Course: POLS 320 – Global Security and Public Policy
Assignment 2: Comparative Policy Brief
Due Date: Week 7, Sunday by 11:59 PM (Local Time)
Weighting: 30% of Final Grade
Word Count: 1,500 words (+/- 10%)
Assignment Overview
In the field of political science and international relations, the ability to synthesize complex geopolitical data into actionable intelligence is a critical skill. Unlike a standard academic essay, a policy brief is designed for decision-makers who require concise, persuasive, and evidence-based recommendations. This assignment transitions you from theoretical observation to practical application. You are required to adopt the persona of a policy analyst advising a specific government agency or non-governmental organization (NGO).
Your objective is to analyze a contemporary transnational security threat and compare how two distinct political actors (states or major international organizations) are currently managing that threat. Based on this comparison, you will propose a singular, viable policy recommendation.
Task Description
Select one of the following security themes discussed in Modules 1–6:
- Cyber-warfare and critical infrastructure protection.
- Climate-induced migration and border security.
- Nuclear proliferation in non-state contexts.
- Global health security and pandemic response governance.
Once you have selected your theme, write a 1,500-word Comparative Policy Brief that addresses the following:
- Executive Summary: A high-level overview of the problem and your proposed solution. This must be written last but appear first.
- Context of the Problem: Define the scope and urgency of the security threat. Why does this matter now? Avoid historical digression; focus on the current geopolitical landscape.
- Comparative Analysis: Contrast the policy approaches of two distinct actors (e.g., The United States vs. The European Union on Data Privacy OR China vs. India on Energy Security). Analyze the strengths and failures of their respective strategies.
- Policy Recommendation: Provide one clear, actionable recommendation for your chosen client. This recommendation must be feasible (politically and economically) and directly address the gaps identified in your analysis.
Submission Requirements
- Format: Submissions must be uploaded as a Word document (.docx) or PDF. Use 12-point Times New Roman or Arial font, double-spaced, with 1-inch margins.
- Structure: Use professional subheadings (e.g., Executive Summary, Strategic Analysis, Recommendations) to guide the reader. Bullet points may be used sparingly for lists but not for analysis.
- Tone: The tone should be professional, objective, and persuasive. Avoid first-person narrative (“I think”) and emotive language.
- Citations: You must include at least six scholarly sources. Follow the Harvard referencing style for in-text citations and the reference list.
- Academic Integrity: All work must be original. Turnitin will be used to assess similarity.
Grading Rubric
| Criteria | Excellent (85-100%) | Proficient (70-84%) | Satisfactory (50-69%) | Unsatisfactory (0-49%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem Analysis & Context (30%) | Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the security threat. The scope is clearly defined, and the urgency is argued convincingly with recent data. | Clearly identifies the security threat. Context is accurate, though the link to current geopolitical urgency could be sharper. | Identifies the problem but relies on generalization. Historical context overshadows current analysis. | Fails to clearly define the security threat or presents factually incorrect information. |
| Comparative Approach (30%) | Comparison between actors is nuanced and critical. Identifies structural differences in policy rather than just listing events. | Comparison is solid and highlights key differences. Some analysis may be descriptive rather than critical. | Comparison is present but superficial. Focuses on one actor significantly more than the other. | Lacks a comparative element or treats the two actors in isolation without synthesis. |
| Policy Recommendation (25%) | Recommendation is innovative, specific, and highly feasible. Directly addresses the gaps identified in the analysis. | Recommendation is logical and relevant. Feasibility is addressed but may lack specific implementation details. | Recommendation is generic or vague (e.g., “they should talk more”). Lacks connection to the analysis. | No recommendation provided, or the recommendation is entirely unrelated to the analysis. |
| Writing & Formatting (15%) | Professional, concise, and error-free. Adheres strictly to the brief format. Referencing is perfect. | Clear writing with minor errors. Follows the format well. Referencing has minor inconsistencies. | Writing is difficult to follow in places. Formatting guidelines are loosely followed. Referencing errors exist. | Major grammatical errors impede understanding. Fails to follow format or referencing requirements. |
Effective cybersecurity protocols require shifting focus from purely defensive perimeters to resilience-based frameworks that anticipate inevitable breaches. By comparing the centralized digital sovereignty model of France with the private-sector-led approach of the United States, it becomes evident that state-mandated reporting timelines significantly reduce systemic risk propagation. Consequently, the recommended policy action involves legislating mandatory incident disclosure within 24 hours for all critical infrastructure operators to facilitate rapid collective defense.
Learning Resources
- Friis, K. and Reichborn-Kjennerud, E. (2023) ‘Cybersecurity and the blurred lines of civil-military responsibility’, International Affairs, 99(2), pp. 463-481. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac272
- McDonald, M. (2021) ‘Ecological Security: Climate Change and the Construction of Security’, Cambridge University Press.
- Talbot, V. and Lovotti, C. (2022) ‘The Geopolitics of the Global Energy Transition’, ISPI Report, Milan: Ledizioni LediPublishing.
- Tjalve, V. and Williams, M. (2023) ‘Politicians, spies and journalists: contesting the surveillance state in the UK and US’, Review of International Studies, 49(1), pp. 88-107. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021052200037X
- United Nations Development Programme (2022) ‘New threats to human security in the Anthropocene: Demanding greater solidarity’, Special Report. New York: UNDP.
