Writing Section 3: Proposed Solutions

Solutions That Actually Matter

Section 3 is your chance to show the chair that you can lead committee work. Your proposed solutions should be specific enough to become operative clauses in a resolution — because that is exactly what chairs are evaluating. Can this delegate walk into committee and start building a working paper from day one?

The most common failure in Section 3 is vagueness. 'Increase international cooperation on climate change' is not a solution. It is a wish. A solution has five components: what is being proposed, who implements it, how it is funded, when it happens, and how success is measured.

Compare:

• Vague: 'Establish a fund to help developing countries address climate change.'
• Specific: 'Establish a Climate Adaptation Technology Fund under UNEP, capitalized at USD 500 million through voluntary contributions from Annex II parties, with a governance board comprising equal representation from donor and recipient states, disbursing grants to Least Developed Countries for early warning systems, drought-resistant agriculture, and coastal resilience infrastructure, with biennial impact assessments beginning in 2027.'

The specific version could become three to four operative clauses in a resolution. The vague version is a placeholder that tells the chair nothing about your preparation.

The Three-Solution Framework

Most position papers should propose exactly three solutions. This is not an arbitrary number — it reflects the reality of committee work. One solution is too narrow for a working paper. Five solutions are too many to develop meaningfully in the space available. Three gives you enough range to address different dimensions of the problem while keeping each proposal substantive.

Structure your three solutions to cover different aspects:

Solution 1: Institutional or Structural — Create, reform, or strengthen an institution, mechanism, or framework. This is your big-picture proposal. Example: 'Expand the mandate of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to include a dedicated cybercrime division.'

Solution 2: Financial or Technical — Address the resources needed for implementation. This is where you demonstrate practical thinking. Example: 'Create a voluntary trust fund for cybersecurity capacity building in developing states, modeled on the UN Trust Fund for Counter-Terrorism.'

Solution 3: Cooperative or Normative — Propose multilateral cooperation mechanisms, information-sharing frameworks, or norm-setting initiatives. This is where you build bridges to other delegations. Example: 'Establish a biennial Global Cybersecurity Review Mechanism under the GA First Committee, with participation from the private sector, civil society, and regional organizations.'

This framework ensures your proposals are comprehensive enough to anchor a working paper while remaining distinct from each other.

Connecting Solutions to Committee Strategy

Your position paper is not just an academic exercise — it is a strategic document. The solutions you propose signal to the chair and to other delegates what you will push for in committee.

Write solutions that invite collaboration. If your solutions are so country-specific that no one else can support them, you will struggle to build a bloc. Instead, frame solutions that align with your country's interests but appeal broadly. Japan proposing a 'Technology Partnership for Disaster Risk Reduction in the Asia-Pacific' is both authentically Japanese and broadly appealing to the 40+ Asia-Pacific states.

Reference existing frameworks. Solutions that build on existing institutions are more credible than solutions that create entirely new ones. The UN has thousands of existing programs, funds, and mechanisms. Proposing to expand, reform, or better fund an existing mechanism shows institutional knowledge. Creating a brand-new body for every problem shows naivety.

Include implementation details. Even brief ones. 'Funded through reallocation of existing UNDP program budgets' or 'overseen by a panel of 15 experts appointed by the Secretary-General' or 'with a five-year review clause' — these details make your proposals feel real rather than theoretical.

The best position papers end with solutions that make the chair think, 'I want to see this delegate lead a working paper.' That is the standard you are aiming for.