Discover how to write amendments that build consensus and win votes. This guide shares real MUN strategies for drafting, presenting, and passing your changes.

Do not index

Writing an amendment in Model UN is much more than just correcting a typo. It’s a strategic move. You're taking an existing draft resolution, finding a specific point of leverage, and then writing new language to add, remove, or completely change the text. This is how you shift from being just another voice in the room to an active diplomat shaping the final outcome.

The Real Power of a Strategic Amendment

Too many delegates think amendments are just for minor fixes. They see them as a way to nitpick wording or clean up a clause. That’s a huge missed opportunity. In reality, a sharp, well-timed amendment is one of the most powerful tools you have in committee.

Experienced delegates know that amendments are instruments of pure diplomacy. You can use them to build a new coalition around a key idea, carefully isolate a stubborn opposition bloc, or even pivot the entire committee’s focus. The true art isn't just in the writing; it's in recognizing the perfect political moment to strike.

Spotting the Perfect Opening

The best opportunities for amendments don't just appear—you find them through sharp listening and solid research. Pay attention to the debate. Where are the gaps in the draft resolution? Which clauses directly contradict your country’s policy or could alienate potential allies?

Developing an instinct for when a small change can bring a dozen undecided nations to your side is what separates good delegates from great ones. This all comes back to your prep work. If you haven't already, check out our guide on how to prepare for MUN to build that essential foundation.

Remember, your aim isn't just to improve the resolution for your own delegation. It's to make it an irresistible choice for a majority of the committee.

A winning amendment isn't just about what you want to change; it's about proposing a change that other delegates didn't realize they needed until you presented it. It's the art of creating consensus from a single, well-placed idea.

Anatomy of a Winning Amendment

A quick look at the essential parts of any Model UN amendment that the chair and committee will take seriously.

Component	Purpose	Quick Example
Targeted Clause	Pinpoints exactly where the change occurs. No ambiguity.	"To Operative Clause 3..."
Clear Action	States precisely what you're doing: adding, striking, or both.	"...add the words..." or "...strike the phrase..."
Concise Language	The new text is clear, persuasive, and easy for others to support.	"...'in cooperation with relevant NGOs' after the word 'nations'."

This structure ensures your idea is presented professionally and can be debated effectively.

Beyond the strategy, the technical structure of your amendment has to be perfect. If it's not clear, concise, and procedurally correct, the chair will just set it aside.

Getting formal changes passed is notoriously difficult. Think about it in the real world: in the United States, over 11,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed since 1789, but only 27 have been ratified. That's a success rate of less than 0.25%. While MUN moves a lot faster, that statistic highlights just how critical precision and widespread support really are.

Friendly vs. Unfriendly: A Tactical Breakdown

Knowing the difference between a friendly and an unfriendly amendment is more than just memorizing definitions—it's about understanding the room's political dynamics. Your choice here isn't just about wording; it's a strategic move that determines whether your idea quietly improves a resolution or sparks a full-blown committee debate.

A friendly amendment is the path of least resistance. It’s a change that every single one of the resolution's original sponsors agrees to. Because they all give it the green light, it gets added to the document automatically. No vote, no fuss. Think of it as a collaborative tweak.

On the flip side, an unfriendly amendment is what happens when at least one sponsor says "no." This move forces the issue onto the floor for a formal debate and a procedural vote. The entire committee then gets to decide if your change makes the cut. It's a public challenge to the sponsors' original work.

The Art of the Friendly Amendment

The secret to getting a friendly amendment passed is all about listening. Pay close attention during the Q&A with the sponsors. You're looking for tells. Did they seem open to adjusting a certain clause? Did another delegate bring up a great point that the sponsors seemed to agree with? That's your cue.

Your goal is to position your suggestion as a helpful clarification, not a criticism. You want to make it sound like you're just helping them strengthen the very point they were trying to make.

Let's say a resolution on climate action includes a line that "Encourages member states to invest in renewable energy." During their presentation, a sponsor keeps mentioning how vital solar and wind are to their country's policy. This is your opening. You can approach them later and suggest a small addition.

Original Clause: "Encourages member states to invest in renewable energy..."

Your Friendly Suggestion: "...to invest in renewable energy, such as solar and wind power..."

It's a small change, but it adds the specific detail they were already focused on. It’s an easy "yes" for them because it reinforces their vision while making the resolution stronger.

The High-Stakes Game of Unfriendly Amendments

Throwing an unfriendly amendment onto the floor is a serious political power play. You're essentially standing up and telling the entire committee that the sponsors missed something crucial and you know how to fix it. Before you even think about taking this step, you need to do the math.

Do you have the votes? Have you talked to other powerful blocs and delegations to gauge their support? Launching an unfriendly amendment that goes down in flames is more than just embarrassing—it burns your political capital and wastes everyone's time.

An unfriendly amendment isn't just a debate about words. It's a vote of confidence in the sponsors versus your alternative. Make sure you have the numbers before you draw that line in the sand.

This tactic should be saved for the big stuff—the dealbreakers. Imagine a resolution on global health that has great ideas but completely sidesteps the issue of funding. The sponsors might have left it out to avoid a fight, but you know the resolution is toothless without a financial mechanism.

That's the perfect time for an unfriendly amendment. You're forcing the committee to tackle a fundamental flaw the sponsors hoped to ignore. You're not just making a small edit; you're pushing for a change that could make the entire resolution viable.

Drafting Amendments That Get Taken Seriously

Alright, let's move from big-picture strategy to the nitty-gritty of actually writing an amendment. An idea is only as good as its execution, and in Model UN, that means getting the language, formatting, and procedure exactly right. This is where you prove your mettle—transforming a concept into a crisp, actionable line of text that demands to be taken seriously.

Your goal is simple: draft an amendment so clear that every delegate grasps its impact immediately. Ambiguity is your worst enemy. If your wording is sloppy, it invites questions, slows down debate, and sinks your chances of winning anyone over.

The Three Core Actions

Every amendment you'll ever write boils down to one of three basic actions. Getting the phrasing right for each one is non-negotiable.

To Add: Use this when you need to insert new words, a phrase, or even a whole new sub-clause. The trick is to be surgically precise about where it goes.

To Strike: This is for deleting something. You're simply taking words out of the original resolution.

To Strike and Add: A two-for-one. This lets you replace existing text with your own, making it the most efficient way to fix a flawed clause.

Think of your amendment as a clear set of instructions for the chair. The less they have to interpret, the more professional you look, and the smoother everything runs.

At its core, drafting a solid amendment is great practice to improve your legal writing skills. The same principles of clarity and precision apply.

Maintaining Grammatical Harmony

This is the classic rookie mistake: proposing an amendment that breaks the grammar of the original sentence. Your change has to fit into the clause like it was always meant to be there.

Imagine the original clause reads: "Urges all nations to contribute financial aid..."

Bad Example: "To Operative Clause 4, add 'we must send' after the word 'nations'."

Resulting Mess: "Urges all nations we must send to contribute financial aid..."

See the problem? The sentence is now complete gibberish. The delegate didn't account for the existing verb, "Urges."

Good Example: "To Operative Clause 4, add 'and technical expertise' after the words 'financial aid'."

Resulting Text: "Urges all nations to contribute financial aid and technical expertise..."

This one works perfectly because it maintains the sentence's original structure. This small detail tells the chair and other delegates that you know what you're doing. If you need a refresher on the overall structure of these documents, our complete guide on how to write resolutions is the perfect place to start.

Friendly vs Unfriendly Amendments Strategic Comparison

The choice between a "friendly" and "unfriendly" amendment isn't just procedural; it's a strategic decision that shapes the debate. A friendly amendment is a collaborative effort, while an unfriendly one forces a public vote and potential confrontation. Understanding the tactical differences is key to choosing the right path for your proposal.

Consideration	Friendly Amendment	Unfriendly Amendment
Sponsor Approval	Requires the approval of all draft resolution sponsors.	Does not require sponsor approval.
Committee Vote	No vote required; automatically becomes part of the text.	Requires a simple majority vote from the committee to pass.
Strategic Goal	To make a minor, collaborative improvement or clarification.	To make a significant change the sponsors oppose.
Perception	Seen as cooperative and consensus-building.	Can be seen as confrontational or divisive.
Best For...	Fixing typos, adding allies, or clarifying intent.	Altering the core purpose or a major policy point of a clause.
Effort Level	Low; requires informal negotiation with sponsors.	High; requires lobbying, speeches, and winning a formal vote.

Ultimately, friendly amendments are for fine-tuning and building consensus, while unfriendly amendments are for challenging the core direction of a resolution. Choose your tool based on your objective.

This infographic breaks down the decision-making process for which amendment path to pursue.

It clearly visualizes the difference between the collaborative "friendly" route and the more competitive "unfriendly" one, highlighting how much committee engagement each requires.

How to Lobby for Your Amendment and Win Support

Drafting a solid, well-worded amendment is a great start, but it's really only half the battle. The other half—the part that actually gets your idea passed—happens in the hallways, during unmoderated caucuses, and in those quiet one-on-one chats between speeches. This is where your people skills and diplomatic savvy truly shine, turning a piece of paper into a political reality.

The real work starts well before you ever hand your amendment note to the dais. You need to build a coalition. Think of yourself as a campaign manager, and your amendment is the candidate.

Start by scouting for allies. Who has spoken on similar issues during debate? Which delegations would directly benefit from the change you're proposing? Make a mental list or jot down a few names.

Approach these delegates with a spirit of collaboration, not with a demand for their vote. You want to frame your amendment as a smart solution to a problem you both care about. This isn't just about securing a "yes" vote; it's about giving them a sense of ownership. If you can get a few co-submitters on board, especially from different regional blocs, your amendment immediately looks more credible and starts building momentum.

Building Your Pitch

With a small group of supporters behind you, it's time to talk to the original sponsors of the draft resolution. This conversation is critical, and how you approach it can make all the difference. Whatever you do, don't present your amendment as a way to fix their mistake. That’s a surefire way to get shut down.

Instead, pitch it as an improvement—a friendly suggestion that strengthens their resolution and helps it appeal to an even wider audience.

Your pitch needs to be short and sharp. Focus on how it helps the committee as a whole, not just your own national interests.

Highlight Consensus: Explain how your change could bring more countries into the "yes" column.

Emphasize Strength: Show them how your wording makes the resolution more effective or easier to implement.

Offer a Shared Win: Frame it as an opportunity for them to pass their resolution with an even stronger majority.

Knowing how to persuade without being pushy is a core skill here. For a much deeper look into these tactics, check out our guide on what is lobbying in MUN. It’ll give you the tools to navigate these delicate negotiations with a lot more confidence.

Defending Your Idea on the Floor

Whether your amendment is deemed friendly or unfriendly, you'll eventually have to speak on it. This is your chance to make a final, compelling case to the entire room. Keep your speech brief, direct, and persuasive.

Start by clearly stating which clause you're amending and what your change actually does. Then, launch into your main argument. Why is this change so important? How does it make the resolution better for everyone involved? Use strong, clear language and don't get lost in procedural weeds.

And be ready for questions. Listen closely to what other delegates ask, answer them respectfully, and always bring your response back to the core benefit of your amendment.

The most successful amendments are those presented as a bridge between opposing viewpoints. Your goal is not just to win a vote, but to convince the room that your idea is the missing piece that completes the puzzle.

Ultimately, building a political coalition is what makes real change happen in committee. While the formal rules are important, the social dynamics of the room often play a much bigger role. Once a group comes together to pass one amendment, it often paves the way for others to pass more easily. It's proof that diplomacy and collaboration can be just as powerful as the rulebook.

Common Amendment Mistakes That Guarantee Failure

I've seen countless brilliant ideas for amendments die on the floor, not because they were bad ideas, but because they were presented poorly. So many delegates pour their energy into crafting the perfect clause, only to have it shot down over a simple, avoidable mistake. If you want your hard work to actually mean something, you need to know what not to do.

The fastest way to get your amendment thrown out—and lose credibility in the process—is to mess up the procedure. This could be anything from sloppy formatting that makes your text a nightmare to read, to trying to submit it after the chair has already closed the list for amendments. It’s a dead giveaway that you haven’t been paying attention.

A great amendment introduced at the wrong time is just as useless as a bad amendment. Timing isn't just a factor; it's often the deciding factor between a successful change and a forgotten note.

Beyond just getting the rules right, you have to think strategically. Your amendment should feel like a genuine improvement, not a hostile takeover of the resolution.

Misreading the Room

One of the most common strategic blunders is pushing an amendment that completely misses the point of the resolution. For instance, if the entire draft resolution is built around promoting peaceful dialogue, and you come in with an amendment pushing for aggressive sanctions, you’re not going to get far. It just looks like you’re trying to derail the conversation, not build consensus.

Another classic mistake is nitpicking. Submitting five different amendments to change a few commas or swap out single words doesn’t make you look sharp; it makes you look annoying. Pick your battles. Focus on the one or two changes that will have the most significant impact.

And then there's timing. If you wait too long to propose your idea, the debate may have already moved on, and you'll be left behind. Think about it: in the real world, the amendment process is glacial. A deep dive into the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution reveals the average time from proposal to ratification is roughly 22 months. You can discover more insights about this lengthy constitutional process. While MUN is much faster, the principle of needing broad, deliberate support holds true.

Common Errors to Avoid

To give your amendment a fighting chance, make sure you steer clear of these classic traps:

Grammatical Inconsistency: Your new text has to fit perfectly into the existing clause. If you submit a change that creates a grammatically broken sentence, the chair will almost certainly reject it on the spot.

Vague Language: Get rid of words like "better," "more," or "stronger." Your proposal needs to be concrete and specific. What exactly are you asking the committee to do?

Ignoring the Sponsors: This is a huge diplomatic own-goal. If you're planning a major change, talk to the resolution's sponsors first. Ambushing them on the floor is a surefire way to turn a potential ally into a determined opponent.

Dodging these common pitfalls helps frame your amendment as what it should be: a valuable contribution, not a criticism of the committee's hard work.

Your Top Amendment Questions, Answered

Let's be honest, procedure can get confusing. When you're in a heated debate and the clock is ticking, you don't have time to flip through a rulebook. Here are the straight-up answers to the most common questions delegates have about amendments.

How Many Amendments Should I Propose? Is There a Limit?

There isn't a hard and fast rule, but think quality over quantity. If you start submitting more than two or three major amendments, other delegates might see you as trying to tear down the resolution rather than build it up. You risk looking like a detractor, not a collaborator.

If you read a draft and your list of changes is a mile long, you should seriously consider writing a competing resolution instead. Your energy is better spent on a new framework than on trying to fix a fundamentally broken one.

The Sponsors Rejected My Friendly Amendment. Now What?

So, you offered a suggestion to the sponsors, and they didn't accept it as "friendly." This happens. Now you have a strategic choice: drop it, or push it forward as an "unfriendly" amendment.

What should you do? It all comes down to how critical the change is. If your country cannot possibly support the resolution without this specific change, it's time to fight for it. Just know that introducing it as an unfriendly amendment means you'll have to formally present it, debate it, and convince the entire committee to vote for it. If you're confident you have the votes, go for it.

Can I Propose an Amendment to an Amendment?

This is what's known in the biz as an "amendment to the second degree." Whether you can do this depends entirely on the conference's rules of procedure.

Honestly, most conferences, especially for newer delegates, don't allow it. It can tangle the debate into a procedural knot and bring everything to a grinding halt. When you're unsure, your best move is always to raise a point of inquiry and ask your chair before you even start writing.

Should I Change an Existing Clause or Add a New One?

This choice sends a strong message about your intentions.

Amend an existing clause when the core idea is good, but the wording is weak or the details are wrong. This shows you're working with the sponsors and trying to improve what's already there—it's a move toward consensus.

Add a new clause when the resolution is completely missing something vital. Is there no mention of funding? No enforcement mechanism? Did they forget a key group of people? Adding a new clause shows you've identified a major gap and are bringing a new, essential idea to the table.

At Model Diplomat, we build the AI-powered tools and offer the strategic training to help you master every part of the Model UN experience. From writing resolutions to championing your amendments, we've got your back. See how it works on our platform.

How to Write Amendments That Actually Win in Model UN