This document is a marking form for a Bachelor's thesis submitted by Sarosh Anwar. The thesis received an overall grade of A. The marking form provides feedback on how well the thesis addressed various criteria such as having a clear introduction and explanation of the topic, an extensive literature review, tying the analysis to theory, and showing the research problem was addressed. The examiner praised the thesis for its clear structure, fact-based approach, and reflective conclusion. Minor issues were noted with grammar in long sentences. In defending the thesis, the student actively demonstrated confidence, and provided extensive critique as an opponent, though could have prioritized points more. Overall the examiner found it an interesting and well-written paper.

1. BACHELOR THESIS MARKING FORM
Name: Sarosh Anwar Grade: A
Course code: ES221L IPES BA Thesis Examiner:
Dr Derek Hutcheson
Examination date and semester:
2 June 2015
Supervisor:
Dr Gunnhildur Magnusdottir
Thesis title: The Effect of the EEAS on the Coherence of the CFSP on the Vertical Dimension: A
Comparative Analysis of the 2003 Iraq War and the 2011 Military Intervention in Libya
Criteria
Learning
Objectives Fail Pass Excellent
Focus. 1: A clear
statement of the
research problem and
how it relates to the
academic subject.
1 Very clear
introduction
and
explanation of
topic
Aims. 2: A clear
articulation of the
aims of the thesis and
any further specific
research questions in
the context of the
stated research
problem.
1 Very clear
introduction
and
explanation of
topic
Clarity. 3: An
accurate and clearly
motivated use of
theory and method.
2 Clear and
comprehensive
introduction of
theories
Scientific Context. 4:
A review and
discussion of previous
research undertaken in
the area of the chosen
research problem.
2 & 3 Extensive lit.
review
Material. 5:
Presentation of
critically assessed
material that is
relevant to the chosen
research problem.
3 Fact-based
approach -
material is
secondary to
argument,
but well
used.
Theoretical Analysis.
6: An analysis, where
the chosen theory (or
theories) and the
result of
methodological
choices are apparent.
2&3 Ties In
argument
with theory.
Well-
structured
3x2
comparison.

2. Results. 7: Clear and
well-supported
answers to the
research problem
based on the
aforementioned
analysis.
2&3 Shows
clearly that
the national
interests
predominated
Concluding Analysis.
8: A closing
discussion where the
author of the thesis
evaluates her/his work
and its academic,
social and/or ethical
implications.
3&4 Reflective and
comes back to
theory.
Structure. 9: A
clearly designed
structure that suitably
supports the thesis's
aims, theoretical
framework and
method.
3&4 Clear
structure that
fulfils all
criteria
Readability. 10:Based
on a literate
presentation of the
text and correct
referencing
4 A few minor
grammatical
errors
(particularly
with long
subordinate
clauses that
lack the
connection to
the main
clause).
Defence. Thesis
seminar discussion of
thesis work.
5 Active and
confidence
defence of
own work
Opposition. Thesis
seminar role as
'opponent' In
presenting and
critiquing the thesis of
another student.
5 Very detailed
and extensive
- through
could have
prioritised
points into
more
important
and trivial
ones, as the
opposition
lasted over
40 minutes
Comments:
Overall, this was in interesting and well-written paper that was a pleasure to read. See comments on
individual ILOs above.