The research separates serious delegates from the rest before debate begins. This module is a two-hour, five-source methodology that produces a complete foreign-policy brief on any country — and it is the foundation of every speech, every position paper, every clause you'll write.
- Produce a complete country brief on any nation in two focused hours.
- Find and read your country's actual UN voting record on a topic.
- Distinguish what your country says from what it does — and account for both.
- Identify the red lines that constrain your country's room for manoeuvre.
Why country research is the foundation
Every other module in the YIMUN curriculum rests on this one. Position papers without research are wallpaper. Speeches without research are performance. Clauses without research are slogans. The research itself is the leverage — and most delegates do not know how to do it efficiently.
The good news: foreign-policy research is a finite skill. It is the same five-source methodology every time, and it gets faster with reps. The first country brief takes you four hours. The fifth takes ninety minutes.
The country brief — five questions to answer
Every country brief, regardless of country or topic, answers the same five questions. Once you have these answered, you have everything you need.
- What is the country's stated position on this topic — in its own diplomatic language?
- What is its actual record — voting history, treaty commitments, real-world action?
- What are its underlying interests — economic, geographic, domestic-political, ideological?
- What is its bloc context — natural allies, structural opponents, swing relationships?
- What are its red lines — what will it never agree to, and why?
If your brief answers these five questions in plain language and three sentences each, you are ready for committee.
The five sources, in order
Read these in order. Each one builds on the previous. Most delegates skip the first two and start with secondary analysis — which is why their research is shallow.
Source 1 — The UN voting record
The UN Digital Library is searchable by country and topic. Find the most recent five resolutions on your topic and check how your country voted. Yes, no, abstain, or absent — and whether they explained their vote. The voting record alone usually tells you 70% of the position. Most delegates never check it.
Source 2 — The country's GA general debate statement
Every September, every UN member state delivers a statement to the General Assembly's general debate. The transcripts are searchable on the UN's official website. Read the most recent three years of statements from your country. The lines repeated across years are policy; the lines that change are signals.
Source 3 — The foreign ministry's topic page
Almost every foreign ministry has a website with a "topics" or "policy" section. Read the official line. The wording matters as much as the content — pay attention to the verbs the ministry uses, the priority order of concerns, the qualifications and reservations.
Source 4 — One reputable analysis
One — not five. Pick one substantial think-tank piece on your country's position from the past two years. The credible options: Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House, International Crisis Group, IISS, Carnegie Endowment, the European Council on Foreign Relations, the Stimson Center. Avoid Wikipedia as a primary source.
Source 5 — One news article from the past 12 months
Reuters, AP, BBC, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, AFP, Bloomberg, the Economist. Look for changes — a new minister, a recent statement, a treaty signature, an aid commitment. Recent shifts are often the most useful information you bring into committee, because most delegates won't have them.
The two-hour budget
Allocate roughly: 30 minutes voting record, 25 minutes GA statements, 15 minutes foreign ministry, 30 minutes analysis, 20 minutes news. Two hours, five sources, complete brief.
Reading the UN voting record
The voting record is the single most underused source in MUN research. Three things to look for:
- Pattern. Does your country consistently vote with one bloc? With multiple? Does it abstain frequently? Abstention itself is a position.
- Explanations of vote. When countries explain their votes, the record is gold. Read the explanations carefully — they reveal the underlying reasoning, not just the conclusion.
- Anomalies. A country that votes against its bloc on a specific issue tells you which interest is overriding bloc loyalty. That interest is your country's real priority.
What countries say vs. what they do
Mature country research holds two facts in tension. The country's stated position — its diplomatic public line — is usually principled, multilateral, idealistic. The country's actual position — its voting, its bilateral deals, its budget — is usually narrower, harder, more interest-driven.
Strong delegates argue from the stated position in public speeches and from the actual position in caucus negotiation. The chair watches for both. A delegate who only repeats the stated line sounds like a press release; a delegate who only argues the actual line sounds cynical. The art is calibrating between them.
Example — France on climate finance
Stated position: France strongly supports ambitious climate finance and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Actual record: France has missed its own climate finance commitments three of the past five years and tends to favour loan-based instruments over grant-based.
A serious delegate of France argues the stated position publicly, then negotiates in caucus around the gap — perhaps offering loan-based mechanisms with concessional terms, defending the principle while protecting the instrument.
Identifying red lines
Red lines are the things your country will not agree to under any circumstances. Every country has them. Knowing yours is what stops you from negotiating yourself into a corner.
Look for red lines in three places:
- Constitutional commitments. Some positions are written into a country's constitution or foundational law — neutrality, non-alignment, nuclear policy, religious establishment. These don't move.
- Vetoed resolutions. If a country has used its UNSC veto on a topic, that's a hard red line. If it has voted against a near-unanimous GA resolution, the line is almost as hard.
- Public statements with "never" or "under no circumstances." Diplomatic language is calibrated; absolute phrasings signal genuine red lines.
Mapping your country's bloc
No country is alone. Before you arrive in committee, you should know the four to six countries you would naturally work with on this topic. Build the map.
- List the formal blocs your country belongs to — G77, NAM, EU, AU, ASEAN, OIC, BRICS, SIDS, LDCs, Annex I.
- Within each bloc, identify the two or three countries that share your specific interest on this topic — not just the bloc's general position.
- Identify two or three countries outside your natural blocs whose interests on this topic happen to align. These are your highest-leverage potential allies — non-obvious, harder to predict, more meaningful when found.
The one-page dossier
Compress your research onto a single printed page. The constraint is the point — if you can't fit your country brief on one page, you don't yet know it well enough.
Country dossier · template
Country: [name] | Topic: [topic] | Committee: [body]
Stated position: [2 sentences]
Actual record: [voting summary, treaty position, recent action]
Underlying interests: [3 bullets — economic, geographic, political]
Red lines: [3 bullets]
Natural allies: [4-6 countries with one-line reasoning each]
Likely opponents: [3-5 countries]
Three operative-clause ideas: [your proposals, phrased as resolution clauses]
Sources used: [5 citations]
Print it. Carry it into committee. The chair will not see it, but every clause you author and every speech you deliver will be visibly grounded in research.
Common research mistakes
- Starting with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is fine for orientation but should never be a primary source. Chairs notice when a position paper paraphrases Wikipedia.
- Skipping the voting record. The most common mistake. The record is one search away and tells you 70% of the position.
- Confusing the stated position for the actual one. Reading only press releases produces a cartoon of the country's position.
- Ignoring the most recent year. Foreign policy shifts. A position from 2022 may not hold in 2026.
- Researching the topic without researching the country. The topic is the same for every delegate; the country isn't. Your edge is country-specific.
- Over-reading. Three more hours of reading after the first two does not produce a better brief — it produces a paralysed delegate who has not yet written the position paper. Stop researching at hour two; start writing.
Build your country brief.
This module's exercise is the methodology applied. Block two hours on your calendar. The product is a one-page dossier on a country other than your own — pick a country whose foreign policy you know nothing about. The harder the country, the better the practice.
- Choose your country and topic. Pick a country you have not researched before. Pick a current global topic — climate, AI governance, peacekeeping, refugees, debt restructuring. Name them both, in writing, before you start.
- Run the five sources, in order. Spend exactly the budgeted time on each. Resist the urge to skip ahead. Notes only — no writing yet.
- Reading the record. From the voting record alone, write three observations about your country's position you would not have guessed from press releases.
- The say-do gap. Identify one specific gap between your country's stated position and its actual record. Write 100 words explaining the gap.
- Compress to one page. Using the dossier template, produce a single printable page. The exercise is incomplete until the page exists physically — print it.
