I was whether there is a general way to resolve a conflict like the one happening at Copenhagen, but without the debate related to climate change. The following is the essence of the problem, is there a way to show that such a conflict is unresolvable? Perhaps from the study of game theory or economics? Description of the situation: There are three stakeholders A, B, and C. In general, each stakeholder wants to upgrade itself. A upgraded itself from A1 to A3 by taking it from C. This allowed A to upgrade relatively fast, but in the meantime downgraded C from C3 to C1. If C downgrades to C0, everybody dies. Now, B wants to upgrade itself the same way as A did. A says B cannot do that because everyone will die. So B suggests that A downgrade itself to upgrade C, so that B can take from C. It seems that A should either downgrade itself to upgrade B or do as B said: give back to C so that B could take from it.