Pages 110-113.
States sometimes feel the need to gather together with other similar states who also have the same interests. These events or gatherings are called "summits." In this lesson, we will learn about the basic way they function, key examples, and criticisms.
Evaluation:
As a class we'll watch and discuss the issue that is illustrated in the following video. Then, students will have to use their created accounts to participate in a forum discussion. The guiding question will be:
Are international summits a good way to solve issues like this one, or is there a better way? If so, what? Why?
Students will receive full grades if their contribution to the discussion is relevant and thoughtful (even if it's just one post). Students will receive no grades if their contribution to the discussion is empty, thoughtless, irrelevant, or if it - in any way, shape, or form - even suggests a hint of jack-assery.
To comment (and receive marks) click on the "comments" link at the bottom of this entry. Then simply post your comment.
I do think that an international summit would be a good way to solve this conflict. Although, I would suggest a "G6" summit featuring all 6 countries. A G20 or G8 summmit would not work since some of the countries that are part of the conflict are not represented.
ReplyDeleteYes, an international summit would be an efficient way in solving an issue like this one; to find a reasonable way in distributing areas of the north pole evenly to the 6 countries in which they are surrounding it. Those 6 countries can discuss amongst themselves in order to reach a consensus.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that an international summit would be a good way to solve this problem because everything they discuss is non-binding. I agree with Daniel that maybe the 6 countries can have a summit of their own, but it is unlikely that they'll come to an agreement anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that an international summit would solve this problem because they all want the same thing all for themselves. So obviously, they would all propose a solution that would benefit their own country. Even if most of the countries agree on one solution, the one country that doesn't agree does not have to follow the "rules" of that solution because the "rules" are non-binding anyway. Though I do not see an international summit to be a good way to solve the problem, I do not see any other way to solve it because there isn't any use to bring in countries that aren't part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteI do not think an international summit would solve would resolve this issue due to all of the facts stated above. Everything discussed is non-binding, they wish only to benefit themselves in every way possible, and simply it would take to long to come up with a solution.I don't find there will be some other kind of solution because even if other countries were brought in, they'd want something in return or they'd simply choose not to help because it has nothing to do with them. Just to prove it, the first video states they were to submit there claims in 2009, and still nothing has been done.
ReplyDeleteMassimo Polito says:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with emily on this topic. The international summit of the G8 consists of: Great Britain, Russia, Canada, France, America, Italy, Japan and Germany. The G20 consists of the G8 and 11 emerging countries and the european union. Most of the countries in the G8 and the G20 are not affected by this issue. There would be too many opinions on this issue if the G8 or G20 were involved. Like Daniel said, there should be a G6 involving all of the 6 countries that are involved in this issue so that they can make their own decisions and divide the oil equally for themselves.
Amber-Lee Di Paolo 54:
ReplyDeleteI think an international summit is an extremely good idea. A place where countries can get together and talk about their problems without chaos ensuing like in the UN where there are 193 countries is an amazing idea. You can fix many problems democratically this way. I think there should be gatherings of the countries involved not only a G8 or a G20. If 14 countries are not getting along or are having big problems there should be a G14, even in Europe without the European union (which is unfair to Norway because this country is not included.) Who ever has a criticism to this amazing idea is only complaining to complain. Just helping themselves, exclusivity, no mandate? I don’t think so. Why can’t leaders of countries get around a table and talk their problems out and hopefully fixing their problems without anyone getting mad about it? For example, it the case of splitting the oil in the arctic a G6 would be a good idea to talk about their “scientific evidence.” If they can come up with a good way to splitting the oil in the arctic amongst themselves that would be great. And if Russia or Canada happens to get more piece of the oil they can come up with an agreement with the other 6 countries. Maybe they can get the oil cheaper because they didn’t get as much and they will all be happier that way. Between themselves they can come up with something to make all of them happy. Anyway, even if the agreements are non-binding an agreement with six countries will most likely be followed through.
This will never happen because every country is in it for themselves. Russia or the States (who are 2 powerful countries) will never just want a little piece of the oil. Oil, in the next decades, will be something that will be very expensive to buy. These international summits are by far one of the worst things to have because these "rules" or "laws" that they agree on are non binding agreements. Even if they have an agreement, most of the countries will not follow it because, who will stop them from not following these rules. For example, Russia gets the larger part of the oil, but Canada doesnt care and take a chunk of that oil. Would you think Russia would use force or just let it be.These summits will never ever work. Too many flaws and every country cares about their own personal gain, rather then helping others.
DeleteInternational summits can solve many international problems. However, it is very difficult to come up with a solution for a big worldwide problem. The countries involved in the summits are very powerful countries. I don’t think a solution can be found by having a gathering with these different countries. The problem in the arctic is a very big problem where territories of oil can be given to 6 different countries. Canada and Russia are in pole position for the largest territories that can be distributed. This makes sense, as Canada and Russia are the closest to the arctic, also because they are the two biggest countries in the world. As Waked states in his example, anything can happen with this oil. There isn’t any form of government in the North Pole that can decide who gets which part of the land and distribute it equally. These summits will not solve a situation like this one, and will take a lot of time for any other situation to be resolved. They only meet once a year, which is very little time to sit and discuss about the problems worldwide. These countries can gather and help each other, but most importantly they take care of their own countries needs. Yes they will help others but they will do what’s best for them first!
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't think a international summit will solve a problem like this one. When something valuable, like oil, is on the line I don't think any of the 6 countries will willingly back out of it. They could have a summit with just the 6 countries but even a that there's too much at stake for it to be decided by a simple meeting. No matter how this problem gets solved, atleast 1 or 2 countries will be upset about the decision.
ReplyDeleteAshley Giancotti says:
ReplyDeleteI don't belive that the international summit is a good solution. mainly because everything they come up with is non-binding so this would not exactly solve anything in terms opf a concrete solution. I do agree with daniel that this is a difficult situation for the G8 or G20 because some of the countries present in the 2 group will not be affected by the distribution of territory as well that some of the contries that are eligable for the oil are not represented by the G8 or G20. Although a G6 would also be difficult because each country would want more for there country. As biased as this may sound i do belive that canada and russia and should get larger parts of the territory because we are the closest to the north pole, and are also part of the biggest contries in the world.
Giulia Heinritzi 54: I think that the 6 countries should form an organization in charge of this situation. All decisions in this organization is binding, where the majority will rule. The organization will be responsible for the production and the protection of the environment. I think what the 6 countries should do is take the amount of oil that is needed according to the size of their population, there should not be any over production but only sustainable production and what is left behind is left behind.
ReplyDeleteI do think that international summits are a good way to solve problems like this one, only if it includes just the necessary countries. For example, the issue involving the oil, there should be a G6 or something like that just for the 6 countries involved in the oil debate. Although, if this organization were to follow the rules like the other international summits, then the resolutions would be non-binding and there still wouldn't be a solid decision. Plus, it would be pretty hard to find a solution that would please all 6 countries because they want the largest amount of oil out of everyone else so there's always going to be some conflict. I'm not sure if there's a better way to deal with it, other than distributing the oil in a fair way, either equally or depending on the size of their population. If they were to create their own summnit, there should be decent rules so something could get done and settled.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alessandra. I do not think that the internation summit should be involved in this particular issue because not all 6 countries are part of the international summit. Instead they can create something like the G8 and have all 6 countries present. This way all 6 came come to a conclusion as to how they will split the territory.
DeleteI don't think that an international summit would be an efficient way to solve this issue because not all of the 6 countries are equally represented by the G8 and so the countries that are not properly represented will easily be overruled by the countries that are.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michael Waked, that oil will be more expensive to buy, and an International Summit wouldn't be so fair, or solve the problem. There is an opportunity to get a large amount of oil, all of the six surrounding countries will want to get as much of it as they can. Dividing the oil equally among the six countries would not solve things because why settle for less or a little amount, when they can get all of it? I simply think that an International Summit would not solve this problem. Creating a G6 with the six countries wouldn't solve anything really, because it would take long for anyone to actually come up with an agreement over the oil since they all want it.
ReplyDeleteRegina Kandiah 54: I agree with most of the people from above that the best and most civilized solution would be to create a G6 summit. Although it sounds like a satisfying idea, in reality everything doesn't go as plan. There's different things to consider and different countries different desires. We all want something and in this case they all want the same thing which can lead to no actions actually being done. However as a young adult with different views and high ambitious i think all six countries should share but should take in consideration population,economy,...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Daniels idea that forming a G6 which represents the six countries could help resolve this dispute over Antarctica. However countries who have more power for example Russia might use this power to obtain what they want. In the end if the powerful countries want something forming a G6 wouldn`t be really helpful.
ReplyDeleteAn international Summit would not be a great idea because not all 6 countries are involved but creating a G6 like most people said would be a good idea because they can discuss the issue and come to an agreement where there is an equal investement and an equal profit. If everybody invests the same amount of money then every country will get the same amount of oil.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of an international summit in this specific dispute wouldnt be a very good idea because all the rules and laws that are created by this summit are non-binding. Like many of my classmated have stated, a G6 would be a better idea because of the equality that factors in. Although this seems like a good solution, many times the more powerful countries might think to them selves' why get abit when i can get it all.' In this specific conflict for example, Russia might want all of the land and say that they were there first.
ReplyDeleteI don't think an international summit would solve any disputes! Nothing would get resolved as all of their solutions are non binding. It would be a waste of time and money. How they can decide who gets what piece of the arctic can be determined geographically and mathematically. Russia and Canada should have the greatest part of this as their territory occupies most of the arctic (see map on video 2).
ReplyDeleteJulianna Valsorda says:
ReplyDeleteI dont think that the international summits would be a good way to solve this problem. Anything that they would come up with would be totally useless since it is non-binding and also their solution would only be beneficial to the countries in that specific summit. To solve this problem, i think that these 6 countries should make their own summit (G6) and resolve this problem on their own instead of bothering the countries that make up the G8/G20.
I don't think that the international summit would solve this problem, because it is non-binding, and like almost everyone else stated they should make a G6 because those 6 countries are the only countries involved with this problem.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere's no real solution for this. Each of the 6 countries want their own part of the "land," really. If the G6 was created, they would all disagree with each other and a solution would not be made, for a long while anyway. As Sabrina Polizzi said earlier, they should just determine who gets the oil geographically and mathematically.
ReplyDeleteWhat you fail to see is that international summits don't work for the same reason Communism doesn't work; people are greedy and want everything for themselves. A G6 could solve this problem, but only if they would be able to settle their differences and make a conscientious decision that would not only benefit their own country but others as well. If these countries' leaders are mature & smart enough to run a country, they should be able to hold a summit where shit actually happens without sulking into their corners like children because they can't get what they want. Compromise is key. If countries could compromise, summits would be much more effective.
DeleteWhat you fail to see is that the whole idea of an international summit is not compromise but in fact dealing with things appropriately and respectively. I agree with Lisa: if a country can prove scientifically and geographically that a certain area is a continuation of their geophysical area, then it belongs to them. Nice and simple. International summits don't always work because idiots are in charge. Communism has never been attempted therefore you can't say whether or not it would work, moreover if it works or not. And come on, the whole goal of a country is to attain as much power, territory and goods as it can, not compromise(if I could italicize I'd italicize compromise).
DeleteWhat you fail to realize is that the geographical laws make the countries boundaries overlap each other in that area. This is why the issue is not yet resolved, otherwise it would have been a long time ago.
DeleteI'm not saying that the decision will be taken fairly, i don't believe it will. However, right now, the G6 is the best bad option we have.
Paolo Petrone says:
ReplyDeleteI do not think that an international summit would resolve this problem. Each of the 6 countries is claiming a share of oil and would most certainly not be content if they were to receive less than their claim. The duties of the countries are to get as much as they can and provide as much as they can for their people. That being said, creating a G6 would only worsen the dilemma and create a bigger dispute over who gets what. This is an extremely complicated situation and there should be a lot of thinking done before a consensus is reached.
Samantha Ternar says:
ReplyDeleteI do not find an international summit would help this situation since the decisions are non binding. The two countires with the most power may come to an agreement but if the others dont they will nto follow along with the decisions made. Every country involved will want the northpole and will fight for it, therefor an international summit will just make them get together to say that they all want it. Decisions are non binding therefore what is the point.
No, the international summits would not help this situation because of the decisions that are non-binding. Due to the facts above, there is no decision made which means that it will be difficult for a decision to be made as for the international summit is not worth anything and won't change anything either.
ReplyDeleteAn international summit would probably not be a solution, but having them all come together and discuss the issue might lead to one. Until all the countries come to an agreement of some sort, it is likely that nobody will take possession of the territory. For example; if all the countries come to an agreement that they can all equally share the resources without any controversy and arguments, then it should be done. I doubt that anything would happen though, seeing as their decisions are non-binding and if a country would not agree to the decision, they would not have to follow it.
ReplyDeleteVittoria Gioia: I think that the international summits is a good idea to a certain extent. I do not believe that they do what is best for other countries and they only care about theirs. For the oil, I believe that having an international summit would not do anything considering that all the countries are greedy and want the whole thing for themselves, instead of sharing it. I do not think this issue would ever be solved unless one of the countries declare war and everyone dies. I agree with what most of the people above me are explaining and have a reasonable opinion. That is all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with James, it can't be a solution but it would be a great idea to have these countries come together and make their own international summit to discuss a solution. Of course it would take some time to come up with one. In a way, the countries closest to it such as Russia, Canada, Greenland and maybe the U.S have the easiest access to it. It would be best to divide the area evenly though, so each country is happy, but some way or another, one of them will have something to say and the argument can go on for a long time before they finally come to a solution that satisfies each country.
ReplyDeleteSabina Montaruli says:
ReplyDeleteI believe that an international summit might not create a solution to this issue, considering that the solutions brought up are non-binding, but I do believe that if an international summit was held with the six countries involved, it certainly wouldn't hurt. A problem like this one, including land and oil, could very easily result in war. So instead of all these six counties racing teach other to see who the land "belongs" to, maybe if they sat down at an international summit and starting discussing solutions, they could maybe reach an agreement of some sort. But even if they don't, I don't believe there is any harm in trying it.
Cristina D'Amato says:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that International Summits would be a good idea to solve this issue due to the fact that countries have the choice to not follow the rules(non-binding), so nothing will ever get done anyways. Also, since all 6 countries are fighting for the territory that they would like to claim, they won't make decisions according to what would be best, and their decisions would be entirely selfish. However, lets face it, there isn't any other way to solve this problem though, because it is completely unnecessary to involve other countries since the issue doesn't concern them in any way.
I don't think an international summit would be a good way to solve issues like this one. Everything they discuss is non-binding. Not everyone in the G8 and G20 are effected by the issue in the North Pole, so having a meeting would be entirely useless. Only 6 countries are effected so it should only be them discussing what has to be done. Although their decisions would be selfish because they would only do things that benefit their country. Personally I think they should just divide it so everyone has an equal amount of land.
ReplyDeletei don't think that international summits would be able to help resolve this issue, all their decisions are non-binding anyways so nothning is going to be done, they're just wasting their time. instead they should each have an area that corresponds to the amount of space the country is taking up. for example russia had a big part of their country touching the space that they want, so theyre going to have an amount according to how much space there is. if you only have a small corner touching the space, you're going to have a small area.
ReplyDeleteVanessa Doherty says:
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the international summit would be a great solution for this issue. Not because they wouldn't decide on a good and fair solution for each country but because all of them want the piece of land they think is due to them and not less. By example, the international summit decides that Russia will get the portion of land they believe is due to them, but now Canada will get mad because they lost a piece of what THEY thought was due to them, and since the decisions are non-binding they(Canada) will find a way to go around it and continue disputing of that matter so they could get that piece of land back. So, in the end it wouldn't solve the issue, it would maybe even be worse now since the other countries will complain to the international summit why Russia got the portion of land they wanted but not the rest of them. Though I believe they should just share all of it equally (so much more fair and simple), I doubt that would happen because we today live in a world where people (and countries)are greedy and wants more money to acquire more power out it. So I think that this issue will take many and MANY more years, if not ever, to finally agree on a solution that pleases everyone.
As many have mentioned above, I don't think an international summit will resolve this type of problem.
ReplyDeleteThey all wish to benefit themselves to the fullest and will not agree to take a little piece of oil when they can have it all to themselves, especially that oil is becoming more and more valuable as the years go by.
Another reason to why this won't work is because the resolutions are non-binding. Nobody is going to take these solutions into consideration when they have the opportunity to have a lot more.
In my opinion, the 6 countries have to come together to reach a consensus and resolve this problem.
Following what Emily and Daniel had said, I don't think that an international summit would be a good way to solve this problem. Firstly because they are all in competition to be granted and claim as much land as possible following scientific and diplomatic facts,proof and evidence beyond land territory. This will obviously lead to a dispute as to who was there first and who deserves this "piece of land" that is rich in oil and gas in the Arctic since global warming is making it more accessible.
ReplyDeleteAnd secondly because everything they discuss is non-binding. This is where I agree with Daniel that maybe the 6 countries can have a summit of their own, but it is unlikely that they'll come to an agreement anytime soon because each country pushes their own interests.
I don't think that international summits will resolve any issues due to the fact that most of their decisions are non-binding and no country would follow their decision. Also, it would not be fair that everyone would get the same amount of oil and there are countries that bigger than others. It would be great to separate the oil equally however it would be too chaotic given that some countries want/need it more than others. Then again, like Amber-Lee mentioned, they can separate the oil equally, but then it would definitely create some type of controversy. It would be lovely to have a perfect world where everyone can share, but being realistic, it would be extremely difficult to happen.
ReplyDeleteThanks, peace out peeps!
An International Summit is the best way to reach a consensus to solve any problem that competes to not only one country, but in this case, six different States. Therefore an international summit with all the six countries with a percentage of the North Pole, should be the best way to find a fair solution for all the countries who deserve a piece of that certain area.
ReplyDeleteI think that an international summit might be a good way to solve a problem like this. Although its non binding, the countries will be able to own a certain fair percentage of this land but the only way this would work is if they compromise and don't get greedy but we all know that is something very rare.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that the international summits should get involved in this situation because I don’t think anything will get solved. Having 6 countries fight for this oil will only result in arguments and decisions that are best for no one else but themselves. This wouldn’t be a good idea also because any decision made is non-binding and the countries would not have to follow it. One solution mentioned was that they can separate the oil equally, but as fair as that sounds I believe it isn’t because of the different sizes and needs of the 6 countries.
ReplyDeleteI think an international summit is a good way to solve issues like this. The decisions may not be binding but that doesn’t mean they can’t agree on the same thing. An international summit is the best way because all six countries would have a chance to talk and debate who gets which section of the Arctic. The best case scenario would be if everyone got some of the Artic according to the size of their state. If all the countries agreed on getting the land that they claimed in the beginning everyone would be happy and each country would get some of the oil and gasses thought to be at the bottom of the Arctic.
ReplyDeleteOf course is the general idea of an international summit great. It is the best way to find peacefully a solution for a problem between various states. But that is just the theoratically thinking. I am sure that eery states try to get the best and the most for itself. Especially in a case like this, every state want to have as much as possible becuase oil will become even more valuable than it already is. And all the states need more money so why should Iceland or the U.S. give something to the other states. The best possibility to find a solution is in my opinion to ask scientists coming from other states to prove the different claims and then to find a solution which is supported by many states in the whole world to have a pressure on this 6 special states.
ReplyDeleteI think that the international summits are not a good idea to solve issues because a few of countries can not have a say for INTERNATIONAL issues. Using the G8 summits would be a great example. I disagree that Canada, U.S.A., France, Germany, Italy, U.K.,Japan, Russia and the E.U. can solve problems in other countries. Another example would be the issue of who posses the oil in the arctic. Since, Canada, U.S.A. and Russia are members of the G8, obviously this issue will come into account. Also, they would obviously not invite the other countries, since they want to get as much oil as possible. I suggest using the United Nations as the main meeting of all countries to discuss international affairs, conflicts, issues, also to start using binding resolutions would help a lot.
ReplyDeleteI think that it isn`t a good idea to use international summits to solve problems because the smaller and ``non rich`` countires dont have a say in what the international summit does even when it involes the smaller and ``non rich`` countries. I agree with what Joseph said because how can 6 countries solve problems of different countires when they`re not even in their position? They basically just make a judgement, and why would other countries have to make desicions for the smaller and ``non rich`` countries? Because they aren`t part of the G8 or G20. And id all their decisions are non-binding, there is no point, so there is no real solution for this. And making a G6 is a good idea but it wont get anything done and nothing would change, it would just cause more problems.
ReplyDeleteHaving international summits is a smart idea, but just like Mr.D'Anna always says ''nothing'' governs international relationships. So even if the G8 and a G20 agree with each other, nothing will really be done. The bad thing about these groups is that they seem to exist just for the countries and their leaders to make it seem like they have enough power to run their own groups. If all the countries part of these groups actually agreed to ONE fair solution and consented with the other countries that are involved in whatever problem they are willing to solve, then things would start to happen. Decision making leads you no where especially in this case. To get things done the leaders of each country will need to put their differences aside, respect each other, communicate and have a PHYSICAL/ACTIVE participation. So this group making is kind of like cliques in high school. It's cool while it lasts, and you might feel important being in it, but if you're excluded you'll want to be part, and since that's not possible you start your own clique. Hence not solving anything :)
ReplyDeleteGiuliano De Angelis:
ReplyDeleteAn international summit could potentially solve this particular situation because this would allow the countries to talk it over and present their scientific evidence. The reason why I say it has potential is because since nothing governs international relations, the out come is unpredictable. Perhaps the more powerful of the countries will decide to turn towards warfare and threats. Maybe the countries will decide to propose solutions that only benefit their own country. Maybe the countries will come to a fair agreement. I suppose we could say an international summit is a 'good' way of solving the problem but I do believe that there may be a better way to solve this problem. Instead of having get togethers and trying to sort out who owns what, the best way to do it is just going to the north pole and settling down. Since the borders are still officially undetermined, It should be a first come first serve kind of thing. If countries would chose to do this, the chances of war are minimal because the consequences are unpredictable. For example, Canada takes piece 1 of the north pole and starts drilling there. The United States takes piece 2. Both are happy. Russia comes in and wants piece 1, but Canada is already there. Would they really start a war in order to try to claim piece 1? Typically, no. Why? Because if Russia attempted to disturb everyone else by going to war against Canada, other countries would go against Russia. Just like in world war 2, as Germany tried to invade as much as they can. By disturbing the way of life in Europe, other countries like the United States and Canada got involved and etc.... The point is that if a country has already settled on a piece of the north pole and another country is against it, that's just too bad, because the only way anything is going to happen is by threats and war. And by doing so, allies will join and it might just influence a third world war. Nobody wants a third world war. That's why we have the some what useless United Nations. In conclusion, an international summit may be a good way to come to an agreement, but in the end since nothing governs international relations, countries may do as they please. But my opinion still stands, I think It should be a first come first serve for the north pole.
I like the idea of international summits cause in reality all the counties involved in them can potentially crush any of the other smaller ones militarily or economically so they don't actually matter. And not to mention that the European Union is in on the big G8s and G20s so all those countries are represented. And anyway any decision they come up with is non binding so they don't have to listen to any of the agreements made there. The only thing that's stopping the countries involved is the other countries and the possibility of war. So it does work but it could end up being useless because of the fact that no decision is concrete.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think international summits are fantastic... for the countries that are part of the summit. As for the other countries that are being affected, international summits suck. If there's an issue, EVERYONE that is involved should join together and speak through a decision that should be BINDING for the sole reason that everyone involved should have a fair and equal decision as to what is happening to their country. International Summits take care of the countries that are in the summit, but they have no right to make decisions that will affect others. It's fantastic that countries want to get together and talk through problems, but everyone that is involved should be invited, but that's just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Forlini says on October 23rd:
ReplyDeleteThe international summits will do nothing to solve this issue. The only two countries
fighting for this oil that has power over everyone is Canada and Russia. Not all of the 6
countries are equally represented by the G8 so some will have no say or power in this,
they will be overruled. No country wants to help another, they all think of themselves and
wouldn’t share any oil even if they had it.
Saverio Spinelli says on October 23rd:
ReplyDeleteI do not think that a G8 meeting is necessary for a situation like this, but rather a meeting with all of the countries bordering the arctic (Canada, U.S.A, Denmark, Russia, Norway and Iceland). This would be a fair way to distribute all of the oil evenly, and also create friendly relations between the 6 countries. I believe that 8 countries shouldn't have the power to control the whole world, but every country make there own decisions.
Domenico Giancola says on October 23rd:
ReplyDeleteI do not think that international relations should interfere with a situation involving a handful of countries I think they should all come together and have a assembly of just the countries that are directly related to the dilemma, this will in theory be as fair as possible. But I think that some countries (Russia) will take advantage of the situation for their own benefit.
Having an international summit in which countries gather in order to discuss and solve problems is a terrific idea. Who wouldn't want that? It promotes peace, social relations, international communication and getting things done on a larger scale with more money, people, and power. Of course having an international summit is a good thing because all of this is possible. I mean, wouldn't that be the assumed aim of an international summit? Without international communication, which is achieved by having an forum like the United Nations, we, as a planet--and a human race--avert from bombing the hell out of each other, which is a good thing. Of course this will never follow through because of the fallacies within most of these international summits and the fraudulent moral axis us humans obtain, but that's another story. For instance, now with the whole Arctic situation, it is better--not necessary, but better--to have a forum like this for diplomats to be civil and talk things through. Even with the international summit we will have people spying on each other and arguing. In theory, international summits are the best way to deal with these kinds of things simply because there is no other way. You can't have an international government because that would result in the few most powerful countries running the world. You need, however, people to govern these kinds of situations because if they are not dealt with things can get pretty ugly, and we've definitely seen that in the past. In a similar situation, look at Ol' Maggie. It was a big mess and all over a few small islands(look for the Falklands war for more information). Seeing as nothing seems to be really working, essentially what it comes down to is humanity and how we execute these kinds of things as fairly as possible.
ReplyDeleteI think that to solve with problem, the countries actually involved in the Arctic territories should be the only ones to discuss among themselves because nobody else has anything to do with it. It would be hopeless for other people to try and help because they aren't getting anything out of it so why should they try helping in the first place. I think that the 6 involved countries should just take the time to have a meeting and solve their problem in a civil way.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlexander D'Agostino:
ReplyDeleteI do believe that an international summit will help solve this conflict. I agree with Daniel D. that there should be a G6 for this conflict and not a G8 nor G20 since some countries are not part of these groups. Even if they would be a part of the G8 and G20, it wouldn't work since there would be too many countries there who are not relevant to the conflict and would just make coming up with a solution more difficult.
I think the international summit should come to an agreement for a mathematical formula to evenly distribute the land. That way none of the countries should complain that another country got more land than they deserved.
ReplyDeleteVictoria Guglielmi said on October 28th:
ReplyDeleteWith an international summit countries can get together and discuss international problems and eventually reach a consensus that will fix the problem. It sounds reasonable and effective, but when you go more in depth, you realize that an international summit might not be the best option in this case for several reasons. First of all, all decisions reached are non-binding so the solution they come up with might be of use temporarily, but won’t have any lasting long term effect. Secondly, some countries represented in the G20 and G8 will not be effected by any decisions made and therefore shouldn't be involved at all. In my opinion, the only countries that should be involved, should be the 6 countries affected. They should have their own separate meeting, where the solution is binding, takes the environment into consideration, and only a reasonable amount of oil is taken.
Thank you.
I feel that with an international summit, yes it can solve certain problms, however it will not be able to solve this problem. It will be up to the G8 because the G20 has no part in this and should just leave this to the 6 countries that are around the North Pole, which two are from the G8. Internationally, this is not an issue that will affect countries world wide, but this will only be around for the 6 countries around this place. I know that any state would love to have extra oil, which brings extra money, but i find that they shouldn't put their two sense into everything, especially when they are not a part of an issue in particular, like this one. So in conclusion, those six countries should talk amongs themselves, also using the influence of the G8, and make sure that they give the North Pole to a country that will put it to good use.
ReplyDeleteAs everything else in the entire world, international summits have their good and bad sides. Their good side is that in a way they are anti-war, because instead of doing what our ancestors would’ve done violently, these countries fight for certain things in a more polite way, and at least lives are spared. However, this does not mean I am in complete agreement with international summits. Before I begin with the bad things, let it be stated that they aren’t actually fighting for a territory. And no, not in the context of them fighting for the oil and not the actual land, although that is true, but we already knew that everybody just wants more oil so it isn’t really a huge shock. I mean they aren’t fighting for actual land because right now the ice is still there, and if I understood the video currently they are fighting for land that they want when the ice melts. SO, they are pretty much fighting based on what they think will happen; they are assuming the ice will melt based on year’s prior patterns, but it hasn’t and they are already making claims…what? Besides that factor, in agreement with what many other students comments, their decisions are non- binding anyhow. So these summits may act peaceful and fully functioning when in reality they can turn on each other at anytime which has a possibility of going to war. Normally, I stay out of what doesn’t affect me, but the possibility of going to war does. Also, when they drill for this oil under the ice, it will affect me because we don’t know what will happen. What if water levels rise and most of our land is flooded? I care about my family, and my safety and it is being affected by these kinds of decisions taken by certain summits. In the end, are summits a bad thing? No, not necessarily. However what they do is it good? No it is not. They have negative impacts on the environment, on the citizens and ultimately on each other and I think that we should just let it go, all territories are big enough as it is, we don’t need more land to bring us into further dept and destruction.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that an international summit would solve this problem because everything they discuss is non-binding. I believe they would all propose a solution that is beneficial for their own country and it will take a long time to come up with a solution. Furthermore, most of the countries in the G8 and the G20 are not affected by this issue. I honestly think that there would be way too many opinions on this issue, if the G8 or G20 were involved. In my opinion there should be a "G6" involving all of the 6 countries that are involved in this issue so that they can make their own decisions and divide the oil equally for themselves.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people would argue the fact that these summits are a waste of money and do not accomplish anything. I believe that there is no other way of discussing something peacefully without having to hold some sort of summit or "gathering", if you will. Although these summits can cause conflicts, there has to be a way to discuss things diplomatically.
ReplyDeleteSabrina Coppola says on October 30th:
ReplyDeleteI personally think that an international summit is a good and bad way to solve issues like this one. It is good because you have various opinions from all the 6 different countries and the bad thing is that it will be hard to come to a consensus, not to mention even if they do come to a consensus it is non-binding. So as a result i do not think having an international summit will help solve the problem. A solution as i read previously would be to split the oil equally but that may not work as some of the countries are not represented as much as the others. Another problem with that is that some countries may need more than others or simply just want more. Taking all of this into consideration i think that an international summit is the best way to go because as jeremy said before it is the only way you can discuss something peacefully.
An international summit isn't going to be effective in solving this issue as at least one of the countries will get greedy and make a civil solution incredibly unlikely. The division of the land should be done by an international court as they will more likely come to a fair decision rather than one being reached by the countries involved.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I don't think that international summits work because every country wants more for their own benefit in making their own country better than others in resources and even land. As everyone mentioned every decision is non-binding and I do think tht cases such as land division should be taken at the international court. However, I do believe tht it could possibly work because these summits give an opportunity for each member to give a mutual encouragement in resolving decisions such as economic or environmental decisions but WHAT IF it would help to resolve situations like land devision? We never know the possibilities therefore I do believe that there is a flip side on whether they do or do not resolve issues like this
ReplyDeleteI would say it is not efficient to have a summit to deal with this issue or any issue. In a summit a country's representative is there to to help decide what is best for that country while making the other representaives and their countries happy. But that does not mean that everyone is equal. Equality is key to help reach a resonable conclusion. But if conflict causing countries are not represented no agreement can be made as they are not all there to dicuss a resolution. Other means of solving problems should replace these summits in order to stop rioting in their own countries.
ReplyDeleteI believe that international summits are a great way to solve issues between countries that are included in them, because together they can reach agreements, and find solutions to problems, that can be equally beneficial to all of them. As mentioned the G8 summit, and the G20 summit, contain countries that are not involved in this debate over the arctic which would lead to opinions that aren't necessary. This is why there should be a summit created only between the countries involved in the debate over control of the arctic.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe than an internation summit will completely solve the issue between these countries because the decisions at the UN summits are non-binding therefore making it impossible to have one set solution. Each country wants the land for future economical reasons therefore none will back down from their arguments. I do think that these summits are a good way to bring up topics that need answers, althought I do not believe that they are a good way to set solutions. Bringing in countries that are not directly involved in this issue should not be aloud to have a say in these solutions because it will only cause unnecessary debating. I think there should be a summit including only the countries involed; Canada, Russia, Denmark and USA. This summit will alow the countries to decide based on their oppositions agreements.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that international summits would be a great idea for this issue. And this is because the decisions are non- binding so nobody has to actually do anything and also not every country is involved. I agree with Giulia. There should be new temporary organization just for this issue and with binding decisions. And only the countries actually involved i this issue should be discussing.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the UN will be able to solve any issues concerning the Arctic because all of their resolutions are non-binding and therefore no one has to follow them. The International summits will not be able to solve anything either because they to have the same issue and not all of the countries are included(countries that want parts of the Arctic) in the G8 but maybe some more in the G20. To me the only solution would be like what James said a G6 summit with the countries that want the Arctic. Another solution is that the countries just stick with the 300 or so Km of territory that extend from their own and give the rest to Santa
ReplyDeleteFor this particular matter, I don't truly believe that a international summit will be effective in the least. The countries that are arguing for the arctic are some of the richest countries in the world. Canada may have said that it wishes to resolve the arctic incident purely diplomatically and peacefully, but when you realize what is at stake here, the other five may not fancy the idea. Any country, westernized or otherwise, wants oil... badly. If six countries know that there is a ridiculous amount of crude in the arctic, they may not be willing to be so nice for it. It is starting peacefully now, but if one of the countries feels like it's going to lose what it thinks it's entitled to, it may get ugly, like war ugly. The U.S attacked Iran for oil (unofficially), so who's to say Russia won't get into another conflict with the U.S, or any country involved in the arctic circle discussion. When it comes to these matters, countries are like spoiled children. They think they are entitled to everything and will fight and bicker with one another until something bad happens. For that, summits are pretty much futile.
ReplyDeleteI find the idea of an international summit to negotiate equal distribution of riches found pretty much ANYWHERE in the world pretty stupid. Avarice gets the best of anyone, and no matter what agreements are made, war will eventually break out if strengthening their individual economies are involved. It's like splitting the world's most delicious cookie between yourself and your friends. You'll always give yourself a slightly larger piece than anyone else, and when they notice, all Hades will break loose and will wage an all-out war... That's if you're as serious about cookies as I am. The same rule applies for anything that's treasured today, like gold, oil, territory. etc
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with D'Ambra, his points about the international summit are very strong, and he is very handsome and such, thx.
DeleteI agree. *hands him a cookie*
DeleteIn this case, i don't believe that international summits would be the best way in order to solve this arctic land issue. I believe that these 6 countries should have a G6 including all 6 countries like Daniel said in order to come to an agreement for this territory. I believe that the artic should be devided into 6 parts in order to satisfy each country but the division will be divided by the amount of territory the country has. therefore Russia and Canada will have the most part of the arctic and then Alaska (United States), Norway, Iceland, Greenland (Denmark)will have a little part of the arctic in order to recover some ressources. in the end there will be some countries that will not be happy with the outcome and this may cause many problems such as war like Andrew mentionned. I believe that in the end the fairest possible way to devide the lands will be approached and the countries will have to deal with the outcome because it will be done fairly.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that an international summit will solve an issue like this one. Since the results of the discussion will be nonbinding the countries could just do what they wanted. Who's to say exactly which parts of the ice belongs to who? It's not like they're going to make walls surrounding each area, it would waste too much time. They can declare whatever they want but they'll end up taking each others land one way or another so there's no point, just let them do what they want. However I do believe international summits can solve other kinds of problems involving countries and their disputes. In order to solve this problem, the 6 countries should get what they are entitled to (the kms away from their land) and leave the rest for another year to discuss since they won't be needing it. We want the ice to stay there untouched for as long as possible and the oil is the reason for the ice melting (from pollution) so in reality they shouldn't even be touching it.
ReplyDeleteI believe no sort of advancement from any nation should be made to attempt to exploit the Arctic's vast estimation of possible fossil fuel ressources. By the time that we'd have resolved which portion is rightfully whose amongst the six nations vying for a slice of the Arctic at international summits, global warming alongside the past two centuries of utmost industrial pollution to the environment would catch up to us. Perhaps then people would truly care about the environment, agreeing agaisnt spreading any more of our wastes onto Terra.
ReplyDeleteI think an international summit would aid the current situation between all 6 countries. It would give them a chance to discuss the situation thoroughly, maybe reach a compromise. No matter what a scientist says, each country will still claim said territory is theirs. This isn't pennies that's being fought over, it's oil. If they're not satisfied with the results then it may cause troubles in the relationships between the countries such as boycotting each other whether it be in the economy or tourism etc.. So personally I think that you have nothing to lose by making these countries talk to each other before things get out of hand. Some may argue that everything that is said is non-binding anyways, but to break the compromise that was reached is starting a war, and with the weak economy no one is ready for a war between six powerful countries.
ReplyDeleteThere is not one vain in my body that believes the international summit could possibly solve a problem involving a conflict for resources. The chances of there being actual scientific proof regarding to whom the ice caps belong to is very, very slim. I suppose, one can argue that their "tectonic plates" are under the ice caps... But frankly, how on earth is that credible?! Centuries ago, countries would go at war for these ice caps. In our day and age, i don't see that happening. Technology and relations between countries have grown so much, everyone’s too afraid to go at war. Thus, I don’t see any resolution to spontaneously appear without some sort of compromise between the countries regardless of what the UN has to say about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Branden. How can a territory covered in ice, scientifically belong to anyone? I definetely do not think that the international summit could resolve a problem like this one, involving resources. No matter what happens, the decisions they will come up with will be non-binding.Even if they come up with a resolution, they don't need to solve the problem using it. Each country wants to own the territory for their own needs so they won't really agree with eachother and they would want everything for themselves. Like Lisa and Sabrina said earlier, they should decide who gets the oil mathematically and geographically.
ReplyDeleteIn general the idea of an international summit is a good idea, because the different countries have the chance to discuss about a mutual problem. But for especially this issue it’s really hard to find a solution. I don’t think that the G8 or the G20 can help to solve it. Most of the members aren’t directly concerned by this problem and some countries that are, aren’t in this summits. Another problem is that their decisions are non-binding. So no country has to do something if it’s not satisfied with the solution.
ReplyDeleteLike already said before, I think that there should be a new, temporary international summit that just includes the six countries that are directly concerned. The decisions should also be binding for all the countries.
I personally think that this problem will never be 100 percent solved because no matter what the UN or international summits or G6/G20 come to an agreement on, the 6 countries surrounding the north pole will never be satisfied. Something people might say is to make these 6 countries surrounding the north pole discuss about this situation, but I think it is impossible for these countries to fully come to an agreement. These 6 countries all want the same thing, the oil which leads to,$ and will do anything to get that, even if they decide to split evenly I don't think it will work out because these countries are greedy, even though these countries are very wealthy. Of course, these countries have no consideration for one another because they all want the same thing; that's why dividing it will never work out. And plus resolutions are non-binding which means nothing will ever become official and these countries will still keep fighting for the land.
ReplyDeleteVincent Huns said on November 1st:
ReplyDeleteI think the International Summits is not a good way to solve problems like these because since they are the eight most powerful and intimidating countries and as Mr. D'Anna mentioned in the notes "Are they just helping themselves?", they will most probably do what benefits them and since they are the eight most powerful countries in the world, smaller countries will feel obligated to do as they say. In this case, the six countries surrounding the Arctic should either bid for the land or they should split the land so each of them get a part.
Sarah-Rose Boisvert said on November 1st:
ReplyDeleteI believe that international summits are useless, the decisions are non-binding. In my opinion, it is unfair that not every country is invited to their meeting .The world should be united to make important decisions, to create a bond with one another. The G8 only meets once a year…how can worldwide problems be dealt with in a matter of two days?! International summits should not be used to solve problem such as the North Pole division. Who has that much power to decide which country the North Pole belongs to? During the meetings, the countries wanting to get this territory will fight and bring up arguments but there will never be a resolution to whom gets this territory because the fighting will never stop!
I definitely don’t believe international summits would help settle this issue for the reason that everything they discuss upon is non-binding. Therefore if one country makes a rule, another country won’t most probably follow it. Firstly, one has to understand the fact that all the countries desire the same thing. Every country only thinks for themselves, their benefit and their profit, in other words, their personal reasons. They are all selfish in their own way and for their own reasons. Thus, no country would consent to divide the oil. Every country would want all the oil for them. It will result in the country becoming more powerful for obtaining all the oil. Also, they would be able to have international relations and make money by selling oil to other countries. The adequate and most probably best strategy would be to create a G6 summit in which only the countries involved will be able to discuss the issue and come up with a wise solution. Other countries that are not involved in the issue should definitely not get involved. However, the G6 summit would work out only if the countries involved, don’t only think about their benefits.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this problem will never be resolved because no matter what descision will occur in the end there will be some countries that will be angry with the outcome. In the end, each country believes that they deserve the arctic for there own reason and that they deserve the rights to search the ocean for new ressources. The best way to resolve this problem is to divide the arctic territory in 6 ways therefore all the countries get a part of the arctic. The bigger the size of the territory the bigger the country deserves area in the arctic. therefore Russia and Canada should get the biggest amount of territory in order to find ressources and then the United States, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark divide the rest of the territory evenly with what is remaining. By giving more territory to the bigger countries and less territory to the smaller countries would only make sense because the bigger countries make more money with more area and the smaller countries would not need as much territory in order to make a economy wealthy.
ReplyDeletei believe that each country has equal rights to owning a part of of the arctic. i think that it is fair that they all have an equal amount of land away from their homeland and therefore giving them the rights to dig for oil in that respective area. i don't agree that the remaining area of land should be owned by anyone. look at the arctic right now, it belongs to no one. why cant the remaining area belong to "nature" like it does presently. i think that they should always preserve a piece of that land to help protect the environment and not to damage the living things that are up there for example polar bears. they should place physical borders on the land so no one would be able to go on the other side and i think that if you do go on the other side, the country you went on gets to take the exact amount of land out of your area and take control of it.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular example International Summits would not work because it is not about who wants the bigger land or who got their first. There really isn't even a need to going to a summit and fight it out between each other. The only way to resolve this problem is scientifically by measuring which part of the land of the North pole belongs to who.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree and disagree with Mr Seccareccia because although I also thing that international summits aren't really beneficial due to how little gets done but, with improvement the g8 can maybe become the g12 and maybe one day the U.N might actually have power to make binding decisions. At this time and when this happens international summits might actually be useful and impact the world.
DeleteAmoroso, you owe me a significant amount of work.
DeleteI agree with Mr.Seccareccia.In this case i dont think an international summit would be necessary because you wouldn't need the rest fo the countries to decide this. in my opinion only the contries that is concerning shoudl egt involved with this therefor there should be no international summit. perhaps if they weren't able to come to an agreement an international summit would be a good idea just to settle the arguement but other than that i dont think that it would be necessary.
DeleteI do not believe an international summit will solve this problem. First of all because all the decisions the international summit make are non-binding, therefor its hard to ever come to a conlusion when all that theyre discussing are "suggestions" in the end.
ReplyDeleteAlso, its hard to decide which country should have the oil due to the fact that theyre all very close and technically, it is a little part of every one of their land. Maybe it would be easier if only these 6 countries talked about it between themselves and all agree on a solution,like share it equally, or just take what technically belongs to them, therefor everyone is happy, and countries that have no involvment will not make it harder for for the others to come to a decision.
I really don't think an international summit will solve this problem because they don't have any true power. This being said the three main countries involved in this conflict (US,Canada and Russia) said that they would solve this problem diplomatically however this is only going to work out if everyone agrees and i think its very probable that no one will agree because they all believe they are entitled to more. The problem really starts when countries can't agree. What happens then? They start taking what they believe is theirs, even though it technically belongs to another country and then they start fighting. It'll only escalate from their and the problem is that there is no way to stop this. International summits won't actually do anything because its basically just a meeting and whatever they don't agree on still won't be agreed on because every country is trying to defend its best interest. Just because the belong to an international summit doesn't mean that they will magically get along.
ReplyDeleteWell I think that this problem could be solved by an international summit under certain circumstances. If all six leader can discuss reasonably and come to a conclusion that each country gets an equal amount of land, then the problem is solved. The twist in this situation is that the countries aren't fighting for the land itself, they are fighting for the "gold mine" under the ground. Oil is what the countries want because it brings in a lot of money, and we all know that each leader want the most for their country. Therefore this wouldn't work because each leader would want a bigger piece of land.
ReplyDeleteAlso the decisions made by an international summit are non-binding. So technically Russia could just take a bigger chunk because the decisions have no real meaning. Though this would lead to other problem like war, economic sanctions etc. All this to say, I believe that an international summit could work and solve these problems although all six countries have to come to an agreement.
I strongly believe that an International Summit will not work out for claims for mineral rights in the artic. For the reason that Russia and Canada have the biggest claim for the artic land. As for the other countries such as United States, Greenland, Norway and Lomonosov Ridge they own a smaller claim resulting in inequality and a fight for democracy. So the question is who will be permitted to drill for the oil lying under the artic land? A country could be making billions of dollars from this natural resource, why would it share? Each of the 6 countries main interest is to essentially take possession of all the artic land for total profit. They will do everything in their power to prove and defend their own interest to the United Nations. Cooperation is out of the question, there will be major conflicts between the countries if there is a form of cooperation. All in all, this scrambling for the Arctic problem will only be resolved if ONE country has total ownership of the land for permanent existence. Therefore, to the 2012 International Summit make a smart decision and choose Canada to claim all of the Arctic seaway. It is our homeland! We are the people of the Arctic such as our friends the Inuits who are currently using the Northwest passage.
ReplyDeleteAn international summit is not the ideal way to solve this particular problem, since these meetings rarely produce any concrete results in the first place. The reason behind this is that, regardless if what is right or wrong, nations will take sides according to what benefits their own national interests or those of their close allies, and seek to put their rivals in a more difficult situation.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that an international summit is not the best way to solve this problem. Considering that all decisions that the international summit makes are non-binding, it is very hard for all nations to come in agreement. All nations want to benefit themselves. In this situation, Canada and Russia have both claimed the largest parts of the arctic land. These nations will do anything in their power to own this land because of all the profit they can make and everyone needs oil for production. Why not fight for all of it right? I strongly agree with Tanya that one country should have total ownership of this land. Canada is a very strong and independent country and they will do anything to own this piece of land and i believe that in the 2012 International Summit, they will make the decision that Canada will be the owner of this land.
ReplyDeleteI believe that international summits are good ways to solve certain problems. There good for certain issues because its an opportunitie for many countries to unite and discuss issues they want to solve. If many countries unite for ideas come up for solutions. Of course the disadvantages are that not everyone will agree on the same things. Folr this issue, I think an international summit is a good idea because the countries disscuss who will get the oil but i do not think it is fair to split it equally. I think the fairest decision is to split it according to the population for each country. Of cpourse, international summits will not always turn out good in the end but therte is nothing to loose so the g8 should give it a try!
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that international summits are a good way to solve issues like this one because issues like these should be discussed amongst the states involved and a judge only for it doesn't involve everyone else. Moreover, being that it is criticised that like in the G8 for example the states invited only look out for themselves, this could mean that the states will make a decision based upon how the outcome of the situation will benefit them. Furthermore, like the UN, the decisions reached are non-binding. Therefore, what is the point of taking an issue and coming up with a solution for it if it won't even be binding. Therefore, although international summits can be good advice, I do not believe they would be capable of resolving an issue of this nature or any other worldwide issue like this.
ReplyDeleteThere will never be a solution for this problem. If the countries would discuss this problem in the G8/G20 it wouldn’t be binding. If there would be just the 6 countries that are involved in this particular problem discussing about that point there wouldn’t be a solution as well because they all want their own part, so nobody would be convinced in giving up land. So what do they want to do? Talking and discussing about this theme would not come to a solution. Maybe the best way to decide what’s going to happen is to just cut it up in a geographic and mathematic way.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this problem should just be solved by dividing the parts in a topographical or mathematical way. The coutries will never get a solution by discussing the topic even if there would be something like a G6, where just the 6 countries that are being concerned are involved because it’s non-binding and every country will just fight for having more land and will not accept giving up ground that might belong to them in their opinion. The G8/G20 have not much to do with this theme because there are countries involved that do not have anything to do with the problem so their time will be just used for something to them irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteLena Werner says on November 3rd:
ReplyDelete'For this Arctic Problem, I think it's definitely good to have an international summit instead of discussions in the UN, because only the countries Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Canada, USA and Russia, which want to have a part of the Arctic, are included and it can be easier to find a solution.
But there is a big problem. All solutions or treaties, which will be founded, are non-binding. So maybe it would be better, as Amber suggested in order to put a new rule in place. For example five or four of six countries have to agree and then it can be realized. With this deal, there might be a solution soon.
I truely believe that the international summit will not be able to solve this problem due to their lack of power. Any decision that will be made is non-binding so everyone has to agree orelse it doesn't work. The three countries that are invloved in this conflict (Russia,Canada,U-S) all want complete power over the Arctic and nobody will settle for less. They all claim that it is theirs due to scientific conclusions, but what they really want is the oil that the Arctic hides under its ice. So in the end, it is alomst impossible that that three countries will find a way to make everyone happy because they all want the same thing, and the international summit does not have enough power to break it even.
ReplyDeleteIsabela Moretti said on November 2nd:
ReplyDeleteI do think that an international summit is the best way to solve this problem, as long as it's composed only by the 6 countries that are involved in the discussion. Even though the countries will try to benefit themselves as much as possible, I think they'd be able to - after a long time discussing - find a way to share all the resources (since there's more than oil at stake) according to the necessity of each one (for example, it's not fair to give the same amount of oil to Russia and Iceland, once the demand in Russia is way bigger). But I also think that if they don't solve the problem in a certain amount of time, other countries should interfere.
Yes, I think the International Summits is a good way for the selected few countries to get together and discuss in an open forum the important issues at hand. The reason being is because the 6 countries involved in this International Summit are directly located to each other geographically as well as with their issues. Therefore other countries that have no relation to these issues do not have to involve themselves. It is evident that when it involves 20% of the world’s untapped oil, it becomes a global concern. That is why in this case, it has to go through the UN. On the topic of each countries leaders not being able to come to a consensus, it is only human nature that when putting people together and discussing different problems, not everyone will agree.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think there's no point in discussing who "deserves" the right to explore in those waters, only if a country can prove that their lands extend all the way to the waters claimed, they'll have it. No country will lose their waters based on someones belief that they deserve it, for whatever reason. Both a international summit and the UN have non binding conclusions, but a summit can lead to an agreement and a written contract, that will be followed.Also, a summit is better than the UN because only 6 coutries really matter here, everyone else has no reason to be in that discussion
ReplyDeleteHolding a summit consisting of only the affected countries to discuss this issue will result in either a fair solution or further conflict. If the goal is to keep the solution peaceful, here's my suggestion: only the countries that are being affected should hold a private summit or some other formal gathering to simply discuss what they want and what they'd be willing to compromise, if it has to come to that. Once everything has been explicitly outlined by each representative, the chance of conflict is lowered substantially since there will be no misunderstandings. After that is done, again, there is an even chance of going either way (solution or conflict), however it is highly probable that a reasonable solution will be attained eventually if the protocol I outlined is followed correctly.
ReplyDeleteThen again, world leaders are sometimes like drug addicts: unpredictable and paranoid; maybe it'll result in World War III.
I do not think that having international summit is going to be a effective way to solve how the Arctic oil will be divided. The G8 & G20 do not even include all the six countries involved in this dilemma, therefore I believe that Canada, USA, Russia, Norway, Denmark and Iceland should hold there own international summit and solve this problem themselves. Although there should be a neutral like a random country near the equator as a sort of judge to make sure that countries with more power (Russia, USA) don't intimidate the other countries out of this problem.
ReplyDeleteI do believe an international summit is necessary if the 6 countries concerning the issue are the only ones present since it is irrelevant to hold a summit with countries that have no relation to this situation. It should be a summit with a small amount of poeple because of the fact that the issue will be discussed and resolved. They should discuss geographically which areas belong to which countries thus estimating how much oil each country will receive. this is an important issue to be discuss since it is regarding 20% of the worlds untapped oil.
ReplyDeleteI do not see the summit as either bad or good. I do believe however, that an organization, where countries can freely discuss their opinions and where decisions can actually be taken is invaluable. Our current relationships are much too complex to just turn a blind eye to and hope for the best. On the other hand, my main concern with these summits is the fact that nothing ever really gets done. It is an opportunity for countries to talk about everything and nothing at the same time. Where they can look good and make it seem like they are making a change, when in the end, they conclude how everything will be solved, return peacefully home and continue as if nothing ever happened. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on hosting these meetings and the hundreds of "unimportant" countries left out.
ReplyDeleteSo in the end, I believe we should have international summits but certainly not like the current ones, where most countries are left out and where decisions are unbinding.
no i dont think that international summits are a good way to solve problems like this because international sumits are made up of only a certin number of invited countries and the only other summit where all the countries can go is the un general assembly wich does not get anything done because of the number of countries there. The only way to solve this problem would be to create a special summit that only invites the countries that are concerned.
ReplyDelete