Part 1

1. Critically analyze the role of BRICS nations in challenging the dominance of

the G7. Does this represent a more democratic global order or a new era of
regional rivalry.

Firstly what’s the role of Brics?

-The role of BRICS is to reduce western dominance and promote a multipolar global system
by giving emerging economies greater economic ,political and strategic influence.
The role is evident in how BRICS challenges the dominance of the G7 through the creation
of alternative financial and political structures. Institutions such as the NEW
DEVELOPMENT BANK provide development financing without strict political conditionalities
often imposed by G7 led institutions like the IMF and World Bank. As a result , developing
countries in the Global South gain increased autonomy and reduced dependence on
Western controlled financial systems.

Furthermore , BRICS challenges the G7s political influence by advocating for reforms in
global governance institutions such as the IMF and the United Nations Security Counsil.
These calls question the legitimacy of of post WORLD WAR 2 structures that continue to
Favour western states despite shifting global economic realities. In doing so BRICS amplifies
non western voices and weakens the G7s monopoly over global decision making.

However ,while this shift suggests a more inclusive distribution of power,it does not
necessarily create a more democratic global order. Significant internal inequalities within
BRICS particularly chinas dominant economic position and differing political systems among
member states limit collective accountability and democratic representation. Power is
redistributed rather than equally shared.
Consequently the ruse if BRICS may represent not global democratization but a new era of
regional and ideological rivalry. Competing economic models governance norms and
spheres of influence between BRICS and the G7 contribute to global fragmentation and
strategic competition.

In conclusion all though BRICS plays a crucial role in challenging G7 dominance and
promoting multi polarity ,it reflects a reconfiguration of global power rather than the
emergence of a genuinely democratic global order.

2. Beyond financial compensation what does «meaningful’ reparation look like

for communities affected by historical colonialism or systemic segregation.

Meaningful reparations refer to a comprehensive set of measures aimed at repairing the long
term social , political, economic and psychological harms caused by historical colonialism
and systemic segregation. Unlike compensation , meaningful reparations focus on restoring
dignity, correcting structural inequalities and preventing the continuation of historical
injustice.

Meaning reparations can look like the following

1. Structural change in everyday life
 This looks like equal access to quality education healthcare housing and jobs in
communities that were historically excluded. For example, targeted education funding ,
improved public services in segregated areas and fair employment policies directly correct
inherited disadvantage.
2. Land and resource restitution
It looks like returning stolen land or providing secure access to productive land and
natural resources. In post colonial societies , land reforms programmes aim to correct
colonial land dispossession that still shapes poverty and inequality today.
3. Public acknowledgment and justice.
It looks like official apologies ,memorials snd truth commissions that recognize harm and
restore dignity. For instance ,governments acknowledging past atrocities through formal
statements and remembrance initiatives. This will bring inner peace to those emotionally
affected by the colonialism era.

Meaningful reparation must also address psychological and social harm. Generations of
discrimination often leave deep intergenerational trauma, expressed through loss of self-
worth, social fragmentation, and mistrust of institutions. Community-led healing initiatives,
memorials, and spaces for remembrance allow for collective mourning and recovery. These
measures recognise that justice is not only material but emotional and social.

Finally, reparation must prioritise participation and self-determination. Affected communities

should define what repair looks like for them, rather than having solutions imposed from
above. When communities are given real decision-making power, reparations become
empowering rather than paternalistic. In this sense, meaningful reparation is not about
charity, but about restoring agency and ensuring that the injustices of the past are neither
forgotten nor repeated.

[Link] countries have granted legal ‘personhood’ to rivers or ecosystems.

Research this movement. Is giving nature legal rights a viable path for environmental
justice, or is it a symbolic gesture with no teeth?

Granting legal personhood to rivers and ecosystems is a radical way of rethinking humanity’s
relationship with nature. Countries like New Zealand, India, and Colombia have recognized
rivers such as the Whanganui and the Ganges as “living entities” with rights. This means that
harm to these rivers can be legally challenged, and guardians act as their voice in courts. On
one hand, this is a powerful tool: it forces governments and corporations to consider
ecosystems as stakeholders, not just resources, and creates a framework for accountability
where previously there was none.

On the other hand, some argue this could be more symbolic than practical. If legal rights
exist only on paper, without strong enforcement, monitoring, or public support, industries can
still pollute, and governments can ignore court rulings. Legal personhood alone cannot
reverse decades of environmental destruction or the social inequalities tied to it. Its success
depends on the commitment of humans—lawmakers, activists, and communities—to truly
act on behalf of the ecosystems.

Ultimately, granting legal rights to nature is both symbolic and practical. It symbolizes a shift
in thinking: that nature has intrinsic value beyond human use. But it also has the potential to
produce real change if supported by robust legal systems, vigilant guardians, and societal
awareness. It is a step toward environmental justice, but humans must follow through;
otherwise, it remains an inspiring idea without teeth.
Granting legal personhood to rivers and ecosystems is a new and bold way of changing how
humans see nature. Instead of treating rivers, forests, and mountains as objects to be used,
this idea treats them as living things with rights. Countries like New Zealand, Colombia, and
India have taken steps in this direction by recognising important rivers as legal persons. This
means damage to these rivers can be challenged in court, with appointed guardians
speaking on their behalf.

This approach can be a real step forward for environmental justice. When nature has legal
rights, governments and companies are forced to think twice before causing harm. Pollution
or destruction is no longer just “bad practice” but a violation of rights. This makes it easier to
hold powerful groups accountable, especially when environmental damage often affects
poorer or Indigenous communities first. In places like New Zealand, the law also reflects
Indigenous beliefs that humans and nature are deeply connected, which helps repair past
injustices as well as protect the environment.

At the same time, giving nature legal rights does not automatically fix environmental
problems. Laws only work if they are enforced. If guardians do not have enough power,
money, or support, rivers can still be polluted and forests can still be destroyed. In some
countries, governments have recognised nature’s rights but failed to properly act on them.
Without strong follow-through, legal personhood risks becoming a nice idea that looks good
on paper but changes little in reality.

Overall, giving nature legal rights is both meaningful and limited. It is meaningful because it
changes the way people think, showing that nature has value beyond human use. It also has
the potential to create real change by allowing courts to step in before damage becomes
irreversible. However, it only works when humans take responsibility and back it up with
action. Legal personhood can be a powerful tool for environmental justice, but only if it is
supported by strong laws, active communities, and real commitment to protecting the natural
world.

Part 2

1. Which debates formats are you familiar with?

I’m familiar with

World schools debating formats

● Proposition (supports the motion)

● Opposition (opposes the motion)

Each team has 3 speakers.

Speaking order:

1. Proposition 1
2. Opposition 1
3. Proposition 2
4. Opposition 2
5. Proposition 3
6. Opposition 3

Each main speech is 8 minutes.

After this, each team gives a reply speech:

 ● Opposition reply (4 minutes)
● Proposition reply (4 minutes)

Reply speeches summarise the debate and explain why the team should win. No new
arguments are allowed.

POIs are allowed during main speeches, usually between minute 1 and 7.

Judges decide the winner based on arguments, teamwork, and delivery.

Each team consists of up to 5 speakers but only 3 are allowed to speak during a debate
round.

British Parliament Format

● Government (supports the motion)

● Opposition (opposes the motion)

Each side has an Opening and a Closing team:

● Opening Government (OG)

● Opening Opposition (OO)
● Closing Government (CG)
● Closing Opposition (CO)

Each speaker speaks for 7 minutes.

Speaking order:

1. Prime Minister (OG)

2. Leader of Opposition (OO)
3. Deputy PM (OG)
4. Deputy LO (OO)
5. Government Member (CG)
6. Opposition Member (CO)
7. Government Whip (CG)
8. Opposition Whip (CO)

POIs (questions) can be offered between minute 1 and 6 of a speech.

Closing teams must add new arguments.

Whips summarise and do not add new points.

Judges rank teams 1st to 4th based on arguments, delivery, and strategy.

Each team consists of only 2 speakers.

2. What is a POI? And state any 3 regulations related to them.

A POI (POINT OF INFORMATION ) is a short question or comment made by a member of

the opposing team during a speaker’s speech. It is used to challenge an argument, point out
a flaw, or ask for clarification.

Three regulations related to POIs are:

 1. POIs can only be offered during unprotected time (AFTER the first minute and
before the last minute of a speech).
2. A speaker may accept or refuse a POI, but should accept at least one or two to
show engagement.
3. A POI should be brief, usually no longer than 15 seconds.

3. What are the components of an argument?

Okay, here’s a balanced version:

An argument usually has three parts:

1. Claim - the main idea you are arguing for.

2. Evidence - why the claim is true, using facts, logic, or examples.
3. Explaination - how the claim impacts the stakeholders and it is important .
4. Link - showing how the reason supports the claim and connects to the debate topic.

Example:
Claim: Schools should make uniforms compulsory.
Reason/Evidence: Uniforms reduce pressure on students to wear expensive or trendy
clothes.
Explanation/Link: This helps create equality among students and allows them to focus more
on learning than on fashion.