Analyzing Award-Winning Papers

What Award-Winning Papers Do Differently

Every major MUN conference — NMUN, HMUN, HNMUN, YMUN, BMUN — gives position paper awards, and chairs read hundreds of submissions each cycle. After reviewing dozens of winning papers across conferences, clear patterns emerge. Award-winning papers are not longer than average papers. They are not filled with more footnotes. They are sharper. Every sentence advances the argument. There is zero filler.

The single biggest differentiator is specificity. Average papers say 'France supports international cooperation on climate change.' Winning papers say 'France, as co-architect of the 2015 Paris Agreement and host of the One Planet Summits since 2017, has committed EUR 6 billion annually to climate finance through the Agence Francaise de Developpement, prioritizing adaptation funding for Small Island Developing States in the Pacific and Caribbean.' The second version demonstrates research, positions the country precisely, and provides a policy anchor for committee debate.

A second pattern: winning papers treat the three sections — background, country position, and proposed solutions — as a narrative arc, not three disconnected blocks. The background section frames the problem in a way that naturally leads to why the country's perspective matters. The country position section connects national interest to the global challenge. The proposed solutions flow logically from everything above. When chairs read a winning paper, they feel like the delegate truly understands the problem and has a coherent vision.

Third, winning papers demonstrate awareness of committee dynamics. They reference other countries' positions, acknowledge competing interests, and propose solutions that could realistically build consensus. A delegate representing India on nuclear disarmament who ignores Pakistan's security concerns has written a policy brief, not a position paper.

Anatomy of a Winner: NMUN Best Position Paper

Consider a hypothetical NMUN-winning paper for Brazil in the GA First Committee on conventional arms control. The opening does not begin with 'The issue of conventional arms control is very important.' It begins: 'As the world's fifth-largest country by area and a major arms producer through companies like Taurus and IMBEL, the Federative Republic of Brazil occupies a unique position in conventional arms debates — simultaneously a signatory to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) since 2013, a top-20 global arms exporter, and a nation grappling with over 45,000 annual gun deaths domestically.'

This opening accomplishes three things in two sentences: establishes Brazil's relevance, demonstrates research depth, and introduces a tension (arms exporter vs. domestic gun violence) that drives the rest of the paper.

The country position section traces Brazil's voting record: support for the ATT, advocacy for the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (PoA), participation in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, and Bolsonaro-era loosening of domestic gun laws followed by Lula's 2023 re-tightening.

The solutions section proposes three concrete measures: strengthening ATT reporting mechanisms with specific amendments to Article 13, creating a voluntary trust fund modeled on UNSCAR but focused on Latin American states, and expanding the International Tracing Instrument to cover 3D-printed firearms. Each proposal includes implementation details.

Reverse Engineering Excellence

Here is a framework for analyzing any position paper:

The Research Test: Count the specific facts, figures, treaty references, and policy citations. Award-winning papers typically have 15-25 specific references in two pages. Average papers have 3-5. If your paper reads like it could have been written without research, it will not win.

The Voice Test: Cover the country name. Can you still tell which country wrote it? If the paper could belong to any country, the voice is too generic. A paper from China should read differently from a paper from Sweden.

The Solutions Test: Are the proposed solutions specific enough to become operative clauses? 'Increase international cooperation' fails. 'Establish a multilateral technology transfer mechanism under UNIDO, funded through assessed contributions at 0.01% of GDP from Annex I countries, with a five-year sunset clause' passes.

The Cohesion Test: Does each section build on the previous one? Background frames the problem. Country position explains why this country's perspective matters. Solutions address the problem through the lens of the country's interests. If sections feel disconnected, narrative coherence is missing.

Practice this analysis on three to five papers before your next conference.