MUN writing is a genre that earns its hedges. "The delegation believes", "acknowledges concerns regarding", "would welcome continued dialogue" — these are not weasel words; they are the conventions of multilateral language. The problem with model-drafted position papers is that the hedging applies uniformly, so nothing the delegation actually commits to comes through.
Two registers in one paper
A well-written position paper modulates between two registers in the same document. There are the diplomatic hedges where the country wants to leave space — "recognises a range of perspectives", "open to constructive proposals". And there are the commitments the country will not negotiate — "reaffirms its sovereign right to", "will not support any framework that". A skilled delegate makes those two registers audible. An unedited model output flattens them.
- Diplomatic hedges go around positions the delegation is willing to compromise on.
- Hard commitments go in the second half of the paper, where the operative recommendations sit.
- Treaty references and resolution numbers are stated verbatim — no hedging there at all.
Before
The delegation of Brazil acknowledges that there may be various perspectives on the issue and would welcome continued dialogue on potential frameworks that could address the multifaceted concerns of all member states in a balanced manner.
After
Brazil acknowledges the range of perspectives on emissions accounting raised by the G77. We would welcome continued dialogue on a framework that respects the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities principle established in UNFCCC Article 3.1 — but Brazil will not support any proposal that imposes equivalent obligations on developing and developed parties.