Differences Between GA Rules and some Model UN Rules of Procedure

Differences Between GA Rules and some Model UN Rules of Procedure

Quite often, the main difference between GA rules at the real UN and the Rules of Procedure used at many Model UNs is that the latter use parliamentary rules of procedure, such as Roberts Rules of Order. The UN is not a parliament and these rules, therefore, do not provide an appropriate format for guiding meetings at the UN.

GA Rules of Procedure are simpler than the parliamentary rules often used in Model UN conferences. For one, GA rules only have one procedural point, called a Point of Order (Some Model UN conferences may include Points of Information, Points of Inquiry and Points of Privilege). In addition, at the UN speakers do not yield time to another speaker and motions are not required to be seconded.

Some differences are superficial. Although a delegate cannot raise a point of information in a formal meeting, they can ask any question they want of another delegate during an informal meeting. Thus, from an educational perspective, a Model UN delegate still has the opportunity to enhance their learning by asking questions of other delegates as long as it occurs in the appropriate context.

Other differences are more meaningful. Within the context of the GA, every Member State has one vote regardless of how large or small they are. Seconding motions may make sense in a parliamentary forum where an assembly may not want to waste time on motions that only one person wants. However, in the context of the UN GA, each delegation represents an entire nation. Given the level playing field established by the principle of “one country, one vote,” requiring motions to be seconded would contradict this principle. As a result, each Member State has the right to table a draft resolution or an amendment to a resolution without needing it to be seconded by another Member State. Many Model UN conferences require a certain number of signatures before a resolution or amendment can be tabled. While co-sponsors are common at the UN, this is not a requirement.

Likewise, any Member State can make a motion such as requesting a vote on a draft resolution or an amendment without requiring another Member State to second it. In parliaments, if there is no one to second a motion it is not considered by the assembly. At the UN all it takes is one Member State to put forward a motion for it to be considered. Again, this is based on the principle that each Member State has the same right to bring a matter before the GA for consideration as long as it is related to an item on the GA’s agenda.

At some Model UN conferences, the Rules of Procedure figure much more prominently in the proceedings than they do at the UN. While part of the reason for this is due to the use of parliamentary procedures, another reason for it is that most of the proceedings in Model UN conferences take place during formal meetings, which increases the need to introduce motions during formal meetings. Because much of the negotiation process at the UN occurs during informal consultations, there is less of a need to introduce various motions during formal meetings. For example, because the great majority of decisions at the UN are made by consensus, motions dealing with amendments are less frequent than they are during some Model UN conferences.

One final difference that has been observed between the way meetings are conducted at the UN compared to some Model UN conferences relates to the extent of power given to the presiding officer. In some Model UN conferences, the Chair’s decisions are final. At the UN, a presiding officer, like the PGA or the Chair of a Committee, serves at the discretion of Member States. Presiding officers can make recommendations and rule on points of order but any decision they make can be appealed by any Member State and put to a vote by the full membership. This is an important principle that needs to be emphasized in Model UN conferences. The power of the GA lies with the Member States. Giving presiding officers final say on any matter contradicts this basic GA principle.