What Is Position Paper

Do not index

It's 11 p.m., your position paper template is open, and the cursor is blinking beneath the committee topic. You know your assigned country's name, but you're not sure whether the paper should sound like an essay, a speech, or a resolution. That confusion is normal. Many new delegates lose time because they start writing before they understand what the document is supposed to do.

A position paper is a formal policy brief written from the perspective of your assigned country or observer. It compresses your research into a clear explanation of the country's view, its relevant record, and the solutions it wants debate to consider. Most conferences expect roughly one page per topic or two full pages in total, with specific formatting requirements. NMUN's position paper guidance describes requirements such as one-inch margins and submission for each assigned committee.

What a Position Paper Actually Is

A position paper is not a neutral essay about a global problem. It's an argument made on behalf of a delegation.

Your paper should answer three practical questions:

What is happening?

Why does your country care about it?

What should the committee do next?

Suppose your committee is discussing climate finance. You aren't being asked to explain climate change from a general student perspective. You're being asked to explain how your assigned country understands the problem, what it has already supported or done, and which policies it can defend in committee.

The audience is usually the dais, chairs, or judges, who read position papers before formal debate begins. They're looking for evidence that you understand the topic, have researched your country, and can represent its interests consistently. The paper also becomes your private compass during speeches and negotiations. If your opening speech, caucus proposals, and draft clauses all contradict the paper, chairs will notice that your preparation was superficial.

The voice matters. Write from the delegation's perspective, using formal language such as “The delegation of Kenya supports…” or “The Republic of Korea recognizes…” Avoid writing “I think” unless your conference specifically requests a personal reflection. Your task is representation, not self-expression.

A strong paper also avoids pretending that every issue has a simple answer. Countries often balance economic interests, security concerns, regional relationships, and domestic politics. You can acknowledge those tensions, provided the final position remains defensible. For broader preparation advice, consult this Model UN preparation guide, but keep the central purpose in mind: the paper proves that you can think and write as a diplomat.

The Standard Structure of an MUN Position Paper

Most conferences use a familiar five-part structure. The exact headings may vary, so always follow your conference handbook, but the logic remains stable.

1. Header

Begin with the practical information the chair needs:

Country or observer: The delegation you represent

Committee: For example, the United Nations General Assembly

Topic: The official agenda wording

Delegate name: If required by the conference

A missing header can make a polished paper look unfinished. Formatting is part of the assignment, not decoration.

2. Topic background

Open with a concise explanation of the problem. For climate finance, you might explain that developing countries face substantial costs in adapting to climate impacts and transitioning energy systems, while international financial support remains a central point of negotiation.

Keep this paragraph focused. The chair already knows the topic. Your job is to establish the specific policy problem your country wants the committee to address.

3. Past international action

Show that the issue has a diplomatic history. Mention relevant UN resolutions, treaties, conference outcomes, or established international mechanisms. On climate finance, this could include the financial commitments, reporting systems, or adaptation initiatives your research identifies.

Don't create a list of agreements without explaining their relevance. A useful sentence connects the action to your country: “These mechanisms are relevant to the delegation because they establish channels through which developing states can seek support for adaptation.”

4. Country position

This is the center of the paper. State what your country supports, opposes, or wants changed. Then support that position with official evidence.

For example: “The delegation supports accessible climate finance for developing states, while emphasizing transparent reporting and respect for national development priorities.” That sentence gives debate a direction. The evidence that follows should demonstrate why this reflects the country's actual policy.

5. Proposed solutions

End by previewing the ideas your delegation will defend in committee. Proposals might involve improved access to existing funds, stronger reporting, technical assistance, or cooperation through regional institutions. Keep them realistic and connected to the country position.

A position paper works because each part leads naturally to the next. Background establishes the problem, past action establishes context, the country position interprets that context, and proposed solutions turn the position into a negotiating agenda. A practical policy brief writing guide can help with concise structure, but don't let the format replace country-specific reasoning.

How a Position Paper Differs From Resolutions and Working Papers

Delegates often confuse these documents because all three concern the same topic. Their timing, authorship, and purpose are different.

A position paper is normally written before the conference, often by one delegate, and represents one country's stance. A working paper is developed during committee as delegations collaborate, test ideas, and organize possible approaches. A draft resolution is a formal committee document containing proposed actions that delegates debate, amend, and eventually vote on.

Feature	Position Paper	Working Paper	Draft Resolution
When it appears	Before committee begins	During early committee sessions	After proposals become organized for formal consideration
Who writes it	Usually one delegation	Multiple collaborating delegations	A group of sponsors and signatories
Main purpose	Explain one country's policy	Develop shared ideas	Propose formal committee action
Typical style	Analytical prose	Flexible proposal text	Structured clauses
Main question	What does our country believe?	What could several countries support?	What should the committee adopt?

The distinction is easiest to remember through verbs. Your position paper argues. Your working paper develops. Your draft resolution proposes and formalizes.

A position paper may mention actions you want the committee to consider, but it shouldn't be stuffed with operative clauses, subclauses, and resolution language. A delegate who writes “Encourages the establishment…” repeatedly may have produced something that looks diplomatic but fails to explain the country's reasoning.

The reverse mistake also occurs. A working paper shouldn't read like a personal country essay once several delegations are contributing. It needs ideas that others can negotiate, revise, and support.

These differences affect evaluation. Chairs generally assess a position paper for research quality, policy accuracy, logical structure, and clear solutions, not for whether it resembles a final resolution. For a closer explanation of the collaborative document, see this guide to the Model UN working paper.

Writing the Country Position With Evidence

Your country position isn't your personal opinion. It's the most defensible account of what the assigned state has said, signed, voted for, funded, or implemented.

Start with a central claim, then build support around it. A useful research pattern is to consult three kinds of evidence:

A UN source: A treaty, resolution, official statement, or committee record

A domestic source: A ministry document, national strategy, parliamentary record, or official policy paper

A recent action: A ratification, public commitment, vote, program, sanction, or diplomatic initiative

The point isn't to force three citations into every paragraph. The point is to test whether your interpretation rests on more than a vague search result or a general country profile. The Model UN research guide offers a useful starting point for organizing that investigation.

Weak and strong openings

Weak opening:

This statement is difficult to disagree with, but it could represent almost any delegation. It doesn't identify a national interest, past action, or specific policy preference.

Stronger opening:

The second version still needs citations to the specific official documents you used. Its strength comes from the connection between policy preference, evidence, and implementation concern.

Use named initiatives and dates when your sources provide them, but don't add details you can't verify. A chair would rather read a carefully supported qualitative claim than an impressive-looking figure copied from an unreliable page.

Keep citations readable. You can write, “In its official submission to the relevant UN process, the delegation emphasized…” and attach the source to that phrase. Don't turn the position paper into a bibliography. The evidence should strengthen your argument, not interrupt it.

When Your Country's Policy Is Unclear or Contradictory

Many MUN guides assume that every government has one clear, stable position. Real governments rarely work that neatly. Your assigned country may have issued competing statements, changed policy after an election, remained silent on the topic, or allowed different ministries to emphasize different priorities.

That doesn't mean you're stuck. It means you need to distinguish what is documented from what you infer.

Start with authority and recency

When official statements conflict, begin with the most recent authoritative source. A current foreign ministry statement, treaty action, head-of-government declaration, or formal UN submission will usually carry more weight than an older general speech. You can describe the change rather than hiding it:

That sentence signals careful reasoning. It doesn't pretend that policy evolution is inconsistency in your own research.

Choose the institutional voice

If the country appears divided, identify which institution has the strongest connection to the committee topic. An environment ministry may be the most relevant voice on emissions policy. A finance ministry may lead on development funding. A foreign ministry may control the diplomatic language used in UN negotiations.

Explain your choice briefly in your research notes, even if you don't include the full explanation in the final paper. This prevents you from combining incompatible statements just because they appeared in the same search.

Make uncertainty visible

If the country has said little, use regional groupings, summit communiques, coalition statements, and voting patterns as supporting context. Don't present those sources as proof of a national position unless the country clearly endorsed them.

Use language that separates evidence from assumption:

“The delegation's limited official record suggests…”

“Consistent with its regional group's recent approach, the delegation is likely to support…”

“In the absence of a specific national statement, this paper interprets the country's vote and related actions as support for…”

That kind of qualification isn't weakness. It shows the chair that you know where the evidence ends.

A defensible position can acknowledge uncertainty while still giving negotiators something concrete to defend. Choose modest proposals, avoid claims that require unsupported certainty, and never invent a national commitment to make the paragraph sound complete.

A Before and After Example You Can Learn From

Consider a fictional delegate assigned to a UNGA First Committee discussion of lethal autonomous weapons systems. The topic is real, but the sample country and wording below are illustrative. The purpose is to show how revision improves reasoning, not to attribute a policy to any particular state.

Before

This draft has a clear concern, but it could belong to almost any delegation. It doesn't identify the assigned country's record, distinguish between possible policy instruments, or tell the chair what the delegate would defend.

After

The revision makes several deliberate changes.

The opening names the policy problem more precisely. “Threat to peace” is broad. Responsibility, accountability, and legal compliance identify the issues the committee can discuss.

The country record appears at the point where it matters. The final paper should link “most recent official statement” to the actual statement, rather than leaving the phrase unsupported.

The policy instrument is clearer. The delegate isn't merely asking for “action.” The paragraph points toward negotiations, reporting, and expert discussion.

The ending creates negotiating priorities. The delegate now has two positions to defend instead of a general promise to cooperate.

The revised version still needs to be adapted to the assigned country. If that country supports a prohibition, testing standards, or another approach, the language must reflect the evidence. Don't borrow the structure and paste in a policy your sources don't support.

When reviewing your own draft tonight, look for three patterns: generic language that could describe any country, claims without an official source, and solutions too vague to become clauses. Fix those before polishing grammar.

Submission Checklist and Habits That Win Points

The night before submission, read your paper as a chair would. A strong paper should show that you understand the dossier and can represent the assigned country without making claims the evidence cannot support. If your country's policy is unclear or changing, identify that uncertainty rather than disguising it with confident generalities.

Run these checks

Topic sentence strength: Does the opening identify the specific problem the committee can address? Replace broad statements about importance with a clear issue.

Country identity: Could another delegation submit the same paper unchanged? Add national interests, official actions, voting patterns, or policy language.

Source credibility: Do key claims rely on UN documents, government records, treaties, or official statements? Use traceable primary material instead of unsourced summaries.

Policy fidelity: Does each recommendation fit the country's documented interests and record? Where the record conflicts, acknowledge the tension and choose a position you can defend.

Solution quality: Could you defend every proposed action in a moderated caucus? If the answer is no, make the action more concrete or remove it.

Formatting: Check margins, font, spacing, headings, file type, and submission instructions against your own conference handbook. Requirements differ between NMUN, THIMUN, and university conferences.

Citation completeness: Confirm that important factual claims have sources and that each link or reference follows the required style.

A useful habit separates prepared delegates from last-minute template fillers: read the actual UN committee record before writing the first sentence. Begin with the most recent official summary or debate record available, then examine a relevant General Assembly resolution or equivalent primary document. This review gives you the language, actors, disagreements, and existing mechanisms that generic background research often misses.

Turn that review into a repeatable routine. Open the official document, mark the country's interventions or votes, record the committee's unresolved questions, and draft the country position only afterward. A daily MUN preparation checklist can help you maintain that routine.

Strong delegates do not need the longest papers. They submit papers in which every paragraph has a job, every position has a reason, and every solution can withstand a question from the dais. Chairs notice the difference between a delegate who understood the record and one who filled a template with diplomatic-sounding sentences.

Use Model Diplomat to research country positions, organize evidence, and draft the background, national position, past actions, and proposed solutions sections of your MUN paper. Visit the platform before your next deadline and turn your research into a defensible submission for committee.