Padrão de Resposta

Weighing up the pros and cors of summit meetings leads us to conclude that, despite numerous shortcomings, mostly associated with their management, they present enough benefits to justify retaining their status in world politics, albeit under na altered design.
Among the usual criticism of summit meetings, it is alleged that they rarely lead to long-standing solutions, since they rely on the momentary agreement between persons of very different cultures furthermore, political leaders, unlike professional diplomats, do not have the abilities required in such negotiations and tend to conduct matters in a manner which brings little effect, and is, in any case, seldom legally binding.
In their favour, it must be said that summits often shift the balance of power, depending in the personal charisma of the participants, and tend to bring about changes that would maybe otherwise never occur. In addition, they often send out an important message, both domestically and internationally, setting an example for home and foreign actors.
In order that they may continue to positively contribute to resolve global issues, summits should be kept at a reasonable, manageable size, and there should be a reassessment of the best way NGOs should take part.