Recognition of shortcomings
We aim to keep in center some professional focuses when it comes to organising our conferences. That is why we strive to learn from our peers and our own mistakes which is why we always seek and reach better solutions for challenges lying ahead of us. When it comes to realism, creativity and engaging topics, we have to take into consideration that solely simulating bodies of the United Nations, and discussing topics already talked through by appointed professionals, may not lead to a sufficient educational outcome. This is true as, on one hand, today’s world order is highly influenced by actors both above and under the state level whom we have to include in the discussion, and on the other hand, we have to put issues into a different perspective to offer our participants an opportunity to resolve issues of the 21st Century. That is why at Munapest, we always felt that we must not lean back and be satisfied with simulating the UN as it has been for decades. To keep the whole idea interesting, we aimed to make it more life-like which has led to many new aspects taken into consideration. As our delegations have travelled around the world, we gathered knowledge from all the MUN societies, to whom we are very grateful, and tried to combine the best parts of the innovations with our own ideas. That has led to a system which is becoming more coherent by every year it is tested.
Solution: MUN 2.0
The cornerstone of 2.0 is the idea of “Interconnectivity”. The expression indicates that every action taken by a participant, a committee or a council (by us the latter two are collectively referred to as chambers) may have an effect on any represented state, any chambers or on the main narrative of the conference itself. Therefore, when it comes to determining chambers and topics of the conference we not only have to take into consideration the relevance and thrillingness of certain issues but also their connectedness to other such topics that we would like participants to discuss. The whole conference, therefore, has to have one big narrative, let it be a continent or a major dynamic in world affairs, to keep the whole conference leading into one direction. This is first and foremost an opportunity, but also a burden. It is a burden because such major chains of events are limited in number, therefore we decided that we should include minor changes to real life events which might further our cause in a way that does not harm the conference’s life-like nature.
This is one of the main reasons we include the “Crisis” which serves at many levels at once. The “Diverging Reality” concept gives us a chance to connect dots before the conference starts to lay down the grounds on which participants will have the chance to test their knowledge in previously unexpected situations. Furthermore, with the “Reactive Crisis”, delegates are given a chance to handle certain issues interactively and to understand the magnitude of a single decision by calculating possible outcomes that they might have to face after they have made a decision. Having this reaction based system with minor escalations during the conference allows us to engage states and participants that might not be sufficiently active, to reward those who are acting wisely and to punish the rash and irrational decision-makers.
When it comes to solving crises, the cooperation and steps taken by a chamber might not be enough, or might even be counterproductive. If a state might have difficulties convincing a whole chamber of their opinion, they can always turn to bilateral or smaller scale multilateral collaborations which might end up in “Treaties” being written with which they are capable to tackle their individual or mutual challenging situations.
Of course, for many actions to have consequences, money is of utmost importance. Involving an “Economic Chamber” within the conference raises the stakes of each and every decision made, its delegates will be responsible for the investment of their respective states’ financial resources into the most promising deals of the conference.
For delegations to coordinate their efforts to tackle the many challenges we throw on them, we established a position within their delegation solely responsible for the coordination, communication and representation of the whole delegation. The group of participants form a new body called the “Diplomatic Corps”.
Of course, in any established formation, such as delegations, one may not have as much information and knowledge to have the same weight during decision-making which led us to the creation of a “Hierarchy” within delegations.
For participants to be fully informed of all events at all times, we introduced the “Press Corps” which also consists of participants whose task is to be the eyes and ears of the conference and let no event and no person stay undetected.
Our Reforms
Diplomatic Corps
Economic System
Press Corps
Crisis System
Treaties
