For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt.Skip to main content
A procedural interjection used when a delegate believes the committee is not following its rules of procedure—for example a motion taken out of order, a skipped vote, or the wrong speaking time—not to challenge what another delegate said on the merits.
Points of order keep debate fair: they stop procedural shortcuts from deciding outcomes and show the chair that delegates know the rules. Used sparingly and precisely, they build credibility; used to re-argue substance, they waste floor time and annoy the committee.
| Point | Purpose | Typical interrupt rule |
|---|---|---|
| Point of order | A rule of procedure is being broken | Varies—often may not interrupt; check UNA-USA vs THIMUN vs your gavel |
| Point of personal privilege | You cannot hear or participate effectively | Often may interrupt, usually only for audibility |
| Point of parliamentary inquiry | Ask the chair how the rules apply | Does not interrupt; no allegation of a breach |
| Point of information | Question a speaker who yielded for questions | Only after the speaker accepts questions |
The UN General Assembly’s Rules of Procedure codify how points of order work in the real Assembly. The authoritative text is document A/520/Rev.20:
Conference-specific MUN rules (UNA-USA, THIMUN, and your host’s gavel) adapt these ideas but are not identical—always defer to the rules in your committee room.
A point of order alleges a breach of procedure—the wrong motion at the wrong time, a miscounted vote, or similar. A point of personal privilege is about your ability to take part (you cannot hear, the room is too loud, and so on). Privilege is about comfort and audibility; order is about whether the committee is running correctly.
No—rules vary by conference. Under many UNA-USA and THIMUN-style sets, a point of order does not interrupt a speaker and must wait for a pause, though some rule books allow it when the speech itself is procedurally out of order. A point of personal privilege is the point most often allowed to interrupt, and usually only for audibility. Check your conference’s rules of procedure before you stand.
Debate continues under the chair’s ruling. In the real UN General Assembly, Rule 71 lets a delegate appeal the chair’s decision on a point of order; the appeal is put to an immediate vote and the chair’s ruling stands unless overruled. Many Model UN conferences mirror that appeal, but some give the chair’s ruling final effect—know your gavel’s rule set.
Catch the chair’s eye, say “Point of order,” name the specific procedural problem in one or two sentences, and sit. Do not debate the issue; wait for the chair to rule. If your rules allow an appeal and you disagree with the ruling, move to appeal and be ready for the immediate vote that follows.
No. A point of order is strictly for procedure—motions, voting order, speaking time, and conduct of business—not for saying another delegate’s facts or policy are wrong. If you are unsure whether a rule was broken, use a point of parliamentary inquiry instead.
A point of parliamentary inquiry asks the chair how the rules work or what happens next; it does not claim anyone broke a rule. A point of information is a question to a delegate who has yielded for questions—it is about the speech’s substance, not committee procedure. Only a point of order says “the rules are being violated right now.”