MUN Position Paper Guide
Most delegates treat position papers as an annoying pre-conference requirement —
something to check off. Top delegates treat them as their most important strategic
document.
A great position paper does three things:
1. It's your game plan. Writing forces you to clarify your position, identify gaps in your
research, and develop specific policy proposals before the conference. Delegates who skip
the paper improvise at the conference and it shows.
2. It impresses the chair. Chairs read position papers before the committee. A strong
paper means the chair already views you as a serious, prepared delegate. At
award-granting conferences like HMUN and WorldMUN, position papers are part of the
evaluation criteria. NMUN requires position papers for award eligibility.
3. It becomes your working paper backbone. Your operative clauses and policy
proposals, already refined in writing, become the foundation for working papers and draft
resolutions during committee.
What Chairs Look For
Strong Weak
Specific policy proposals with implementation details Vague calls to 'work together'
Citations to primary sources (resolutions, treaties, data) No sources or only news articles
Country-accurate positions (what your country actually Personal opinions dressed as country
supports) positions
Awareness of opposing viewpoints and potential
Ignoring counterarguments
compromises
Going Deeper
Mastery of this topic comes from sustained practice in committee, debate room, and study
circle, not from any single lesson. The most successful MUN delegates, debate
competitors, and political-research practitioners treat each new concept as a building
block for the next conference, tournament, or written brief.
Connecting to Practice
When you encounter this concept in committee, ask yourself three questions:
How does this apply to my current position? A delegate representing Brazil on
UNSC reform applies political-economic concepts differently than one representing
the United States. A debate competitor preparing the affirmative case on a particular
topic applies analytical frameworks differently than one preparing the negative.
What evidence supports my application? Mastery requires moving beyond abstract
concept to specific cited evidence. Build the habit of finding 2-3 primary sources that
ground your application of any concept.
What counter-arguments would the strongest opposition raise? Anticipating
opposition is the single highest-leverage skill in competitive activities. The best
delegates and debaters prepare for the strongest version of opposing arguments, not
the weakest.
Building Your Resource Library
Develop a personal library of go-to sources for the concepts and issues that matter most
for your work. For most MUN and debate competitors, the core library includes:
● Primary documents: UN resolutions, treaty texts, government statements relevant to
your committee or topic.
● Quality secondary sources: think-tank reports (CFR, Brookings, CSIS, Chatham
House), peer-reviewed journal articles, recognized news outlets.
● Historical context: foundational books and articles on your topic area.
● Recent developments: news in the last 90 days that affects your position.
Why Sustained Practice Matters
The difference between bronze-level and gold-level performance in MUN and debate is
not raw intelligence — it is hours of structured practice. Recognized champions typically
practice 5-10 hours per week between competitions, not the night before. Build
sustainable practice habits, and your performance will improve cumulatively across
seasons.
Research Methodology
A systematic approach to gathering the primary sources, data, and
evidence needed for a compelling position paper.
The Source Hierarchy
Not all sources are equal. Position papers that cite primary sources will always
outperform those relying on secondary reporting.
Tier 1: Primary Sources (Use These)
● UN Digital Library ([Link]) — Full text of every resolution, report, and official
document.
● UN Voting Records — How your country voted on relevant resolutions.
● General Debate Statements ([Link]) — Annual speeches by heads of state at the
General Assembly. These are goldmines for your country's stated priorities.
● Treaty Body Reports — UPR submissions, CEDAW reports, CRC reviews — your country's
own official submissions.
● Government Websites — Official foreign ministry statements and policy documents.
Tier 2: Expert Analysis (Use to Supplement)
● UN Agency Reports — WHO, UNHCR, UNDP technical reports with data and analysis.
● Think Tank Research — Brookings, Chatham House, SIPRI, CFR — credible analysis with
cited data.
● Academic Journals — Peer-reviewed research for complex topics.
Tier 3: Context Only (Don't Cite)
● News articles (useful for understanding, not for citing in papers)
● Wikipedia (starting point, never endpoint)
● Other delegates' position papers from past conferences
Research Time Budget
For a typical position paper (2 topics), allocate 4-6 hours of research per topic. Spend
60% on Tier 1 sources, 30% on Tier 2, and 10% on Tier 3 for background only.
THE GENERAL DEBATE SHORTCUT
The fastest way to find your country's position on almost any topic: go to [Link] and search
for your country's most recent General Assembly speech. These speeches cover every major global
issue in 15-20 minutes and represent the government's official stated priorities. A single GA debate
statement can give you position material for multiple committee topics at once.
Country Position Analysis
How to determine your country's real position when it's ambiguous,
contradictory, or hard to find.
Playing Position Detective
Sometimes your country's position is obvious — the US has clear stances on most
Security Council issues. But what about Laos on cyber governance? Or Fiji on
autonomous weapons? When direct sources are scarce, use these analytical techniques:
1. Voting Pattern Analysis
Even if your country hasn't spoken about your exact topic, their voting pattern on related
resolutions reveals alignment. If Laos consistently votes with China on technology
governance issues, you can reasonably infer Laos would support China's approach to
cyber governance.
2. Bloc Alignment
Countries belong to formal and informal blocs:
● G77 + China: 134 developing nations — often unified on development and sovereignty
issues
● EU: 27 members with coordinated foreign policy positions
● African Group: 54 members, often coordinated on peace and development
● CARICOM: Caribbean states, unified on climate and small island issues
● Arab Group: Coordinated positions on Middle East and sovereignty
● WEOG: Western European and Others Group
If your country is a G77 member, start with the G77's group position and adjust for
national specifics.
3. National Interest Extrapolation
Ask: what does this country need? A landlocked developing country will support
maritime access provisions. An oil-exporting state will resist aggressive carbon taxes. A
post-conflict nation will prioritize peacebuilding funding. National interest predicts
position better than ideology.
4. Regional Precedent
If your country hasn't spoken on the topic, check if their region has. ASEAN members
often follow ASEAN's collective positions. AU member states frequently align with AU
frameworks.
Continue
INFER, DON'T INVENT
There's a critical difference between 'My country hasn't stated a position, so I'll infer one from voting
patterns and bloc alignment' and 'My country hasn't stated a position, so I'll make one up that I
personally agree with.' The first is analytical reasoning (and chairs will reward it). The second is
breaking character and chairs will notice. Always ground your inferred position in evidence — even if
it's indirect.
Structure and Format
The standard position paper structure used at top conferences, with
formatting guidelines and length expectations.
The Standard Position Paper Structure
Most conferences expect position papers to follow this three-section structure for each
topic:
Section 1: Background / Topic Overview (20-25%)
Demonstrate your understanding of the topic. Include:
● Brief history of the issue in the UN system
● Key resolutions and frameworks already in place
● Current state of affairs with recent data
Do NOT simply restate the background guide. Chairs wrote it — they know what it says.
Add original research and show you've gone beyond the guide.
Section 2: Country Position (35-40%)
This is the core. Articulate your country's stance with evidence:
● What has your country said about this topic? (Direct quotes from statements)
● How has your country voted on related resolutions?
● What treaties has your country signed/ratified related to this topic?
● What domestic policies reflect your country's approach?
● What regional frameworks does your country participate in?
Section 3: Proposed Solutions (35-40%)
The most important section. Propose 2-4 specific, actionable policies:
● Each proposal should include: what it does, who implements it, how it's funded, and what
precedent it builds on
● Proposals must be consistent with your country's position (not your personal opinion)
● At least one proposal should be realistic enough to gain consensus
● At least one can be ambitious (a 'reach' proposal)
Formatting
● Length: 1-2 pages per topic (varies by conference — check rules)
● Font: Times New Roman 12pt, single-spaced is standard
● Header: Country, committee, topic
● Citations: Footnotes or endnotes — MLA, APA, or Chicago all acceptable unless specified
SOLUTIONS WIN AWARDS
Chairs consistently report that the solutions section is what separates strong papers from average ones.
Anyone can summarize a topic and state a position. Proposing specific, implementable policies —
with funding mechanisms, implementation timelines, and institutional frameworks — shows strategic
thinking that chairs reward. A paper with a weaker background section but brilliant solutions will
always outperform one with a strong background but vague 'we should cooperate' solutions.
Writing Compelling Policy Proposals
How to write specific, actionable, and persuasive policy proposals
that chairs notice and delegates want to build on.
From Vague to Specific: The Policy Specificity
Ladder
Most position paper proposals fail because they're too vague. Compare:
Level 1 (Bad): 'We should increase international cooperation on climate change.'
Level 2 (Better): 'We propose a multilateral fund for climate adaptation in developing
countries.'
Level 3 (Strong): 'We propose expanding the Green Climate Fund's Readiness
Programme by $500 million annually, funded through a 0.1% levy on international
financial transactions, with priority allocation to SIDS and LDCs as defined by the
UN-OHRLLS classification.'
Level 3 answers every chair's follow-up question:
● What? Expand the GCF Readiness Programme
● How much? $500 million annually
● Who pays? Funded by a financial transaction levy
● Who benefits? SIDS and LDCs prioritized
● What precedent? Builds on existing GCF infrastructure
The SMART Policy Template
Every proposal should be:
● Specific: Name the mechanism, institution, and scope
● Measurable: Include numbers, timelines, or benchmarks
● Achievable: Build on existing UN frameworks (don't invent new institutions from scratch)
● Relevant: Connected to your country's stated priorities
● Time-bound: Include implementation phases or review dates
BUILD ON EXISTING FRAMEWORKS
The best MUN policy proposals don't reinvent the wheel — they expand, reform, or redirect existing
UN mechanisms. 'Creating a new global climate agency' is unrealistic. 'Expand the mandate of UNEP
to include binding emissions monitoring, modeled on the IAEA safeguards system' is credible because
it builds on institutions that already exist. Chairs reward proposals that demonstrate knowledge of the
UN system's actual architecture.