Crisis Alliance

In a Model UN crisis committee, a Crisis Alliance is a coalition of two or more delegates who agree to coordinate their personal powers, resources, and notes to the crisis backroom in pursuit of shared objectives. Unlike a public bloc in a General Assembly committee — which exists mainly to co-sponsor a draft resolution — a crisis alliance typically operates through joint personal directives (private notes signed by multiple portfolio characters) and informal pacts that may never appear in front of the full committee.

Alliances form for many reasons: pooling military assets in a war cabinet, dividing intelligence-gathering tasks, propping up a contested leader, or simply ganging up on a rival delegate. In a Joint Crisis Committee (JCC), alliances often map onto the historical sides — for example, Allied versus Axis powers in a WWII simulation, or rival noble houses in a historical court. In a single-cabinet crisis, alliances are usually more fluid and can collapse within a single committee session as new crisis updates arrive.

Effective crisis alliances generally share a few features:

• Clear division of labor — each member commits troops, money, or influence from their portfolio.
• Coordinated note timing so the backroom receives consistent, mutually reinforcing directives.
• Contingency plans for betrayal, since unilateral defection is common and often rewarded by the crisis staff.

Chairs and crisis directors usually reward alliances that produce creative, internally consistent, and proactive directives, while penalizing alliances that simply duplicate notes or rely on metagaming. Delegates should also remember that an alliance is only as strong as its weakest portfolio: an ambitious pact between two characters with no real authority over armies or treasuries will rarely move the crisis arc. Betrayal — sometimes called a backstab — is a legitimate and frequently decisive tool, and many award-winning crisis performances hinge on knowing exactly when to break an alliance.