“…Global summitry is a term popularized by Alexandroff and Brean (2015), two scholars of international relations. The concept embodies the notion that the global political architecture of the post-2008 era is dominated by networks of policy communities, international organizations, and communities of practice where leaders exchange ideas and adopt specific ideational perspectives about governance and approaches to governance.…”
Section: Global Summitry In Higher Education: the Rise Of Asean Harmonizationmentioning
“…Global summitry is a term popularized by Alexandroff and Brean (2015), two scholars of international relations. The concept embodies the notion that the global political architecture of the post-2008 era is dominated by networks of policy communities, international organizations, and communities of practice where leaders exchange ideas and adopt specific ideational perspectives about governance and approaches to governance.…”
Section: Global Summitry In Higher Education: the Rise Of Asean Harmonizationmentioning
“…The term ‘global summitry’ captures this activity and encompasses:the architecture, institutions and, most critically, the political and policy behavior of the actors engaged in the influence of outcomes of common concern in the international system. Global summitry includes all actors – international organizations, trans‐governmental networks, states and non‐state entities whether individuals, corporations or associations – that influence the agenda, the organization and the execution of global politics and policy (Alexandroff and Brean, , p. 2).…”
Section: The Potential Of the G20mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This term is related to other conceptualisations of multilevel and pluralistic global governance (Alexandroff and Brean, , p. 5–10), but it emphasises that the activity of G20 leaders and diplomats is increasingly supported by various forms of transgovernmental and transnational agents which attempt to influence and inform the policy deliberations of G20 leaders (Slaughter, ). There is also now a significant level of policy making activity occurring among an array of diplomats, regulators, experts, and advocates from both within and beyond member governments during the planning and lead up to G20 summits.…”
Section: The Potential Of the G20mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this article contends that this potential is not just due to the smaller membership. Rather, the G20 uniquely includes economically significant states in a form of global summitry which involves institutionalised transnational and transgovernmental webs of formal and informal policy making activity in conjunction with the activity of G20 leaders (Alexandroff and Brean, ; Feinberg, ). This article contends that the G20 has the potential to be a site of policy coordination of economically significant states and transnational policy actors which could support the implementation of the Paris Agreement reached at the 21st conference of the parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015.…”
This article examines the prospective role of the G20 (Group of Twenty) in contributing to current efforts to address climate change. This article contends that the G20 has the potential to be a site of policy coordination of economically significant states and transnational policy actors which could support the implementation of the Paris Agreement reached at the 21st conference of the parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015. While this article demonstrates that the G20 and its predecessors have considered the topic of climate change without great success, it articulates the ways that recent developments within the operation of the G20 offers new prospects for addressing this crucial policy issue. These prospects rest primarily upon seeing the G20 as a form of global summitry which is not only an international forum but also a transnational framework of policy makers which offer the possibility that G20 deliberations can be more open to a wider variety of perspectives and more effectively engage with transnational efforts to address climate change.
“…27 What is different in the post global financial crisis era is that, for the first time in global governance, middle powers have been brought to the ''high table'' with an equivalency of bigger states. Certainly in terms of the ''rise of the informals'' 28 the world looks more polycentric. After the first three G20 summits, middle powers have dominated the hosting function.…”
This article argues that middle power diplomacy can be identified as having gone through three distinct waves. The first is connected with the immediate post-1945 global order, with a focus on multilateralism via the United Nations and related bodies. The second moved to ad hoc bursts of activism related to specific issue area niches. The third and current wave, by contrast, is embedded in the informal institutionalization associated with the G20. Just as the BRICS have used the G20 as a catalyst for differentiated activities both around and independent of the G20, the “missing middle” in the G20 (countries increasingly portrayed as middle powers beyond both the BRICS and the G7) have begun to explore the possibility of collective action. MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea, and Australia), while possibly a significant advance in global governance, has the potential of hardening the categories of countries identified as middle powers. At the same time, the MIKTA countries face a number of serious constraints in terms of this global reach. Institutional elevation is compromised by practice limitations, most notably the hold of regional imperatives.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
