Specialized Agencies [2]
In MUNs, and more specifically at HMUN, specialized bodies and agencies are much smaller and fast-paced committees that are designed to meet the needs of and suit delegates with higher intellectual ability and nimble decision-making skills in specialized and skill-warranting areas. These committees simulate formal debate in the Model United Nations manner, but within a very narrow and demanding mandate. They require delegates who are able to think in a critical manner and who are able to solve issues with the help of other delegates that may be extremely difficult to resolve, usually containing many interconnected factors.
Rather than being committees of general debate, specialized bodies are those that have very specific and particular needs or demands that must be resolved. Debate within specialized agencies is policy-heavy and evidence-based, with a path toward what is encouraged to be accomplished through the resolution. Here, resolutions are detailed plans and not just ideas meant to solve an issue. This means that they contain everything from who acts, how programs are funded, where they are implemented, how they are implemented, and how success is monitored, among other details.
Overall, specialized agencies warrant a higher level of research, precision, and diplomacy in order to resolve real-world problems in the most appropriate and efficient manner possible. This includes aligning national policy with the agency’s mandate, building expert-driven blocs, and proposing solutions that could realistically be adopted and implemented in the real world.
Some committees that would be considered specialized agencies include:
- UNICEF, children’s rights, health, education, and protection
- World Health Organization (WHO), global health and disease control
- UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), human rights protection and violations
- UN Women, gender equality and women’s empowerment
- UNESCO, education, culture, and heritage
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nuclear safety and non-proliferation [2]
Crisis Committees [2]
Crisis committees are some of the most difficult, demanding, and competitive committees in MUNs. They simulate highly volatile and fragile situations, or more specifically, a crisis that is seen to rapidly change in factors and circumstances. Here, delegates must respond to unfolding events as they are presented to the committee after the commencement of formal debate, rather than follow a fixed agenda. The body operates in a state of constant uncertainty driven by frequent crisis updates released at consecutive intervals that escalate and alter the situation. The committee has a tendency to be extremely unhinged and unpredictable, which makes it difficult to adapt to. A major factor contributing to this is that, unlike General Assembly committees, regional bodies, and specialized agencies, the actual topic, basis, and circumstances of the formal debate are only fully disclosed after the committee session begins. This implies that a delegate can never be fully prepared for what is thrown his or her way, just as would be the case in a real-world developing crisis.
The delegates sent to represent crisis committees are often, and must be, extremely talented and possess an elevated level of intellect and expeditious problem-solving skills, with an undoubtedly open mindset and the ability to apply critical thinking from all perspectives when a crisis update is presented to him or her. This is essential in order to avoid developing the crisis into a fast-paced nosedive and accelerating it into a more problematic situation. Delegates must be able to think very rapidly and in ways that the average person would not, making crisis committees exceptionally rigorous and difficult to compete in, especially with reduced prior knowledge and the need to solve problems within an ephemeral time frame. In crisis committees, delegations are rarely taken up as countries, but rather as governments, individuals, or figures that are directly related to a particular crisis. At HMUN specifically, these committees usually simulate formal debate in an extremely parliamentary manner and follow a sequence that is quite unchanging and rigid, as if the cabinet of crisis members were actually responding to a real, ongoing crisis.
Debate in crisis committees is very formal and highly action-oriented, as delegates are technically responding to a developing crisis where all actions must be taken with urgency and precision to resolve the situation. Instead of long speeches and resolutions, crisis committees mitigate crises through directives and crisis notes. Success depends on speed, persuasion, and strategic thinking rather than procedural mastery, as crisis committees are highly unpredictable and do not follow a standard procedural foundation in the same manner as other committees.
It is highly unlikely that a crisis committee would operate with double delegations, as most procedures are heavily individual-oriented and benefit singular decision-makers. Managing two delegates sharing one role would be extremely difficult. As a result, double delegations in crisis committees are considered a rarity due to the committee’s complexity and demanding nature.
Overall, crisis committees require delegates to react with extreme speed and agility to constantly changing situations and crisis updates. They are generally not suited to all types of people, as not everyone can be a successful crisis delegate. It takes a combination of talent, critical thinking, hard work, preparation, research, and dedication. While increased experience in MUNs or formal debate may make it slightly easier to adapt to crisis bodies, they are widely considered the hardest of all committee types, not only in MUNs but also when compared conceptually to real-world decision-making bodies.
Crisis committees in MUNs are usually historical or based on events and crises that have already occurred, such as World War I, World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Imperial Japanese Cabinet, and the French Revolution.
Some crisis committees focus on future-based scenarios, including AI governance crises, space warfare or space security councils, climate collapse crises, and cyberwarfare crises.
Others are fictional or ad-hoc in nature and often relate to national or global security, such as zombie apocalypses, dystopian world governments, corporate boardroom crises, or fictional UN emergency councils.
However, in the real United Nations, crisis cabinets always operate in the present tense and deal with real-world situations. These cabinets are composed of highly professional, skilled, and specialized individuals with strong logical and decision-making abilities. This makes crisis committees, both in simulation and in reality, not suited for the weak-minded due to their constantly changing, demanding, and exponentially volatile nature. [2]
