How to practice: This set collects only the Writing Sample question type from the real DET (Duolingo English Test) — DET Writing questions. No grading, no timer — solve it yourself, then tap each question to reveal the answer or model response.
Q1
To what extent is national sovereignty compatible with global cooperation on issues like climate change and human rights?
Useful Expressions
national sovereignty · transboundary challenges · collective governance · graduated sovereignty
Show Model Answer
The tension between national sovereignty and the imperatives of global cooperation represents one of the defining dilemmas of contemporary international relations. In its classical formulation, sovereignty entails the exclusive right of a state to govern its territory and population without external interference — a principle that, while never absolute in practice, has served as the foundational organizing norm of the international system since the seventeenth century. The emergence of genuinely transboundary challenges — climate change, pandemic preparedness, systematic human rights violations — has exposed the inadequacy of this norm as an organizing principle for a world in which the consequences of state action or inaction extend inexorably beyond national borders.
Climate change illustrates the incompatibility most starkly. No state, however sovereign, can insulate its population from the atmospheric consequences of the aggregate greenhouse gas emissions of all states combined. The physical reality of climate interdependence generates a corresponding obligation of collective governance that sovereignty, at least in its absolutist form, cannot accommodate. A state that invokes sovereignty to justify refusal to accept binding emissions commitments is, in effect, exercising its autonomy in a way that systematically undermines the autonomy of others — particularly those smaller, lower-emitting states most vulnerable to sea-level rise and extreme weather events.
Human rights present a philosophically distinct but structurally analogous case. The argument for international human rights enforcement challenges sovereignty at a normative rather than purely consequentialist level: it asserts that the legitimacy of a state's authority over its population is conditional rather than absolute, contingent on meeting a minimum threshold of protection for fundamental rights. This position is contested, particularly by states that frame international human rights mechanisms as instruments of Western hegemonic pressure. There is a legitimate concern here that selectivity in enforcement — the tendency to apply human rights scrutiny far more rigorously to adversaries than to strategic allies — undermines the universalist claims on which the system's legitimacy rests.
Nevertheless, the conclusion that sovereignty and global cooperation are simply incompatible is too defeatist. The more productive framing is one of graduated, functionally specific sovereignty — the recognition that states retain primary authority over their internal affairs in domains where their choices do not impose significant externalities on others, while accepting shared governance mechanisms in precisely those domains — climate, health, human rights — where unilateral action is genuinely insufficient. The challenge is building the political will and institutional architecture to make this differentiated model work in practice.
Climate change illustrates the incompatibility most starkly. No state, however sovereign, can insulate its population from the atmospheric consequences of the aggregate greenhouse gas emissions of all states combined. The physical reality of climate interdependence generates a corresponding obligation of collective governance that sovereignty, at least in its absolutist form, cannot accommodate. A state that invokes sovereignty to justify refusal to accept binding emissions commitments is, in effect, exercising its autonomy in a way that systematically undermines the autonomy of others — particularly those smaller, lower-emitting states most vulnerable to sea-level rise and extreme weather events.
Human rights present a philosophically distinct but structurally analogous case. The argument for international human rights enforcement challenges sovereignty at a normative rather than purely consequentialist level: it asserts that the legitimacy of a state's authority over its population is conditional rather than absolute, contingent on meeting a minimum threshold of protection for fundamental rights. This position is contested, particularly by states that frame international human rights mechanisms as instruments of Western hegemonic pressure. There is a legitimate concern here that selectivity in enforcement — the tendency to apply human rights scrutiny far more rigorously to adversaries than to strategic allies — undermines the universalist claims on which the system's legitimacy rests.
Nevertheless, the conclusion that sovereignty and global cooperation are simply incompatible is too defeatist. The more productive framing is one of graduated, functionally specific sovereignty — the recognition that states retain primary authority over their internal affairs in domains where their choices do not impose significant externalities on others, while accepting shared governance mechanisms in precisely those domains — climate, health, human rights — where unilateral action is genuinely insufficient. The challenge is building the political will and institutional architecture to make this differentiated model work in practice.
More writing sample sets at other levels · Browse the full DET question bank