Summit fever

The secrets of political summits | Politics | The Guardian
Always amazed how in this complex modern world, so many international issues may rest not on the discussions of experts, but on the late night personal dynamics of leaders, most of which would have been chosen for their domestic policies, not foreign policy skills. And of course it is the international issues which normally matter most.  Definitely not a reassuring system, especially when read the following, and think of those studies which show different types  of decisions (eg by judges) taken when tired or hungry. Maybe it is a good thing that such decisions are generally more conservative and biased to the status quo, since means less risk of hot headed action, but on the other hand, maybe explains why these summits rarely produce the creative breakthroughs crises , such as the current euro one, often demand:
"I often used to ask myself why summits would only conclude at three or four in the morning rather than a more civilised hour. The reason is, of course, that the chair likes to leave the really difficult points until late at night so that the different sides will give up in exhaustion. It also helps those who have to back down; they can tell their national press that they have battled for the point through the night rather than given up at teatime. One of the best levers to bring a negotiation to an end is hunger, particularly when negotiating with Chancellor Kohl. As the lunch hour drifted past he would become increasingly anxious and then rush to conclude a point."