneth Waltz’s system approach, introduced in his 1979 work Theory of International Politics, is a foundational theory in international relations known as Neo-realism or Structural Realism. This approach shifts focus from human nature and state-level motivations, which are central to classical Realism, to the structural characteristics of the international system itself. Waltz’s model provides a systemic explanation for state behavior, emphasizing that the international system’s anarchical structure and distribution of power dictate the actions of states. The salient features of Waltz’s system approach include:

1. Anarchy as the Defining Principle

Waltz argues that the international system is inherently anarchic, meaning that it lacks a central governing authority or an overarching power to enforce rules. Unlike domestic systems where laws and institutions provide order, the international realm operates under a “self-help” system. States exist in a context where they cannot rely on any higher authority for protection or regulation, compelling them to ensure their own survival. This anarchic structure influences states to act in ways that prioritize security and self-interest.

2. Structure of the International System

Waltz introduces a structural framework that explains how the international system shapes state behavior. According to Waltz, the system’s structure has two defining characteristics: the ordering principle (anarchy) and the distribution of capabilities (power among states). States are “functionally undifferentiated,” meaning they all have the same basic goal—survival—but differ in power and capabilities. This distribution of power among states (whether unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar) profoundly affects the stability and dynamics of the system.

3. Distribution of Capabilities

The relative power of states determines the structure of the international system. Waltz’s theory emphasizes that states differ primarily in their capabilities, not in the nature of their goals or functions. In a bipolar system, for example, power is concentrated between two dominant states (like the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War), leading to different dynamics compared to a multipolar system with multiple centers of power. According to Waltz, a bipolar system is more stable because fewer great powers reduce the chances of miscalculation or complex alliances, thus decreasing the likelihood of large-scale conflicts.

4. Balance of Power and State Behavior

Waltz argues that the structure of the system drives states to engage in balancing behavior. In an anarchic, self-help world, states must seek a balance of power to prevent any single state from achieving dominance, which could threaten the survival of other states. This compulsion to balance power is a natural consequence of the system, as states respond to shifts in power by either allying with or countering stronger states. Waltz also distinguishes between internal balancing (building up military and economic power) and external balancing (forming alliances).

5. Emphasis on Relative Gains

Waltz’s system approach underscores the concept of relative gains rather than absolute gains. In an anarchic system, states are more concerned with how much they gain relative to others, fearing that if another state gains significantly more, it could shift the balance of power and become a threat. This focus on relative gains leads to competitive and cautious behavior, as states remain wary of moves that might disproportionately benefit others.

Limitations of the Approach

Despite its contributions, Waltz’s theory has been criticized for oversimplifying state motivations and ignoring factors like domestic politics, economic interdependence, and the influence of non-state actors. By concentrating solely on the structural level, Neo-realism often overlooks how internal factors within states might shape their actions on the international stage.

Kenneth Waltz’s system approach revolutionized the study of international relations by shifting focus from state-centric explanations to the structural forces governing state behavior. His theory provides a powerful framework for understanding international politics, emphasizing that the distribution of power and the anarchic nature of the international system are primary determinants of state behavior. While it has limitations, Waltz’s approach remains a cornerstone of Neo-realist thought, particularly in explaining how systemic pressures, rather than individual state characteristics, drive international relations.

3. Analyse the Marxist approach to the study of International Relations.

Ans: The Marxist approach to the study of International Relations (IR) provides a critical framework that interprets global politics through the lens of economic relations and class struggles. Rooted in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this approach views international relations as a manifestation of capitalist exploitation, driven by the dynamics of class power and economic interests rather than state security or survival. Marxist IR theory critiques traditional IR theories, such as Realism and Liberalism, for ignoring the underlying economic inequalities and structural forces that shape global relations.

1. Capitalism and Class Struggle

At the heart of the Marxist approach is the view that global capitalism underpins the structure and dynamics of international relations. Capitalism, according to Marxism, is a system based on the exploitation of the working class (proletariat) by the owning class (bourgeoisie). This economic inequality extends globally, with developed countries (the “core”) exploiting less-developed countries (the “periphery”). This division leads to economic dependency and perpetuates poverty in peripheral countries, which are often subject to exploitative economic policies imposed by core states, corporations, and international financial institutions.

2. Imperialism and Economic Exploitation

Marxist IR theory sees imperialism as a central aspect of international relations. Drawing on the ideas of Marx and Lenin, this approach contends that advanced capitalist states expand their influence over less-developed regions to secure resources, labor, and markets. This process of imperialism is not solely about territorial control but about economic dominance and exploitation. Lenin argued that capitalism, in its imperialist stage, relies on the expansion of capital into foreign markets, which intensifies the exploitation of less-developed regions. For example, the extraction of resources in Africa and Latin America by multinational corporations highlights how core nations economically exploit the periphery.

3. The Role of International Institutions

Marxist theorists argue that international institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO) serve the interests of capitalist states and corporations. These institutions are seen as tools of the global capitalist system, enforcing policies that maintain the dominance of wealthy countries and their corporations while imposing austerity and structural adjustment programs on poorer nations. According to Marxist scholars, these institutions facilitate a global economic order that benefits the ruling classes of the core countries at the expense of the global working class and peripheral nations.

4. Dependency Theory

One of the significant contributions of Marxism to IR is Dependency Theory, developed by scholars such as Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein. Dependency Theory argues that global capitalism creates a dependency of the periphery on the core, trapping poorer countries in a cycle of underdevelopment. The core nations extract resources and labor from the periphery, producing finished goods and reinvesting profits within the core, leaving peripheral countries dependent on exports and unable to develop independently. This structural inequality perpetuates global poverty and reinforces the power of core nations.

5. Critique of Liberalism and Realism

Marxist IR theory offers a fundamental critique of Liberalism and Realism by arguing that these theories ignore the economic foundations of power and exploitation. Where Realism emphasizes state security and power and Liberalism focuses on cooperation and institutionalism, Marxism highlights the role of class dynamics and economic inequality as the root causes of global tensions and conflicts. It argues that focusing solely on state interests or inter-state diplomacy overlooks the exploitation and class oppression inherent in capitalist global structures.

The Marxist approach to IR emphasizes that global politics is driven by economic interests and class struggles, viewing international relations as a manifestation of capitalist exploitation. By analyzing the impact of capitalism, imperialism, and economic dependency, Marxist theory offers a perspective that highlights the structural inequalities shaping international relations. While often criticized for focusing heavily on economic determinism, the Marxist approach remains influential in examining issues of global inequality, exploitation, and the role of economic power in shaping world politics.

Assignment – III

Write a short note on the following in about 100 words each. Each short note carries 6 marks.

1. Hard and Soft Power

Ans: Hard and soft power are two distinct forms of influence in international relations. Hard power refers to coercive means such as military force, economic sanctions, or other forms of pressure to compel other states to act in ways that align with a nation’s interests. It relies on tangible resources and direct influence, aiming to achieve compliance through fear or compulsion. For example, the use of sanctions against a country to change its policies is an exercise in hard power.

Soft power, a concept popularized by Joseph Nye, represents a more subtle form of influence, rooted in attraction rather than coercion. It involves promoting a nation’s culture, values, and policies to create goodwill and shape global perceptions. Nations using soft power aim to influence others by appealing to shared values or ideals, thereby attracting allies or supporters. Examples include the global appeal of American culture or the diplomatic efforts of Scandinavian countries in promoting peace and human rights.

Together, hard and soft power offer complementary strategies. While hard power can bring immediate, forceful results, soft power builds long-term relationships, fosters cooperation, and shapes international preferences, often leading to more sustainable influence in global affairs.

2. Social Constructivism

Ans: Social Constructivism is an approach in international relations that emphasizes the role of ideas, beliefs, and identities in shaping global politics. Unlike Realism or Liberalism, which focus on material factors like power or institutions, Constructivism argues that social realities are created through shared understanding, interactions, and collective meanings. This theory suggests that the international system is not just shaped by power dynamics or economic interests but by norms, cultures, and identities that states and other actors hold.

Key constructivist thinkers, such as Alexander Wendt, argue that “anarchy is what states make of it,” meaning that the behavior of states in an anarchic system is defined by their interactions and perceptions rather than a predetermined set of rules. Constructivists explore how state identities and interests evolve and how they are influenced by historical experiences, cultural contexts, and social discourse.

Constructivism highlights the potential for change in international relations, as shifts in beliefs or norms can transform state behavior and global structures. For instance, the global movement toward human rights or environmental protection emerged from shared values rather than material pressures, demonstrating how Constructivism explains the role of ideational factors in shaping international outcomes.

3. The Suez Crisis

Ans: The Suez Crisis of 1956 was a significant geopolitical conflict centered on control of the Suez Canal, a vital waterway in Egypt linking the Mediterranean and Red Seas. The crisis began when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal, previously controlled by British and French interests, in response to the withdrawal of U.S. and British funding for the Aswan Dam project. This move angered Britain, France, and Israel, as the canal was crucial for Western oil shipments and regional influence.

In October 1956, Israel, followed by Britain and France, launched a coordinated military invasion of Egypt. Their goal was to reclaim control of the canal and diminish Nasser’s influence. However, the invasion sparked international condemnation, especially from the United States and the Soviet Union, who feared escalation during the Cold War.

Under pressure from the United Nations and a firm stance by the U.S., which opposed colonial intervention, Britain, France, and Israel were forced to withdraw. The crisis marked a shift in global power, signaling the decline of British and French imperial influence and highlighting the U.S. and Soviet Union’s dominance in international affairs. It also bolstered Nasser’s standing in the Arab world, symbolizing anti-colonial resistance.

4. The Balance of Power

Ans: The Balance of Power is a key concept in international relations aimed at preventing any one state from dominating others. It refers to the distribution of power across nations, where states strategically align to counterbalance potentially dominant actors, thereby maintaining stability. In a balanced system, power is distributed such that no single nation or alliance can unilaterally impose its will or threaten global security.

Historically, the balance of power has been central to European diplomacy, especially from the 17th to the 19th centuries. It shaped alliances, such as during the Napoleonic Wars and later the Concert of Europe, where major powers collaborated to prevent any one nation, like France, from dominating the continent.

The theory assumes that states act out of self-interest to protect sovereignty and prevent hegemony. By building military capabilities or forming alliances, states work to counteract stronger powers, often resulting in shifting alliances and power dynamics. Although the concept promotes stability, critics argue it can lead to arms races and conflicts, as seen in the lead-up to both World Wars. Today, the balance of power remains relevant, especially in regions like Asia, where rising powers influence geopolitical strategies and alignments.

5. Helsinki Accord

Ans: The Helsinki Accords, signed in 1975, were a major diplomatic agreement aimed at improving relations between the Soviet bloc and the West during the Cold War. Initiated through the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the accords brought together 35 nations, including the United States, Soviet Union, Canada, and most European countries, to promote cooperation and reduce tensions.

The Helsinki Accords outlined commitments across three main areas, known as “baskets.” The first focused on security, respecting borders and territorial integrity in Europe, reinforcing the principle of non-intervention. The second emphasized economic, scientific, and environmental cooperation, promoting collaborative efforts across various fields. The third and most impactful “basket” addressed human rights, encouraging freedom of speech, movement, and the right to self-determination. This commitment to human rights became a critical lever for political activists within the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, who used it to press for reform.

Though not legally binding, the Helsinki Accords had a lasting influence on East-West relations, helping to open dialogue and pave the way for arms reduction agreements. Over time, it empowered dissidents within Soviet-aligned states and contributed to the eventual weakening of authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe, fostering progress toward greater freedom and cooperation in the region.

Conclusion

In this article, we provide BPSC 107 Solved Assignment 2024-25 (PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WORLD HISTORY). All the assignment question’s answers are covered in this article. I hope this article is helpful for preparing the assignment for your course.

If you faced any problem or required any other assignment which not found in ignoubank.com . Leave a comment below and we try to reply as soon as possible.

Happy Learning.