Lessons from the Global Policy Lab

Part 8: Multiple matching

You are going to read comments from five university students who participated in an international policy programme. For questions 47–56, choose from the students A–E. The students may be chosen more than once.

Lessons from the Global Policy Lab

A — Leila

My team examined how international organisations obtain reliable information during humanitarian emergencies. I had assumed that documenting violations was mainly a matter of interviewing witnesses and recording their statements. However, access to affected communities was frequently restricted, so investigators could not always confirm what had happened. Even when witnesses were available, differences between their accounts made verification difficult.

The most important lesson was that documenting an allegation is not the same as deciding who is responsible. Investigators must gather evidence impartially before any individual or organisation is publicly blamed. I initially found this caution frustrating because the available reports appeared convincing. I eventually understood that promoting accountability requires credible mechanisms rather than immediate accusations. If the evidence is weak, even a justified allegation can be challenged and the entire investigation may lose credibility. By the end of the programme, I had become much more aware of the distinction between recording possible violations and reaching a legally or politically defensible conclusion.

---

B — Rafael

I worked on the language used in a proposed international agreement. The experience showed me that apparently minor vocabulary choices can determine whether delegations support or reject a proposal. At one point, our draft stated that member states would “guarantee” unrestricted access for international observers. Several representatives objected because they believed the verb created an obligation they could not realistically fulfil. We replaced it with a commitment to “facilitate” access while retaining safeguards against deliberate obstruction. The objective remained intact, but the revised wording made conditional support possible.

Another difficulty involved expressions that different delegations interpreted in different ways. Some understood “immediate action” to mean intervention within hours, whereas others thought it referred more generally to action taken without unnecessary delay. Neither interpretation was unreasonable, but the disagreement nearly prevented a compromise. I came to appreciate that diplomatic language is not necessarily vague because delegates lack ideas. Sometimes careful wording is required to identify common ground without concealing genuine differences.

---

C — Maya

I joined the programme because I wanted to practise public speaking, so I was disappointed when I was assigned to the implementation team. We worked behind the scenes, converting general recommendations into timetables, responsibilities and measurable outcomes. At first, the role seemed administrative and far removed from the important policy discussions taking place elsewhere.

That impression changed when several ambitious proposals reached us without any explanation of who would carry them out or how their success would be assessed. A resolution may attract unanimous support, but it achieves little unless institutions are assigned specific responsibilities. Our team introduced reporting deadlines, identified which organisations would provide funding and designed a review process. The work was less visible than delivering an opening speech, yet I discovered that it suited me better. I enjoyed turning broad promises into practical steps and examining whether cooperation continued after the initial enthusiasm had disappeared. What I had regarded as a secondary assignment eventually became the central part of my experience.

---

D — Thomas

My research group investigated how small states participate in international affairs. I chose Andorra because I had previously thought of it principally as a destination for skiing, shopping and thermal spas. Studying its history completely changed that superficial impression. Its political system developed from agreements between competing rulers, including the Bishop of Urgell and the Count of Foix. Instead of being absorbed by a more powerful neighbour, the territory maintained its independence by balancing external interests.

I was particularly struck by the survival of Catalan language and culture. Andorra has undergone extensive economic and political change, but its historical identity remains visible in its institutions and Romanesque-style churches. The research also challenged my assumption that influence depends on population size or military strength. Smaller countries can promote cooperation, offer mediation and draw attention to issues that larger states may overlook. I finished the project convinced that historical experience can give a small state a distinctive and valuable role in diplomacy.

---

E — Nadia

As committee chair, I was responsible for organising debate without promoting my own position. The most difficult moments occurred when delegates repeated the same arguments instead of responding to one another. Initially, I allowed these exchanges to continue because I did not want to appear impatient or interfere with the discussion. Looking back, I should have invited the delegates to clarify their main points much sooner. Earlier intervention might have prevented frustration from developing.

Nevertheless, I learned that open disagreement is not necessarily evidence of failed diplomacy. Delegates who establish firm limits may simply be giving an honest account of what they are authorised to accept. That information can be more useful than vague expressions of solidarity. Once the committee understood which positions were genuinely incompatible, it could concentrate on areas where compromise remained possible. My responsibility was not to eliminate disagreement but to ensure that it became productive. Effective chairing therefore required impartiality, careful listening and the confidence to intervene when the discussion ceased to make progress.

Questions

Which student:

47. discovered that less visible work was more suitable for them than speaking in public?

48. describes changing the language of a proposal without abandoning its original aim?

49. mentions that restricted access made it difficult to confirm what had occurred?

50. says that research changed their opinion about the international importance of a small country?

51. believes that openly stating disagreement can contribute to effective negotiations?

52. was initially dissatisfied with an assignment that later became the most significant part of their experience?

53. expresses surprise that a cultural identity has endured despite major changes?

54. wishes they had taken action at an earlier stage of a discussion?

55. emphasises the difference between recording evidence and determining responsibility?

56. describes a disagreement caused by contrasting interpretations of the same expression?