@article{Leininger2017,
title = {“On the Table or at the Table?” G20 and its Cooperation with Africa },
author = {Julia Leininger},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-3.2.7.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guy010},
issn = { 2058-7449},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {3},
number = {2},
pages = {193-205},
abstract = {This article contains an analysis of the cooperation with African governments during the German presidency of the G20 in 2017. The author argues that the G20’s exclusive approach to global rule-making for the world economy contradicts the G20’s aim to support domestic economic development in Africa. The empirical analysis provides a systematic assessment of G20 policies in 2017, in particular the Compact with Africa (CWA). An assessment of the procedural outcomes, such as the representation of African governments and institutions, is also given in the article. The empirical analysis is based on insights from the Think 20 process, an official engagement process of the G20. The article concludes that it was innovative to prioritize cooperation with African governments on the G20 agenda and to recognize the importance of African ownership. Although policy implementation of this initiative began right after the G20 Summit in July 2017, especially of the CWA, no deeper engagement of African actors in the G20 process was achieved.

},
note = {Article},
keywords = {AAG, Africa, Africa Advisory Group, Cooperation, CwA, Developmental Approach, G20, German G20 Presidency, Policy, Procedural Outcomes, South Africa, Structural Context, T20},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Messner2017,
title = {The G20 Summit Was More Successful than You Think },
author = {Dirk Messner and Dennis Snower},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-3.2.8.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guy009},
issn = { 2058-7449},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {3},
number = {2},
pages = {206-211},
abstract = {We argue that the different results of the G20 Summit in Hamburg show what can be achieved under an insightful, competent, and globally-minded G20 Presidency, combined with a disciplined advisory process, drawing on the expertise of leading G20 think tanks and other research organizations—even in times of turbulent global governance and uneasy multilateralism. An effective global order needs to be built not only on intergovernmental cooperation, but also on dense and growing networks and alliances between G20 societies, which might help to contribute developing joint interests and narratives on global governance in an economically, technologically, ecologically highly integrated, but socially and politically still very fragmented word. The T20 might play a substantial role in those regards.

},
note = {Article},
keywords = {2017, 2030 Agenda, Africa, G20, G20 Africa Partnership, G20 Policies, German G20, Human Needs, Leaders' Declaration, Purpose, T20 Policy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Fravel2016,
title = {Explaining China’s Escalation over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands },
author = {M. Taylor Fravel},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.1.4.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw010},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-08-12},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {1},
pages = {24-37},
abstract = {This article examines China’s behaviour in the dispute with Japan over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands. Before 2010, China adopted a low-key approach to the dispute. After 2010, however, China chose to escalate the dispute, first in response to Japan’s detention of a Chinese fishing vessel in September 2010 and then in response to the Japanese government’s purchase of three of the islands in September 2012. China escalated because Japan’s actions challenged China’s relatively weak position in the dispute. By escalating, China could counter Japanese actions and strengthen its position in the dispute. Since late 2013, the dispute appears to have stabilized. China’s patrols within twelve nautical miles of the islands have strengthened China’s position in the dispute, while Japan has refrained from developing the islands.

},
note = {Flashpoints},
keywords = {2010, Captain Zhan, China, Diaoyu, East China Sea, Fishing Boat Incident, Flashpoints, Japan, Nationalization, Senkaku Islands, Three Islands},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Farrell2016,
title = {Globalized Green Lanternism},
author = {Henry Farrell},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.1.2.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw005},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-07-25},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {1},
pages = {13-21},
abstract = {American political commentators have frequently called for the U.S. president to take effective action to improve world economic growth. Such calls are a form of what Matthew Yglesias has dubbed “Green Lanternism”—the unspoken theory that the U.S. president's ability to affect outcomes is primarily affected by his willpower. In this article, I examine the opposite—and more plausible causal relationship—that the power of the U.S. president is shaped by the underlying secular determinant of world economic growth. I go on to examine how we might expect U.S. power and interests in building up a multilateral trading order could largely wither away under conditions of enduring weak economic growth, which some economists have argued is in fact the most plausible long-run growth path for the world economy.

},
note = {Article},
keywords = {Bush, Economy, Folk-Kindlebergerianism, Global Slowdown, Green Lanterism, Green Lantern Theory, Secular Stagnation, Trade Agenda, United States, US President, World Economic Growth},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Jobbins2016,
title = {Peacebuilding and Conflict Prevention in Burundi’s 2015 Election Crisis },
author = {Mike Jobbins and Floride Ahitungiye},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.2.6.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw003},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-04-12},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {2},
pages = {205-218},
abstract = {On April 26, 2015, the small central African nation of Burundi was plunged into its most profound political crisis since the end of a civil war. During the crisis, more than 300,000 people died—often in intercommunal violence. The nomination of President Pierre Nkurunziza to run for a third term in office led to sustained street demonstrations by opposition forces in the capital; an attempted coup d’état; and a cycle of insecurity, fear, human rights abuses, and targeted killings. This political crisis threatens to undermine one of the most notable successes in resolving seemingly intractable conflicts in Africa in recent years. The crisis also sheds light on the influence and limits of international cooperation. Building peace in Burundi during the conflict, supporting reconciliation and the consolidation of democracy, and addressing the dynamics of the current crises are the processes that the authors have seen firsthand over the past decade. We both work with Search for Common Ground, an international non-governmental organization that has worked to support societal conflict transformation in the country over the past twenty years. Floride acts as Burundi Country Director, and Mike is Director of Global Affairs.

},
note = {Article},
keywords = {2015, Africa, Arusha Accords, Burundi, Election Crisis, Ethnic Politics, Hutu, NGO, Peace Consolidation, Peacebuilding, Post-Independence, Tutsi, Twa},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Chin2016,
title = {China’s Presidency of the G20 Hangzhou: On Global Leadership and Strategy},
author = {Gregory T. Chin and Hugo Dobson},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.2.3.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw002},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-03-26},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {2},
pages = {151-170},
abstract = {China is the host presidency for the G20 Leaders Summit for the cycle-year of 2016. In assuming the G20 presidency, China is taking on this global leadership role at a historic juncture, when structural deficiencies in the world economy are re-emerging, and as the supporters of the G20 are pushing for this summitry platform to evolve from a crisis response mechanism to one of long-term, or at least mid-term, governance. This article outlines the key “how to” considerations that all G20 hosts must consider; details China's strategy and approach to agenda- and priority-setting; and examines how China's positioning in global governance, and global affairs more broadly, is evolving as a result. The main finding is that, as a result of taking on the G20 presidency, China is stepping up to some aspects of global leadership and elements of global collective responsibility that are specific to this unique global summit.},
note = {Article},
keywords = {China, Crisis Response Mechanism, G20, G20 Hosting, G20 Summitry, Global Leadership, global strategy, Hangzhou, Hangzhou Summit, Long-term Governance, Xi Jinping},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Alden2016,
title = {Reconstructing South African Identity through Global Summitry },
author = {Christopher Alden and Maxi Schoeman},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.2.5.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw001},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-03-21},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {2},
pages = {187-204},
abstract = {This article will evaluate South Africa’s pursuit of global summitry as an expression of its own evolving national identity. Since its inception, South Africa’s multiculturalism has produced fragmentation and reconstitution of identity-based sovereignty. We argue that the contradictions which have featured in the historical processes of South African identity formation and reformation, whether from its position as a colonial bastion of white power or that of a beacon of African liberation, are both motivated by, and manifested through, its foreign policy activism in global summitry. This process lends meaning to contested domestic politics and helps shape regional and global affinities, affirming South Africa’s legitimacy as a representative of the African continent. Engaging in global summitry provides South Africa an opportunity to present a coherent purpose to audiences at home and abroad on key issues that emerge out of the country’s divided diversity.

},
keywords = {Apartheid, BRICS, Economic Apartheid, Foreign Policy, global summitry, Identity Formation, Jan Smuts, Liberation Struggle, NAM Conference, Nelson Mandela, South Africa, South African Identity, Two Nations Thesis},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Slaughter2016,
title = {Building G20 Outreach: The Role of Transnational Policy Networks in Sustaining Effective and Legitimate Summitry},
author = {Steven Slaughter},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.2.4.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv009},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-01-25},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {2},
pages = { 171–186},
abstract = {G20 outreach processes, in the form of the Think 20, Labour 20, Business 20, and Civil 20, Youth 20, and Women 20, are a formal attempt by G20 leaders to engage various social sectors with G20 policymaking. This essay contends that G20 outreach processes are best understood as transnational policy networks, which are involved in widening the field of policy communication and deliberation. The importance of these transnational policy networks rests upon their role in developing and disseminating G20 policy priorities and principles and are an attempt to enhance the legitimacy and influence of the G20 and its policy proposals.

},
note = {Article},
keywords = {Effective Summitry, G20, G20 Evolution, Inclusivity, Institutional Power, Legitimate Summitry, Outreach Processes, structural power, Transgovernmentalism, Transnational Policy Networks, Transparency},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Bradlow2016,
title = {Lessons from the Frontlines: What I Learned from My Participation in the G20},
author = {Daniel D. Bradlow},
url = {https://academic.oup.com/globalsummitry/article-pdf/1/2/135/6988599/guv007.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv007},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-01-21},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {2},
pages = {135-150},
abstract = {It is a rare privilege for an academic who has specialized in international economic institutions to get a chance to put what he researched into practice. I had this privilege when I became the first head of the South African Reserve Bank’s (SARB) new International Economic Relations and Policy Department. In this capacity, I represented the SARB in G20 and BRICS meetings during my approximately two years with the Bank, which concluded at the end of October 2014. My department was responsible for coordinating the SARB’s relations with the IMF.

This article is my first attempt to reflect on the lessons I learned about the G20 and its relations with the countries and entities that participate in its meetings. It is divided into four sections. First, I will give a brief overview of the G20 process in order to put my experience and the lessons I learned into context. Second, I will discuss seven lessons I learned about global economic governance from the experience. Third, I will make three general observations about the G20 process. The final section is a conclusion.

Two caveats are in order. First, this article contains my personal reflections on the G20 and all the opinions expressed in the article are my own. Nothing that is stated in the article should be attributed to the SARB or the South African Government. Second, central banks participate in all the meetings of the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors leading up to the G20 Summit, but they do not participate in the G20 Summit itself or in the meetings of the G20 Sherpa track. My reflections and opinions, therefore, are based only on my experience as a participant in the G20 Finance track meetings.},
note = {Summit Dialogue #1},
keywords = {Balanced Growth, BRICS, Finance Track, FMCBG, G20, G20 Process, SARB, South Africa, Strong Growth, Summit Dialigue #1, Sustainable Growth},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Helleiner2016,
title = {Legacies of the 2008 Crisis for Global Financial Governance},
author = {Eric Helleiner},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.1.1.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw006},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {1},
pages = {1-12},
abstract = {What are the legacies of the 2008 financial crisis for global financial governance? One answer is that the crisis strengthened the cooperative and multilateral dimensions of international financial relations. A different interpretation is that the crisis unleashed decentralization trends. Important examples can be cited in support of both of these perspectives. After reviewing that evidence, this article highlights ways in which these two distinct legacies are working together to generate a third outcome that may well emerge as the more lasting legacy of the crisis: cooperative decentralization in global financial governance.

},
note = {Feature Article},
keywords = {2008 Crisis, Cooperation, Cooperative Decentralization, Decentralization, G20, Global Financial Governance, Host Country, IMF, Multilateralism, Policymakers, Regulations},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Martin2016,
title = {Paul Martin on the G20 and China’s Hosting of the G20 Leaders’ Summit},
author = {Paul Martin},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.1.3.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw009},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {1},
pages = {22-23},
abstract = {Editor’s note: This is the text of the video remarks by Paul Martin, to the V20 meeting in Hangzhou China. Paul Martin was the Prime Minister of Canada from 2003 to 2006 and the Minister of Finance from 1993 to 2002. Mr. Martin was the inaugural chair of the Finance Ministers’ G20. The embedded podcast in these remarks is an interview by Alan Alexandroff, one of the Senior Editors of Global Summitry. It was recorded on May 4, 2016. Mr. Martin was one of the earliest proponents of a leaders’ level summit for the G20. Mr. Martin is also a member of the Global Advisory Board for this Journal.

The Vision 20 meeting in China (March 29 to April 1) and the network is to bring together scholars from various fields with think tank leaders, civil society and private sector leaders, and government leaders with the hope of generating ideas and actionable items for the long and medium-term while finding ways to initiate such processes in the short term.},
note = {Summit Dialogue},
keywords = {Canada, China, G20, Hangzhou Summit, Mission Creep, Multilateral Institutions, Paul Martin, Prime Minister, Summit Dialogue, Vision 20 Meeting, Zheda},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Stuenkel2016,
title = {The BRICS: Seeking Privileges by Constructing and Running Multilateral Institutions },
author = {Oliver Stuenkel},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.1.5.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw008},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {1},
pages = {38-53},
abstract = {How should we think of the decisions made by China and the other BRICS countries to establish a series of new institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS-led New Development Bank (NDB)? Does such activism show that rising powers are embracing or confronting today’s Western-led order? This article argues that rather than analyzing emerging powers’ beliefs about rules and norms, these new institutions can best be understood as a tool to enhance their capacity to gain privileges of leadership, and slowly reduce the United States’ institutional centrality which provides it with a hegemonic privilege. Such privilege is seen to allow states to break the rules without asking for a “permission slip” and without fearing institutional punishment. The proliferation of non-Western institutions would appear to complement existing ones and allow rising powers to engage in forum shopping on a trans-regional level. Such forum shopping for the BRICS would seem to provide advantages, including reducing their dependence on Western-led institutions when they are perceived by the BRICS and others to serve the interests of established powers.

},
note = {Article},
keywords = {BRICS, China, Crimea, Leviathan, Multilateral Institutions, Non-Western, Privileges of Leadership, Russia, The West, United States, Western},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Beeson2016,
title = {Multilateralism in East Asia: Less than the Sum of Its Parts?},
author = {Mark Beeson},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.1.6.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw007},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {1},
pages = {54-70},
abstract = {The East Asian region is famous for many things, among the more surprising of which is the relatively ineffective nature of its multilateral institutions. Although many scholars claim that organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have been effective parts of regional diplomacy, this article suggests that the so-called ASEAN Way has provided a template for regional underachievement and ineffectiveness. As a consequence, and despite a recent flurry of regional initiatives, none of them has been anything like as significant or effective as the European Union was at the height of its powers. This is the unsurprising consequence of institutional design and the politics of the lowest common denominator. The rise of China is unlikely to change this. On contrary, not only has ASEAN solidarity fractured in the face of an increasingly assertive China, but China’s own instrumental attitude to institutional development means that under-performance is likely to remain the regional norm as an array of ineffective institutions compete for authority and relevance.

},
note = {Article},
keywords = {APEC, APT, ASEAN, East Asia, Interstate-Cooperations, Multi-Lateral Institutions, Multilateralism, Path Dependency, Policymaking, Three-Level Game, Two-Level Games},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Druckman2016,
title = {Summit Meetings: Good or Bad for Peace?},
author = {Daniel Druckman and Peter Wallensteen},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.2.1.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/gux001},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
pages = {71-92},
abstract = {The systematic study of summit diplomacy, its role in international relations, and its contribution to world peace is remarkably scant. The research presented here is a step forward in understanding the significance of direct, personal, face-to-face meetings between top leaders in dominant states. Such summits continue to generate a lot of attention, often preceded with high expectations and leaving in disappointment. This article will present a unique dataset of summit meetings between the United States and its main competitor for global influence, the Soviet Union and modern Russia. We begin with the first meeting ever between Roosevelt and Stalin in 1943 in Tehran, Iran and end with a 2014 meeting between Obama and Putin in Brisbane, Australia. The data are used to evaluate several hypotheses about relationships between summit meetings and armed conflict. Our findings suggest that the summit meetings have been motivated by conflicts but do not contribute to their management. Wars involving Russia also account for the relationship between summit frequency and international cooperation. These results raise questions about the conflict-managing functions of summit meetings.

},
note = {Feature Article},
keywords = {Agnes Simon, Bilateral, economics, Expressive, Galtung, global summitry, Great Power Relations, Instrumental, Modelski, Multilateral, Russia, Sauna Diplomacy, Security, Simon 2012, Soviet, Summit Meetings, Summits, Symbolic, Thompson, Trade, UCDP, UN Security Council, Uppsala, Weilemann},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Tobey2016,
title = {Peering down from the Summit: The Path to Nuclear Security 2010–2016 and beyond },
author = {William Tobey},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.2.2.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guw011},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
pages = {93-113},
abstract = {This article reviews the motivations, strengths, and weaknesses of the Nuclear Security Summits (NSS), both procedurally and substantively. Nearly fifty world leaders met at the various NSS—2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. The circumstances that provoked these meetings were unusual, if not unique, but innovations undertaken at the meetings in global summitry and global governance will likely endure. The meetings advanced nuclear security in important ways, but the nuclear security problem cannot be resolved. It will require ultimately a commitment by states, international organizations, and nonstate actors to continuous improvement. It may ultimately require leaders to return to the summit.

},
note = {Policy Watch},
keywords = {Contact Group, Everest, Gift Basket, Iceberg Theory, INTERPOL, Mauna Kea, NSS, Nuclear Security, Nuclear Terrorism, Obama, Policy Watch, Russia},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Kobrak2016,
title = {Interwar Financial Summits: The Economic Consequences and Lessons of Attempts to Repair a Broken World },
author = { Christopher Kobrak},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.2.3.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/gux002},
issn = { 2058-7449},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
pages = {114-142},
abstract = {EXTRACT: Political summits with economic and financial consequences have a long history. Reparation payments accompanied Napoleon’s peace agreement with Prussia in 1807 and Prussia’s peace agreement with France in 1871. The Vienna Conference following Napoleon’s defeat was not about finance principally, but it not only stipulated reparations for the victors, its framework for international stability also helped set the stage for nearly 100 years of economic development supported by the growth of new financial institutions and nearly unprecedented financial cohesion. As former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger observed, these financial settlements provided a model for future ones by not posing a mortal threat to any nation’s survival, thereby preserving a basis for future negotiation and consensus (Kissinger 1956).},
note = {Article},
keywords = {Austerity, Central Bankers, Conflict, Dawes Plan, Financial Summits, Germany, Gold Standard, Golden Fetters, Hague Conferences, Interwar, Reparations, Summitry, War, World War I, Young Plan},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Colakoglu2016,
title = {Turkey in Global Governance: An Evaluation of Turkey’s G20 Presidency and the Antalya Summit 2015 },
author = {Selcuk Colakoglu and Mehmet Hecan},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.2.4.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/gux003},
issn = { 2058-7449},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
pages = {143-160},
abstract = {This article assesses Turkey’s G20 Presidency. In addition to reviewing the outputs of Turkey’s Presidency, it illustrates the importance and relevance of these outputs for the G20, as a whole. The article also provides an evaluation of certain dynamics and shortcomings which conditioned aspects of Turkey’s performance during its hosting of the G20 Presidency. This article also aims to give a brief illustration of both global governance and the G20, and Turkey’s position at their intersection, considering that contextualization of Turkey in global governance is a subfield demanding further study. Finally, the analysis reveals important findings and inferences with respect to unestablished middle powers and their contribution to global governance

},
note = {Article},
keywords = {Antalya Summit, G20, Global Economy, global governance, Inclusivity, Institutionalization, middle powers, Regional Instability, Turkey, Turkish Presidency},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Luckhurst2016,
title = {The G20’s Growing Political and Economic Challenges },
author = {Jonathan Luckhurst

},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-2.2.5.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/gux004},
issn = { 2058-7449},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-00-00},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
pages = {161–179},
abstract = {The Group of Twenty (G20) confronts significant economic and political challenges, largely due to the failure to achieve sustainable and inclusive economic growth since the global financial crisis. This contributed to “populist” political trends that undermined the international economy in 2016, influencing the “Brexit” referendum and Donald Trump's U.S. election victory. The most ominous consequences of actions that may well echo the interwar period could be prevented today through international cooperation. Today’s political leaders need to build on efforts during the Chinese and German G20 presidencies to overcome the “new mediocre” in the global economy.},
note = {Article},
keywords = {Bretton Woods Compromise, Chinese Presidency, Economic Challenges, G20, German G20 Presidency, global governance, Merkel, New Mediocre, Political Challenges, Troika},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Patrick2015,
title = {The New “New Multilateralism”: Minilateral Cooperation, but at What Cost? },
author = {Stewart Patrick},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.2.1.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv008},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-12-18},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {2},
pages = {115-134},
abstract = {A defining feature of twenty-first century multilateralism is growing reliance on informal, non-binding, purpose-built partnerships and coalitions of the interested, willing, and capable. The rise of minilateral cooperation reflects the failure of formal international organizations to adapt to complex global challenges, dramatic power shifts, and growing normative divergences in world politics. Such ad hoc, disaggregated approaches to international cooperation bring certain advantages, including speed, flexibility, modularity, and possibilities for experimentation. But the new multilateralism also presents dangers, among these encouraging rampant forum-shopping, undermining critical international organizations, and reducing accountability in global governance.

},
note = {Feature Article},
keywords = {Conundrums, Disaggregated Multilateralism, G20, Institutional Reform, Messy Multilateralism, Minilateral Cooperation, Multi-stakeholder Multilateralism, Multilateralism, Policy Quandaries, Voluntary Codes of Conduct},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Cooper2015,
title = {MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own? },
author = {Andrew F. Cooper},
url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.1.6.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv005},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-07-28},
journal = {Global Summitry},
volume = {1},
number = {1},
pages = {95-114},
abstract = {Middle powers have long been excluded from global summits. The elevation of the G20 to the leaders’ level in the context of the 2008 financial crisis marks a significant turning point for Middle Power activity in global governance. Although most of the attention in the G20 was targeted on the relationship between the old G7 establishment and the large “emerging” market states, middle powers have been major beneficiaries of this self-selective G20 forum. Yet, despite their lead roles within the G20 as hosts and policy entrepreneurs, middle powers remain distinctive currently by not having a summit process of their own. This article examines the prospect of MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkey, and Australia) acting as a platform for such a summit. Formed as a dialogue process, MIKTA remains at an early stage of its development with a cautious club culture. Nonetheless, as demonstrated by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and India–Brazil–South Africa, the rationale to create a distinct summit process can overcome serious constraints. As a means not only to amplify their roles with respect to the new Informalism of the twenty-first century, but also to ensure that their presence in the hub of global governance is maintained, there is logic to creating a MIKTA summit.},
note = {article},
keywords = {BRICS, Collective Action, G20, G7, global governance, Global Projection, middle powers, MIKTA, Multipolarism, Rise of the Informals},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}