The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) was set up in 1945 as one of the six principal organs of the United Nations to coordinate international cooperation and development in economic and social matters. ECOSOC was formed under Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter with a mandate to achieve higher standards of living, and economic and social development. ECOSOC has played a crucial role for generating international dialogue and is vital to promoting sustainable development, humanitarian aid, global issues like economic inequality, environmental sustainability, and social justice.

It's a platform for governments, policymakers, academia, and civil society organizations to discuss issues of pressing global concern. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), through its various segments and forums, such as the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF), and the Partnership Forum, is engaged in policy development that influences global development policy.

These organizations enable collaboration among stakeholders on poverty eradication, economic progress, equality for men and women, and environmental protection. ECOSOC is tasked, beyond its role in policy-making and coordination, with overseeing the actions of UN entities such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Health Organization (WHO), and International Labour Organization (ILO) to align their activities to the overall UN system goals. In addition, ECOSOC has the special mandate of conferring consultative status upon non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which allows civil society to participate in international policy-making.

With more than 1,600 NGOs, ECOSOC continues to affirm the value of inclusive and multilateral solutions to global problems. Over the course of its history, ECOSOC has evolved with the shifting global environment, responding to new crises like climate change, financial volatility, and worldwide health threats. Its activities play a crucial role in tracking advancement toward global development objectives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), through evaluating policy efficacy and advancing global collaboration. By providing a platform for member states, ECOSOC continues to play a critical role in the realization of a more equitable and sustainable world.

Secret Alliance

To reflect real‑world informal diplomatic and economic coalitions in Arctic geopolitics, each delegation will be secretly paired with one partner delegation at the start of the session. The identity of each Secret Alliance Partner is confidential and known only to the delegate and the Chair.

The Secret Alliances simulate cooperation dynamics surrounding Greenland’s natural resources and its strategic Arctic position. Delegates must balance national interests, resource development, autonomy, and international collaboration while navigating evolving global power competition. This encourages more negotiation and communication between delegates, promotes creative diplomacy beyond formal resolutions and rewards the delegates who outsmart the others in social maneuvering.

How it works

Confidential Collaboration:
Delegates may privately negotiate with their Secret Alliance Partner on co‑sponsored resolutions, joint investment frameworks, trade agreements , or in this case the Arctic security proposals addressing strategic resource access and territorial governance.

Alliance Benefits:
Successful collaboration and concealment of the alliance will be rewarded  from 1-10 points each committee session. Additionally, the negotiations made between the delegates can be used to strengthen draft resolutions, secure strategic voting advantages, or build up to unexpected plot twists within the committee.

Strategic Objectives:
Secret Alliances are expected to help delegate pairs address issues such as:
- Equitable management of Greenland’s natural resource extraction policies
- Sustainable economic development with respect for indigenous autonomy
- Balancing external pressures from global powers seeking Arctic influence
- Joint proposals for responsible foreign investment frameworks.

Voting:
Every two sessions, delegates will vote to guess up to 3 alliances. If a secret alliance between two delegates receives:
- 5 to 10 guesses, they cannot participate in one moderated caucus/open debate.
-11 or more guesses, they lose alliance privileges and associated benefits for the remainder of the conference.

After the voting procedure, all alliances will be revealed.

Penalties
-If a delegate intentionally reveals their Secret Alliance to other delegates outside approved negotiations, they lose alliance privileges and associated benefits for the remainder of the conference.

Rumour Notes

Purpose:

Rumour Notes contain a real environmental and external factor or unofficial reports, intelligence briefings, and diplomatic communications that have not been formally verified or never happened at all. The purpose of it is to test the fast adaptability of delegates and propose unpredictable situations for delegates to stay engaged.

Function:

Rumour Notes will be distributed by the Dais Team to:
- a specific delegate

- specific blocs

- the whole committee as a random leak of information.

A delegate may submit a request for verification from the Dais Teams 1 motion after the

initial release of the rumour note.

The Political and Economic Dispute over Greenland’s Natural Resources, Territorial Control, and Geostrategic Arctic Advantages.
The latest disputes that relate to the natural resources, land, and geopolitical advantage of Greenland have created some of the most complex new areas for competition both politically and economically. The increase in rates of climate change and, thus, of ice cap melting has made the Arctic zone more and more navigable and exploitable for the purposes of advances within global economies. Because of changes in global warming, the once remote, sparsely populated area has become a critical area for competition and dominance among global economies, territorial powers, and the seeking of locations for military importance. At the same time, however, it is related to issues of Indigenous peoples, development, and the environment.

The area of Greenland has always been inhabited by Inuit people. It should be noted that the Kalaallit have always dominated the population of the region throughout history. Despite the above-stated facts, it is also notable that it was the Europeans who first took notice of the region in the 10th century when the Norse decided to settle in the region. In the early part of the 18th century, Denmark decided to colonize the region, and the colonial era of the history of Greenland formally concluded in 1953 when the region formally became part of the Kingdom of Denmark. As time went by, Home Rule was introduced in 1979 and Self-Government in 2009.

When considering the backdrop of the Cold War, Greenland already held a degree of strategic importance, particularly because of the U.S. Thule Air Base (a crucial component in the U.S. system for missile detection and space exploration). The economic potential of Greenland is now more recognized because of the discovery of rare earth minerals, hydrocarbons, and other resources, as identified by scientific surveys.

Today, Greenland finds itself right in the middle of an emerging geopolitical and economic rivalry between Denmark, the US, China, the EU, and other Arctic Basin countries. Global climate change has made previously inaccessible mineral deposits and Arctic Basin navigation more viable, and there is a strong surge of interest in mining, oil exploration, and fishing. Rare earth minerals are a prized material, necessary for a range of modern technologies, and Greenland is a possible replacement for the currently existing supply chains.

Proposals for investment by foreign powers such as China and the US have led to tension across issues such as influence, security, and the economy. Denmark continues to be closely involved for purposes such as financial support and strategic interest, while the government aims for economic independence and sustainability in development. To these various concerns, the local inhabitants also add other issues, such as the effects of mining on the environment.

Internationally, Greenland's role within broader Arctic governance frameworks, though, remains contested. The region is in a position of strategic military importance, while the shortening Arctic navigation routes continue to reduce global shipping times. On the other hand, Indigenous rights organizations are demanding community-led resource management and environmental protection with a focus on long-term social stability.

Commonwealth of Australia

Federative Republic of Brazil

Canada

People’s Republic of China

Kingdom of Denmark

Republic of Finland

French Republic

Federal Republic of Germany

Republic of Iceland

Italian Republic

Japan

Republic of Korea

United Mexican States

New Zealand

Kingdom of Norway

Republic of Poland

State of Qatar

Russian Federation

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Republic of Singapore

Republic of South Africa

Kingdom of Spain

Kingdom of Sweden

Swiss Confederation

Republic of Turkey

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United States of America

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regulates the ability of states to claim maritime zones and seabed resource rights within the Arctic. This is particularly important for Greenland, as Denmark represents the Kingdom of Denmark in Arctic territorial claims. These claims are largely contingent on Greenland’s massive continental shelf, granting Denmark and increasingly the Greenlandic government rights to seabed oil, gas, and minerals.

However, claims by other states, such as Russia and Canada, have left the scope of Greenland’s resource rights in question.

Arctic Council and Greenland’s Role

The Arctic Council, comprising Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States, is an important body for cooperation on environment and development. While it has no regulatory powers, Greenland is an active participant, particularly as it seeks greater self-governance in natural resource management and as ice melts increase its strategic and economic value.

Territorial Disputes Involving Greenland

Hans Island (Canada-Denmark/Greenland)

It was claimed by both Canada and Denmark until 14 June 2022, when both countries agreed to split the disputed island roughly in half. In accordance with the Greenland home rule treaty, Denmark handles certain foreign affairs, such as border disputes, on behalf of the entire Kingdom of Denmark.

Lomonosov Ridge

In the 2000s, the geological structure of the ridge attracted international attention due to a 20 December 2001 official submission by the Russian Federation to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (article 76, paragraph 8). The document proposed establishing new outer limits for the Russian continental shelf, beyond the previous 200-nautical-mile zone, but within the Russian Arctic sector. One of the arguments was a statement that the underwater Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev Ridge are extensions of the Eurasian continent. In 2002 the UN Commission neither rejected nor accepted the Russian proposal, recommending additional research.

Danish scientists hope to prove that the ridge is an extension of Greenland, rather than an extension of Canada's adjacent Ellesmere Island, and Denmark became another claimant to the area in 2014. Canada, also a claimant, asserts that the ridge is an extension of its continental shelf. In April 2007, Canadian and Russian scientists were sent to map the ridge as a possible precedent for determining sovereignty over the area. In late June 2007, Russian scientists reiterated their claim that the ridge is an extension of Russia's territory, and in 2011 a Russian scientist ignored Canada's claim, instead saying that Russia and Denmark claim different parts of the ridge and the claims are not conflicting. Other sources indicate that some areas are disputed.

Canada is expected to make further claims. Denmark and Russia have agreed to follow certain procedures when making claims

Greenland contains significant deposits of rare earth elements, uranium, zinc, iron ore, and potential offshore oil. Projects like Kvanefjeld attracted interest from foreign companies, including Chinese investors, raising concerns in the U.S. and Denmark about strategic vulnerabilities.
Greenland’s moves toward greater control of its resources—supported by the 2009 Self-Government Act—have intensified debates about independence and the geopolitical consequences of foreign investment.

Melting sea ice is increasing access to the Northern Sea Route and other Arctic passages. Greenland lies at a critical gateway between the Arctic and the North Atlantic, enhancing its value for shipping, military positioning, and scientific monitoring. The IMO’s 2017 Polar Code now regulates vessels operating in polar waters, but Greenland remains central to emerging transportation and security dynamics.

Despite numerous institutions and agreements, the Arctic lacks a binding, comprehensive treaty. As a result, competition over territory, minerals, and shipping routes continues. Greenland, with its rich resources and strategic position, sits at the center of these political, economic, and environmental tensions.

Within the framework of the warming Arctic, this representative democracy of 56 542 citizens is a hotspot of geopolitical rivalry and escalating confrontation between the world’s leading powers – the United States (US), Russia, and China. The island has extremely high strategic value due to its proximity to the newly opening Arctic maritime transport routes, its favorable geographical position in connection with security and defense activities, and its enormous untapped natural resources, including mineral deposits.

Based on its foreign policy strategy, Greenland is ready to develop closer cooperation and dialogue with its partners, including the US. In fact, the US has been an important partner and security guarantor of Greenland since 1951. The relationship has strengthened and expanded over the past two decades, and cooperation now covers not only security, but also environment, science, health, technology, trade, tourism, education, and culture.

However, on January 5th, President Trump affirmed, “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” Senior Trump aides soon echoed the assertion the United States could seize the Danish territory to support national interests. The renewed focus on Greenland underscores the Trump administration’s approach to resource security as national security. The aggressive rhetoric of US President Donald Trump about his intention to buy Greenland has taken Greenlanders, Danes, and Europeans by storm.

As pressure increases from all sides, it is unknown where the future of the issue lies.

How can Greenland’s resource rights be balanced?

Should foreign investment in Greenland’s natural resources be encouraged, restricted, or regulated?

How can territorial disputes be resolved peacefully while protecting Greenland’s rights?

Should Greenland focus on environmental protection and indigenous rights over rapid resource development?

How can Arctic shipping lanes near Greenland be handled to ensure fair access for everyone?

What is the best way for Greenland to ensure it derives economic benefit from its resources without becoming dependent on external powers?

Could Greenland realistically choose to become an independent state, and what international frameworks would be required to support this?

How can Arctic governance structures be improved to better handle Greenland-related disputes? 

This background guide for the topic of “The Political and Economic Dispute over Greenland’s Natural Resources, Territorial Control, and Geostrategic Arctic Advantages.” offers an insight into the intricate web of political maneuvering, economic rivalry, and international regulation of Greenland’s natural resources and its growing importance in the Arctic region. The topic offers both urgent problems and opportunities for UN member states, as questions of territorial sovereignty, resource exploitation, environmental stewardship, and global geopolitical power continue to develop.

Participants are encouraged to assess the complex political and economic aspects of the conflict, their global implications, and formulate novel and feasible policy solutions within the mandate of ECOSOC. In light of the diverse national interests and security issues at stake, negotiations must strike a delicate balance between economic viability, sustainable development, social justice, and international cooperation.

Regardless of whether you are a veteran participant or a newcomer to MUNs, the 2026 TASMUN conference will provide a rich platform to enhance your knowledge of Arctic governance and hone your diplomatic, analytical, and negotiation skills. In-depth preparation and extensive research will be critical to contribute constructively to the discussion. We eagerly await your well-argued discussions, policy papers, and strategic resolutions reflecting a deep understanding of the subject matter.

If you have any questions or need clarification, please feel free to reach out. Best of luck with your preparations!

Arctic Council. “International Cooperation in the Arctic.” Arctic Council, 2011, arctic-council.org/explore/work/cooperation/.“Arctic Seafloor Claims | Environmental Sciences | Research Starters | EBSCO Research.” EBSCO, 2025, www.ebsco.com/research-starters/environmental-sciences/arctic-seafloor-claims.

 Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.“Greenland - Danelov.” Wikidot.com, 2026, danelov.wikidot.com/greenland. Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.Gronholt-Pedersen, Jacob. “Greenland Approves 30-Year Mining Permit for EU-Backed Graphite Project.” Reuters, 9 Dec. 2025, www.reuters.com/business/energy/greenland-approves-30-year-mining-permit-eu-backed-graphite-project-2025-12-09/.

Kaplan, Susan A. “Greenland’s Inuit Have Spent Decades Fighting for Self-Determination.” Big Rapids Pioneer, Associated Press, 27 Jan. 2026, www.bigrapidsnews.com/news/article/greenland-s-inuit-have-spent-decades-fighting-21318195.php.

Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.ofurpaur. “International Agreements - Arctic Portal - the Arctic Gateway.” Arctic Portal - the Arctic Gateway, 2025, arcticportal.is/arctic-governance/international-agreements.

 Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.Rasmussen, Rasmus. “Greenland - History | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019, www.britannica.com/place/Greenland/History.

Schwartz, Meredith, and Gracelin Baskaran. “Greenland, Rare Earths, and Arctic Security.” Csis.org, 2026, www.csis.org/analysis/greenland-rare-earths-and-arctic-security.

“UDENRIGSFORHOLD.” Stat.gl, 2026, stat.gl/publ/en/SA/201001/contents/Foreign%20Affairs.htm. 

Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.Wikipedia Contributors. “Greenland.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Sept. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland.---.

 “Hans Island.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Jan. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island.---.

“Kvanefjeld.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Jan. 2025.---. “Lomonosov Ridge.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Oct. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomonosov_Ridge.---.

“Mining in Greenland.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Feb. 2026.

https://assets.worldwildlife.org/www-prd/documents/30k7kbwrud_Crossing_the_Line_brochure_proof3.pdf