Directory Search
Scroll further down to browse by year.
| 1. | Cooper, Andrew F: “Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries . In: Global Summitry, 4 (1), pp. 64-80, 2018, ISSN: 2058-7449, (Article). (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: BRICS, G20, Global Projection, Globality, MIKTA, Official Development Assistance, Regional Entrapment, Rising States, Trade Profile, Trajectory, Turkey) @article{Cooper2018, title = {“Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries }, author = {Andrew F Cooper}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-4.1.5.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz002}, issn = { 2058-7449}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-00-00}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, pages = {64-80}, abstract = {Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country-specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of the interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection underscores the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {BRICS, G20, Global Projection, Globality, MIKTA, Official Development Assistance, Regional Entrapment, Rising States, Trade Profile, Trajectory, Turkey}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country-specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of the interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection underscores the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics. |
| 2. | Tiberghien, Yves: Fostering Bold and Innovative Ideas for Urgent Global Challenges: The V20 Contribution to the G20 during the China–German Transition . In: Global Summitry, 3 (1), pp. 27-44, 2017, ISSN: 2058-7449, (Article). (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Antalya, China, China-Germany, Chinese G20, G20, G7, German Presidency, Global Economy, Hangzhou, Paris, Trump, Turkey) @article{Tiberghien2017, title = {Fostering Bold and Innovative Ideas for Urgent Global Challenges: The V20 Contribution to the G20 during the China–German Transition }, author = {Yves Tiberghien }, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-3.1.2.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/gux008}, issn = { 2058-7449}, year = {2017}, date = {2017-09-23}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {3}, number = {1}, pages = {27-44}, abstract = {Since its self-appointment as the core global economic “Steering Committee” of systematically important countries in 2008–2009, the G20 has been facing a growing number of functional demands. Only the G20 has the ability to address global systemic risks, coordinate macro-economic policies among the major economic countries, provided coherent leadership to international institutions, and reduce policy frictions between emerging and established powers. Yet, despite rising expectations toward the G20, its effectiveness, seemingly, has gradually decreased. Its role as a platform for grand bargains and responsible global management by top political leadership has been overtaken increasingly by technical small bargains and routinized communiqués written by experts that only provide small steps forward. Even the vigorous and dynamic G20 Chinese and German presidencies in 2016 and 2017, respectively, had to scale back ambitious global goals and settle for normative commitments and minor adjustments. In response, a network of scholars, think tank leaders, policy leaders, and societal leaders came together in 2016 and 2017 as the Vision 20 to offer a way forward, a process, and a set of concrete ideas to nudge the G20 toward its potential as a long-term oriented flexible institution that is able to anticipate large-scale common systemic risks and muster collective responses. At a time of growing geopolitical tensions caused by shifts in the global balance of power, securitization of economic flows, and a broad-based social backlash against inequalities and fears generated by globalization, innovative solutions for collective global governance are urgently needed. This article summarizes the dynamic that lead to the Vision 20 effort and its early results. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {Antalya, China, China-Germany, Chinese G20, G20, G7, German Presidency, Global Economy, Hangzhou, Paris, Trump, Turkey}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Since its self-appointment as the core global economic “Steering Committee” of systematically important countries in 2008–2009, the G20 has been facing a growing number of functional demands. Only the G20 has the ability to address global systemic risks, coordinate macro-economic policies among the major economic countries, provided coherent leadership to international institutions, and reduce policy frictions between emerging and established powers. Yet, despite rising expectations toward the G20, its effectiveness, seemingly, has gradually decreased. Its role as a platform for grand bargains and responsible global management by top political leadership has been overtaken increasingly by technical small bargains and routinized communiqués written by experts that only provide small steps forward. Even the vigorous and dynamic G20 Chinese and German presidencies in 2016 and 2017, respectively, had to scale back ambitious global goals and settle for normative commitments and minor adjustments. In response, a network of scholars, think tank leaders, policy leaders, and societal leaders came together in 2016 and 2017 as the Vision 20 to offer a way forward, a process, and a set of concrete ideas to nudge the G20 toward its potential as a long-term oriented flexible institution that is able to anticipate large-scale common systemic risks and muster collective responses. At a time of growing geopolitical tensions caused by shifts in the global balance of power, securitization of economic flows, and a broad-based social backlash against inequalities and fears generated by globalization, innovative solutions for collective global governance are urgently needed. This article summarizes the dynamic that lead to the Vision 20 effort and its early results. |
| 3. | Colakoglu, Selcuk; Hecan, Mehmet: Turkey in Global Governance: An Evaluation of Turkey’s G20 Presidency and the Antalya Summit 2015 . In: Global Summitry, 2 (2), pp. 143-160, 2016, ISSN: 2058-7449, (Article). (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Antalya Summit, G20, Global Economy, global governance, Inclusivity, Institutionalization, middle powers, Regional Instability, Turkey, Turkish Presidency) @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} } 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 |
2018 |
Cooper, Andrew F “Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries Journal Article Global Summitry, 4 (1), pp. 64-80, 2018, ISSN: 2058-7449, (Article). @article{Cooper2018, title = {“Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries }, author = {Andrew F Cooper}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-4.1.5.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz002}, issn = { 2058-7449}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-00-00}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, pages = {64-80}, abstract = {Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country-specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of the interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection underscores the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country-specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of the interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection underscores the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics. |
2017 |
Tiberghien, Yves Fostering Bold and Innovative Ideas for Urgent Global Challenges: The V20 Contribution to the G20 during the China–German Transition Journal Article Global Summitry, 3 (1), pp. 27-44, 2017, ISSN: 2058-7449, (Article). @article{Tiberghien2017, title = {Fostering Bold and Innovative Ideas for Urgent Global Challenges: The V20 Contribution to the G20 during the China–German Transition }, author = {Yves Tiberghien }, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-3.1.2.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/gux008}, issn = { 2058-7449}, year = {2017}, date = {2017-09-23}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {3}, number = {1}, pages = {27-44}, abstract = {Since its self-appointment as the core global economic “Steering Committee” of systematically important countries in 2008–2009, the G20 has been facing a growing number of functional demands. Only the G20 has the ability to address global systemic risks, coordinate macro-economic policies among the major economic countries, provided coherent leadership to international institutions, and reduce policy frictions between emerging and established powers. Yet, despite rising expectations toward the G20, its effectiveness, seemingly, has gradually decreased. Its role as a platform for grand bargains and responsible global management by top political leadership has been overtaken increasingly by technical small bargains and routinized communiqués written by experts that only provide small steps forward. Even the vigorous and dynamic G20 Chinese and German presidencies in 2016 and 2017, respectively, had to scale back ambitious global goals and settle for normative commitments and minor adjustments. In response, a network of scholars, think tank leaders, policy leaders, and societal leaders came together in 2016 and 2017 as the Vision 20 to offer a way forward, a process, and a set of concrete ideas to nudge the G20 toward its potential as a long-term oriented flexible institution that is able to anticipate large-scale common systemic risks and muster collective responses. At a time of growing geopolitical tensions caused by shifts in the global balance of power, securitization of economic flows, and a broad-based social backlash against inequalities and fears generated by globalization, innovative solutions for collective global governance are urgently needed. This article summarizes the dynamic that lead to the Vision 20 effort and its early results. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Since its self-appointment as the core global economic “Steering Committee” of systematically important countries in 2008–2009, the G20 has been facing a growing number of functional demands. Only the G20 has the ability to address global systemic risks, coordinate macro-economic policies among the major economic countries, provided coherent leadership to international institutions, and reduce policy frictions between emerging and established powers. Yet, despite rising expectations toward the G20, its effectiveness, seemingly, has gradually decreased. Its role as a platform for grand bargains and responsible global management by top political leadership has been overtaken increasingly by technical small bargains and routinized communiqués written by experts that only provide small steps forward. Even the vigorous and dynamic G20 Chinese and German presidencies in 2016 and 2017, respectively, had to scale back ambitious global goals and settle for normative commitments and minor adjustments. In response, a network of scholars, think tank leaders, policy leaders, and societal leaders came together in 2016 and 2017 as the Vision 20 to offer a way forward, a process, and a set of concrete ideas to nudge the G20 toward its potential as a long-term oriented flexible institution that is able to anticipate large-scale common systemic risks and muster collective responses. At a time of growing geopolitical tensions caused by shifts in the global balance of power, securitization of economic flows, and a broad-based social backlash against inequalities and fears generated by globalization, innovative solutions for collective global governance are urgently needed. This article summarizes the dynamic that lead to the Vision 20 effort and its early results. |
2016 |
Colakoglu, Selcuk; Hecan, Mehmet Turkey in Global Governance: An Evaluation of Turkey’s G20 Presidency and the Antalya Summit 2015 Journal Article Global Summitry, 2 (2), pp. 143-160, 2016, ISSN: 2058-7449, (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 = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } 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 |
Sorry, no publications matched your criteria.
Sorry, no publications matched your criteria.