Writing a position paper

At some conferences it is a requirement that delegates submit a position paper to the committee chair at the start of the session. However, even if you don’t have to, it’s a good idea to do it anyway as part of your conference preparation. Position papers are a good way of sifting through and distilling all the information you discover through research into a simple format that serves as a valuable reference both for yourself, and at conferences where papers are collected and shared, for other delegates and directors.

Format for position papers

Position papers should be about one page long. The position paper is not an exercise in elaborate writing or a demonstration of breadth of knowledge on a topic; rather, it is an opportunity to get straight in your own mind:
- What is your country’s position on the key issues?
- What kind of solutions will your country look for in a resolution?

At the top of your position paper you should list the following:

1. Committee Name
2. Topic Area
3. Country

You should then divide the bulk of your paper into two parts:

I. General Position Statement
II. Responses to Questions a Resolution Must Answer

Frame your nation’s perspective in terms of solutions proposed in the past or the views of regional blocs and other countries that share your position. It is also important to examine prior UN resolutions, decisions, declarations or reports. Statistics and quotes from international documents often give compelling factual support for your arguments.

An excellent position paper will include:

a) A brief statement on why your state feels the topic is important nationally and globally
b) A clear and concise statement of your state’s position on the topic
c) An explanation of why your state takes this position
d) Major UN actions on the topic that your state feels are significant
e) Suggestions for addressing the topic

------------------------------------------

Example paper:

Committee: Disarmament and International Security
Topic: Nuclear Test Ban
Country: The Republic of Sierra Leone

I. General Position Statement

The Republic of Sierra Leone believes disarmament to be crucial for the maintenance of worldwide security and considers a nuclear test ban to be an important step in the process of reaching that goal. Sierra Leone is not a nuclear power nor does it aid other countries in producing nuclear weapons.

A comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT), has been long overdue. Nuclear weapon testing allows the arms race to continue and even escalate. The implementation of a test ban would slow down the development of new nuclear weapons and thereby slow down the arms race. Furthermore, a CTBT would not, as some states have claimed, threaten the stability of the policy of nuclear deterrence, on which both superpowers rely. In fact, a CTBT would maintain stability by preventing innovations and developments which could potentially give one nuclear state a
unilateral advantage. Moreover, the increasing use of supercomputers has essentially eliminated the need for actual testing. Thus, the Republic of Sierra Leone supports the following proposals for a nuclear test ban treaty.

The treaty must be a comprehensive and permanent one. States should rely not only on all national means of verification which are consistent with international law, but also an international verification system. Current seismic monitoring systems, such as the Norwegian Seismic Array (NORSAR), are sufficiently advanced to determine whether states are complying with a CTBT. As per the Ad Hoc Group’s report, Sierra Leone is in favor of an international network of seismic
monitoring stations which would send their data to International Data Centers (IDC’s) for analysis.

These IDC’s would automatically give out type I data (basic information) with type II data (data subjected to more advanced analysis) available upon request.
Regarding compliance, a test ban treaty is of such paramount importance that violators should be punished. Yet the fact remains that embargoes would most likely have little if any effect on most nuclear states. Perhaps compliance measures will eventually rely on first convincing the superpowers, and any other nuclear states, to enter into a CTBT and then getting the superpowers themselves to ensure that their allies abide by the treaty.

II. Responses to Questions a Resolution Must Answer

The Republic of Sierra Leone believes strongly that the CTBT is the only proper solution to the problems facing this committee. Because of the international impact of any nuclear testing, it is our belief that any regional agreements would be useless without the foundation of a world-wide test ban. Therefore, Sierra Leone cannot support any agreement that relies solely upon the establishment of regional agreements. Funding for a solution for the proposed additional research into seismic monitoring techniques should be drawn from all member states of the UN; however, it is the belief of the Republic of Sierra Leone that the primary source of funding should be the currently recognized nuclear powers, since these powers are responsible for a great deal of nuclear testing to date.

The greatest threat to the CTBT is the potential for violations. Therefore, the Republic of Sierra Leone, as indicated above, believes that inspections of monitoring facilities must be permitted, if only to assuage the fears of the nuclear powers. Information gained from these monitoring stations must be globally disseminated to ensure that the international community is aware of any potential violations.