Week 14 — Three Lenses on One Charter: A Made-Up Council and a Spiral at Sea

Assignment 13 of the term — read the U.N. Charter's sovereign-equality article through three lenses on a made-up council, trace a security dilemma on a made-up lake, and explain to a roommate why a world with no government above the states is not a world of chaos.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, well-labelled analysis. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned anarchy in the discipline's sense, the security dilemma, the three paradigms of realism, liberalism, and constructivism, collective security against an alliance, the United Nations in outline, and why states mostly comply with international law. Week 2 gave you external sovereignty, and Week 13 compared cases on a plan; this assignment puts the first to work on a founding text and the second on two made-up states. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles.

The task

You will read one real text and two made-up cases. The U.N. Charter is real; the regional council, the two lake states, and every number attached to them are illustrative. No real person, current officeholder, current war, or current conflict belongs in your work.

Work these two problems, showing how you got each count:

1. A made-up regional council has 13 seats, and 4 of them are permanent seats whose holders each have a veto. How many seats are elected?
2. Two made-up neighboring states each start with 6 patrol boats on a shared lake, and each adds 3 boats in each of 2 rounds of answering the other. How many patrol boats are on the lake at the end?

Beside each count, add the interpretation that makes it political science:

• Problem 1, the made-up council. Read the council's design on the design layer: who holds a permanent seat, who is elected, and what one permanent member's no vote does. Then read the U.N. Charter's Article 2(1), "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.", through all three lenses, one sentence each: what a realist, a liberal, and a constructivist would each point to. Say how the made-up council's veto fits or strains sovereign equality. Suppose the council's charter commits every member to act against any state that attacks another, members included: say whether that makes it collective security or an alliance, and why. Label at least one of your premises empirical and one normative.
• Problem 2, the spiral at sea. Name the pattern the two lake states fall into and explain why it is structural, not moral. Show that the ratio between the two fleets is the same at the start and at the end. Then suppose the two states later sign a treaty that caps their boats and both keep it for years: give one explanation per paradigm for why they keep it (reciprocity and reputation; institutions; internalized norms), and state the limit on enforcement against a powerful state.

Explain it to a non-expert

Your roommate glances at your notes and says, "International relations is anarchy, so the world must be total chaos." Write a 3–5 sentence message to your roommate that explains, in everyday words, what anarchy means in international relations, why most dealings between states are still peaceful, and names one limit of order without a world government. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a volunteer explaining to a new member how a neighborhood's free little library works with no librarian. Model answer: "Nobody runs this book box, and nobody can make you return a book. Most people bring books back anyway, because they want the box to have something good next time and because their neighbors can see who takes what. The limit is that nothing stops one person from emptying it, so the box works only while most people keep the habit."

Use that pattern for your message to your roommate, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both counts, your design-layer read and three-lens reading, your pact classification, your spiral and treaty explanations, and your message to the roommate before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show how you got each count when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one design read, lens reading, classification, or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you, and it will not pick a winning paradigm for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory political science course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's international relations: anarchy as no authority above sovereign states; the security dilemma; realism, liberalism as an international relations theory, and constructivism; collective security and alliances; the United Nations in outline; and why states mostly comply with international law. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a treaty, a war, a vote count, a statistic, or a quotation, never pick a winning paradigm for me, and never bring in a living politician, a current officeholder, a party, or a current war or conflict.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. My council, my lake states, and their numbers are illustrative.
PROBLEM P1: A made-up regional council has 13 seats, and 4 of them are permanent seats whose holders each have a veto. How many seats are elected?
PROBLEM P2: Two made-up neighboring states each start with 6 patrol boats on a shared lake, and each adds 3 boats in each of 2 rounds of answering the other. How many patrol boats are on the lake at the end?
After each count, I must interpret it: for P1, the council read on the design layer, Article 2(1) read through all three lenses with one sentence each, how the made-up veto fits or strains sovereign equality, the council classed as collective security or an alliance with a reason, and at least one empirical and one normative premise labelled by kind; for P2, the spiral named and explained as structural rather than moral, the unchanged ratio between the fleets, one explanation per paradigm for why the states might keep a boat-limit treaty, and the enforcement limit. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a roommate who believes anarchy means the world is total chaos, explaining in everyday words what anarchy means in international relations, why most dealings between states are peaceful, and one limit of order without a world government. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.
Course facts to hold me to: anarchy in international relations is the absence of any authority above sovereign states that can make and enforce rules for them, a structural fact and not chaos. The security dilemma (Herz, 1950) is the spiral in which one state's defensive steps look threatening to others, who arm in response, leaving every side less secure; it needs no side to intend harm. Realism (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979) treats states as the main actors pursuing security and power under self-help. Liberalism as an international relations theory (Keohane and Nye, 1977) holds that institutions, interdependence, and regime type make lasting cooperation possible; it is not the ideology or the U.S. party label. Constructivism (Wendt, 1992) holds that what anarchy means is built from ideas, identities, and norms. Collective security is aimed at any aggressor, members included; an alliance at a named outside threat. The U.N. Charter was signed in 1945; Article 2(1) reads "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."; the Security Council has 15 members, 5 of them permanent with a veto. States mostly comply through reciprocity and reputation, institutions, and internalized norms, and enforcement against a powerful violator is not guaranteed.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct counts (20 points), political-science reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 count points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the roommate only with P2.
COUNT UNITS: A correct count = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing count or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, all parts accurate (the design-layer read, Article 2(1) through all three lenses, the veto against sovereign equality, the pact classed with a reason, and premises labelled by kind) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. For P2, all parts accurate (the spiral named and explained as structural, the unchanged ratio, one compliance explanation per paradigm, the enforcement limit, and the message to the roommate with one limit) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Ranking one paradigm as the winner, blaming the spiral on a villain, or reading anarchy as chaos earns no unit for that part. Naming a term alone does not earn a unit.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to political science, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation behind the count are visible = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a count alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both counts with their interpretations AND written my message to the roommate AND revised at least one design read, lens reading, classification, or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; never round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my counts and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both counts, your design-layer read and three-lens reading, your pact classification, your spiral and treaty explanations, and your message to the roommate — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the two fleets round by round with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 14 skills — reading a founding text through the three paradigms, weighing a veto against sovereign equality, telling collective security from an alliance, explaining a security dilemma as structural, and giving one explanation per paradigm for why states keep their promises — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, your readings and explanations, and the message to the roommate. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that answers one of two reflection options of equal weight, your choice: (a) which reading, classification, or explanation you changed, what prompted the change, and one question you still have; or (b) where your first draft ranked one paradigm as the winner or read anarchy as chaos, why that was easy to do, and how you checked it. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The counts, the readings, the explanations, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment, write your analysis, invent a treaty or a vote count, or add evidence you did not produce, and quote the Charter only in its pinned Article 2(1). Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com