Abstract

This article by the Senior Editors describes the scope and areas of interest of the new Global Summitry journal. Given the breadth of the topic, the article is divided into two parts, with the second to appear in the next issue. The narrative begins with an account of the current state of the global order and goes on to develop a working definition of global summitry. It looks at various facets of the concept with particular emphasis on the fact that global summitry is more than periodic, highly visible gatherings of leaders. We propose the “Iceberg Theory” of global summitry, metaphor for the substantial ongoing below-the-surface activity that gives support to the leaders’ ensemble. We distinguish global summitry from global governance while raising to prominence the many actors and international arrangements in global governance today. The article outlines the historical evolution of summitry, highlighting “revolutionary” changes over the last two hundred years. As its subtitle signals, the Journal is committed to a multidisciplinary approach that will engage economists, lawyers, and historians as well as experts in international relations.

Global Summitry in a World of Order and Disorder

It is appropriate at the launch of Global Summitry: Politics, Economics and Law in International Governance to outline the scope of the new journal while giving shape to the concept, “global summitry.” The narrative is split into two parts. In this inaugural issue, Part 1 describes the contemporary international order and the key terms that animate summitry and analysis of global governance. Part 2, to appear in the second issue, will focus on structure and power and how summitry fits within established concepts of international relations. It will also explore traditional and not-so-traditional concepts of international cooperation. For the sovereign state, challenges to collaboration and to overcoming the collective action problem head the list of concerns about governance.

The strongest thought current in contemporary global affairs is that we live in times of growing disorder. The New York Times Friedman (2006, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c) points to the clamor of chaos in international politics, especially in the Middle East. Traub (2015), reflecting on Kissinger’s World Order (2014), has declared that today’s world “is scarcely a Kissingerian one” and that world order is “increasingly like a chimera.” Traub adds that “state relations have become more conflictual than they were a decade ago; but states, collectively, are much weaker than they were …” Meanwhile, Patrick and Bennett (2015) of the Council of Foreign Relations address the situation with the provocative title, “Geopolitics Is Back - and Global Governance Is Out.”

What can we take from this chorus of commentators? What does it suggest for a new journal with an announced focus on global summitry? Is the realist world back with such vengeance that we ought to discard examination of the post–Cold War world and the evolution of global governance that researchers, experts, commentators, and officials have dealt with for decades? Was global governance just a minor “blip” in a world of unending international conflict?

While many are enthralled by rivalry, grand strategy, and conflict; the character, shape, and direction of world order is more than a mechanical teeter-totter. It is not a realist world of conflict and security at one moment and then international collaboration and cooperation in the next. Geopolitics is not back. It never went away. Nor has summitry faded away. Today’s global order combines geopolitics and global governance. Order and disorder, power and cooperation, are always tied together.

Global Summitry—A Working Definition

Given the scope of this new journal, there is a call for a working definition of “global summitry” to help set the editorial boundaries. This in turn demands a distinction between global summitry and the more familiar global governance. And whereas “summitry” is inherently international, does the qualifying “global” add substantial meaning and, if so, does it alter the scope of inquiry anticipated for the journal? Then there is the issue of whether global summitry and/or global governance relate to the more traditional but imprecise concept of multilateralism. Once past such definitional issues, we will be in a position to outline the evolution and extent of global summitry today which is an aim of this lead article.

A working definition of global summitry:

Global summitry involves 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.

This definition broadly captures two principal aspects in international relations: the international structure built on power, tradition, and behavior—known as statecraft or diplomacy—and the more collaborative interaction that underlies global governance.

Our focus in this first segment, Part 1, is on the many actors and their aims and actions that determine order and stability in the international system. There is also a strong historical theme in Part 1, outlining the evolution of summitry and its development and departure from traditional multilateralism. In Part 2, we address the current architecture of the global political order. We also examine how meaningful collaboration is achieved, or not, with special concern for the collective action problem that poses a fundamental limitation on international governance.

Global summitry is concerned with the behavior of actors in the international system, or more precisely what the diplomatic historian Paul Schroeder (2000, 261)1 calls the “human conduct” in the system. Such analysis encompasses traditional diplomatic behavior as well as rational modeling. The question is how states, individually and collaboratively, meet the interdependent challenges facing the system? How do these states, their leaders, and the many other actors achieve stability in international governance? Or do they fail to do so?

Contrary to a popular perception, summitry is more than the leaders. Leaders form a vital element of summitry, but they do not fully describe it. The G20 summit, created in 2008 after the outbreak of the global financial crisis, provides a telling example. The G20 leaders’ summit came into play some ten years after the original G20 had been formed as a gathering of finance ministers and central bankers. These ministers and bankers continue to meet to inform their heads of government. Thus, historically, heads of government have not been the sole actors in summitry. As we will show, substantial machinery underpins summit decision-making today, which leads to our Iceberg Theory.

Summitry is not new. Indeed, the use of the term is ascribed to Winston Churchill (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 2011, 221, 222). In a 1950 election speech, Churchill called for a “parley at the summit”—in that instance suggesting that such a meeting would help ease the mounting East–West tensions. While Churchill may be the source of the contemporary term “summit,” our working definition is somewhat wider than his specific usage.

Leaders met only occasionally over many decades from the first appearance of contemporary summitry. More traditional diplomacy dominated. Seldom were leaders directly engaged. But as leaders grew increasingly unwilling to limit their diplomacy to traditional diplomatic practice, personal leadership has come to occupy an increasingly prominent role. Thus, through World War II we saw a series of the Big Three leaders’ gatherings. Black argues:

At the same time, there was an emphasis on personal agreement among the leaders rather than on formal diplomatic processes, an emphasis that reflected the conviction on the part of leaders that they could change the world by personal diplomacy. … Summit diplomacy represented a continuation of pre-war practices including special diplomatic missions, as well as an attempt to maintain alliances and provide forums for negotiation to cope with the failures or deficiencies of international agencies such as the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations. (Black 2010, 209)

We will look at global summitry’s emergence, targeting several organizational and institutional creations and reforms that formed the core elements of the evolution in global summitry.

In today’s global politics—in a world marked by increasing connectedness—international relations are shaped to a large extent by market forces and what is often referred to as globalization. The current international political order is built on the foundation of two interlocking areas: security and economic progress. The old divisions of “high” and “low” politics, once so prominent in the Cold War era, have faded. Joseph Nye, a practitioner and an acute observer of international relations over decades, at a time when he was examining U.S. grand strategy in East Asia, reflected on the need for experts and officials to understand international relations as a fabric built on two frames: a political order and an economic one:

Political order is not sufficient to explain economic prosperity, but it is necessary. Analysts who ignore the importance of this political order are like people who forget the importance of the oxygen they breathe. Security is like oxygen – you tend not to notice it until you begin to lose it, but once that occurs there is nothing else that you will think about. (Nye 1995, 91)

Summitry then is embedded in a context of national, regional, and international decision-making that involves a web of actors concerned with security, with its bias toward sovereignty, and the common pursuit of prosperity. Summitry helps shape the process.

Finally, does “global” add to or subtract from summitry? A “global” perspective may lead to a particular focus on universal instruments such as the United Nations (UN). Yet “global” should not be taken as that alone. Even at the UN, the presumed seat of universality, the critical UN Security Council is far from universal.

Summitry includes a diversity of leaders’ assemblies. There is no minimum attendance required for summitry. China’s Xi Jinping’s meeting with U.S. President Obama—the leaders of the two great powers in the contemporary global order—is a global summit. Then too is the meeting of leaders at the Nuclear Security Summit. The first NSS meeting held in 2010 included some forty-seven leaders.

Some summitry settings are regional in character. For example, the annual meeting of ASEAN leaders brings together the ASEAN 10. Every three years, western hemispheric leaders meet at the Summit of the Americas. These important summits are perhaps not “global” summitry insofar as they are restricted to a regional context and do not generally have the broader influence of a more inclusive summit. On the other hand, on the day following the annual ASEAN meeting, leaders meet for the East Asia Summit (EAS). The EAS is a regional forum—an expanded set of sixteen leaders of the ASEAN plus China, Russia, India, Australia, and the United States. It is the only great power setting with Asia-Pacific security in its mandate, though not all leaders are comfortable with the focus.2 In striving for proper definition, we recognize that summitry includes high-level discourse with specifically regional concerns and that such deliberations can have a profound impact on global affairs.

One might reasonably ask whether ongoing European concerns about Greece and its place in the monetary union are regional or global issues.

Global summitry accepts that the contemporary order is complex: sharp boundaries of international, regional, and national policy are blurring. In turn, international institutions are undergoing significant change as well. The UN, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank have certainly not disappeared, but in many respects their traditional roles as hard law institutions have been displaced or supplemented by a less formal soft law approach.

Global summitry today is keenly interested in the “rise of the informals” wherein traditional diplomacy that in the past was conducted primarily by foreign ministers and their officials has been remade through the rise of meetings of national leaders, mainline ministers, and their officials—finance and trade, central bankers et cetera—and get-togethers of interested and informed actors, both public and self-regulatory, of many stripes. We see constructive gatherings that address national security, science and technology, agriculture, immigration, the environment and other issues of common concern among sovereign states. All this reflects the “Iceberg Theory.” Anne-Marie Slaughter, a strong proponent of networks in the contemporary global order, identifies the implications for international governance:

From a theoretical perspective, government networks straddle and ultimately erase the domestic/ international divide. (Slaughter 2004)

Global summitry then is part of a complex international politico-economic system.

Global Governance, Global Summitry

Global governance has become a ubiquitous term in international relations. It was not always the case. As a focus of concern, the idea of global governance emerged at the end of the Cold War. This reset in international political perspectives marked a turning point in the evolution of the geopolitical landscape. There were, and are, both analytic and practical reasons for the emergence of discourse on global governance. On the analytic side, the demise of the Soviet Union altered the shape of the international political order. As Barnet and Duvall (2005, 5) write in their volume, Power in Global Governance:

The vocabulary of “global governance” appeared at the very same moment that the Cold War receded from view. The Cold War was not only a description of a bipolar system; it also represented a mode of organizing the analysis and practice of international politics. With the end of the Cold War, the issue became what would and should take its place. For many, global governance represented a way of organizing international politics in a more inclusive and consensual manner. … Alongside the eclipse of the Cold War was the emergence of globalization. Although globalization had various dimensions, a unifying claim was that intensifying transnational and interstate connections requires regulatory mechanisms – governance, although not a government – at a global level.

While the context and dynamics of global governance were not then fully articulated, one structural element was evident: the international system had gone from two superpowers to one—the United States. Unipolarity and U.S. hegemony commanded attention in international relations and global governance. This structural change raised questions about the dominant realist mechanism—the contemporary balance of power. In fact, balance of power, so much a part of the Cold War attention on international governance, faded from discussion in international relations. Further elaboration will follow in Part 2 of this article.

Global summitry is alert to the continuous rearrangement of politics and policy premised on changing actors, structures, and agendas. Besides the critical element of power with its distribution and redistribution among states, other dimensions are very much a part of global summitry and impact this redistribution as well. The international system has seen a marked shift from “hard” to “soft” law; from formal—often hierarchical—institutions to less formal, horizontal, or “flattened” ones; from national sovereignty to interdependency.

This enlargement, however, raises concern among international relations experts as for some it veers uncomfortably close to global government. North America scholars in particular tended to avoid terms such as global governance, preferring to retain more traditional terms such as “multilateralism.” Yet even in North America, the language evolved. Karns and Mingst (2010, 4), in their International Organizations (IOs), are unambiguous:

Thus global governance is not global government; it is not a single world order; it is not a top-down, hierarchical structure of authority. It is the multilevel collection of governance-related activities, rules and mechanisms, formal and informal, public and private, existing in the world today.

Yet, definitions of global governance may vary. Weiss, Thakur, and Ruggie (2010, 6) present it this way:

“Global Governance” – which can be good, bad or indifferent – refers to existing collective arrangements to solve problems. Adapting our definition of governance, “global governance” is the sum of laws, norms, policies, and institutions that define, constitute, and mediate relations among citizens, society, markets and the state in the international arena – the wielders and objects of international public policy. Even in the absence of an overarching central authority, existing arrangements bring more predictability, stability, and order to transboundary problems than we might expect.

This Journal favors an examination of behavioral inputs and policy outputs of international governance. This avoids the wider but unfocused inquiry that globalization might otherwise bring.

The Global Order: Actors and Arrangements

The working definition makes clear that global summitry includes not just the traditional actors—states and their officials—but also a host of new IOs, institutions, and regimes along with transgovernmental organizations and networks. Traditional formal arrangements are now supplemented by what we call the “informals.” Additionally, global governance encompasses a host of non-state actors including non-governmentals (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), and various so-called multistakeholder organizations that some refer to as “regime complexes.”3 Abbott, Green, and Keohane (2015, 3) draw attention to the variety of actors identified in areas as seemingly distinct as financial regulation and climate change:

New organizational forms, in contrast, have emerged and expanded rapidly. States have created informal institutions and plurilateral “clubs,” such as the G20 and other “G-groups.” In response to increasing institutional fragmentation, states have also established meta-institutions to coordinate other entities, such as the High Level Political Forum for sustainable development and the G20 for financial regulation. IGOs have created their own “emanations.” National regulatory agencies have established influential transgovernmental institutions, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Sub-national governments have also established transnational networks, such as the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. Transnational public-private partnerships (PPPs) have expanded and gained official recognition as at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development.

These more complex and inclusive arrangements seem to overlap with international society as understood in part by the international relations English School.4

The range of relevant actors has increased in the contemporary world order and our working definition of global summitry takes that into account. Nevertheless the focus remains on those that influence and lead policy development on the global stage.5 Our interest is not limited to the old-line concern for foreign policy. Global summitry deals with “get-it-done” decision-making at various levels in view of a variety of policy objectives. Slaughter (2013, 6), again, suggests such a tilt in contemporary international relations is required:

Foreign policy, which has always been about advancing one nation’s interests and values with respect to those of other nations, is now increasingly about solving national, regional, and global problems that affect us all in myriad and often unpredictable ways.

Inquiry into global governance has expanded inexorably. A relatively narrow institutional focus would emphasize organizations and institutions. The reality of globalization leads to a broader inquiry into more organic global governance with less concern for narrow national interests. Rosenau (1992) opened up the global governance inquiry to a non-state actor-focused inquiry. In turn, Goldin (2013, loc. 187) sees an intimate link between globalization and global governance:

… the same processes of integration and innovation have also greatly increased the potential for systemic risk and global crises. Globalization is leaping ahead of the lethargic institutions of global governance.

The focus of international relations and international governance, as seen from the IO perspective has undergone a roller coaster of shifting attention: from formal international organizations, multilateralism, globalism, and transnationalism (including complex interdependence) to international regimes, various state and non-state actors, and new arrangements that seek to manage collaboration in international governance. Such diversity and complexity demand attention and fail to take into account the many methodological approaches and “isms” that have come to dominate analysis from one moment to another in the work of international relations specialists.6

The various strands of inquiry into global governance have become more sharply defined since end of the Cold War. One strand suggests that global governance principally focuses on traditional IOs. According to Stein (2008a, 203), IO involves “concrete entities with a physical presence – names addresses and so on.” Similarly, Diehl and Frederking (2010, 1) argue that “security interdependence”—where no single state can meet the challenges of international politics—demands a definition to match current international relations … “[it] requires global governance, and international organizations are a central component of global governance.”

As a practical matter, Stein (2008b, 17) points to the explosive growth of IOs in the last century, though Abbott, Green, and Keohane (2015) point to a significant decline in their creation more recently. In 1909, according to Stein, there were 37 IOs; by the end of the twentieth century there were 6,400. While this says little about what types of organizations or arrangements these IOs were engaged in, or the effectiveness of their specific operations,7 it nevertheless reflects the growing presence of these institutions in international relations and international governance.8 Stein notes, as well, that few of these IOs actually disappear over time. In fact what you see is the continued accumulation of IOs over time.

IOs, according to this perspective, are vital elements of global governance and global summitry as well. For example, Murphy (1994, 1) suggests:

One of the best ways to explore global governance, what world governments we actually have had, is to consider the history of world organizations, those intergovernmental and quasi-governmental global agencies that have (nominally) been open to any independent state (even though all states may not have joined).

A distinct strand of global governance analysis emerged with the so-called globalists, a view less focused on formal state-centric IO institutions. Instead, the globalists “… stressed a more complex set of relationships between national governments as well as transnational and other nonstate actors … ”(Rochester 1986, 792). This approach expanded the scope of IOs beyond intergovernmental organizations to include non-governmental institutions and transgovernmental ones as well (Rochester 1986, 792). Attention shifted from the traditional state-centric global governance to non-governmental organizations, civil society, and even to individuals in international affairs.

Despite distinct strands, multilateralism remains at the core of international governance. But what sort of multilateralism? How is multilateralism related to global governance? Ruggie (1992, 567) suggests a generic structural form and state that constitutes multilateralism in the international system:

Multilateralism is a generic institutional form of modern international life, and as such it has it has been present from the start. The generic institutional form of multilateralism must not be confused with formal multilateral organizations, a relatively recent arrival and still of only relatively modest importance. Historically, the generic form of multilateralism can be found in institutional arrangements to define and stabilize the international property rights of states, to manage coordination problems, and to resolve collaboration problems.

And he adds the following for good measure:

In sum, what is distinctive about multilateralism is not merely that it coordinates national policies in groups of three or more states, which is something that other organizational forms also do, but that it does so on the basis of certain principles of ordering relations among those states. (Ruggie 1992, 567)

Alternative forms of multilateralism build on different ordering principles. Ruggie argues for distinct forms of multilateralism that contrast the multilateral forms created after World War II under the strong influence of the United States versus the multilateral organizations and processes with the New Economic Order created by the Nazis before World War II. In the former, nondiscrimination and aspects of reciprocity governed; while for the latter these norms and rules do not define the multilateral process.

The arrangements that emerge even in the Cold War era were, it seems, driven in part by hegemonic leadership—U.S. leadership, in particular. One of the first to take note of this and analyze changes in the form of multilateralism was Kahler (1992, 686, 690). As opposed to “classic” multilateralism, Kahler identifies a new form of arrangement—minilateralism.

The obstacles to multilateral institution building were often dealt with not by American hegemony but by creating a core of minilateral cooperation among the economic powers … Minilateralism was a chosen means of governance for the United States in those issue-areas in which free riding by the other principal economic powers was unacceptable (often for domestic political reasons), additional legitimation was required, and exclusion or threat of exclusion from the regimes was undesirable (often for reasons of international security).

To this point, contemporary international relations have been described more in terms of global governance terms than multilateralism. The framing is broad, encompassing economics as well as politics; the analysis spans beyond the traditional state focus. The proliferation of those engaged in global governance is apparent in a number of key areas including, as mentioned, international banking and finance, but also climate change, border security, migration, public health, energy, and terrorism. Avent, Finnemore, and Sell (2010) focus on the variety of those involved in global governance by rhetorically asking, “Who are the governors?” Their answer is both extensive and inclusive (2010, 1): “… international organizations, corporations, professional associations, advocacy groups, and the like – seeking to ‘govern’ in issue areas they care about.” The rise of the “informals” and the appearance of global summitry add to the variety of actors and arrangements that press for collective action in international governance.

The language of old-line multilateralism is fading. Acharya (2014, 192) suggests the question for international governance is not whether there is a future for multilateralism but rather “… which multilateralism has a future?” While perhaps semantical, we have an evolving “new multilateralism” that both reflects and influences today’s global order. Acharya’s concern is whether the form of multilateralism will be altered again with the demise of hegemonic stability and U.S. leadership. Acharya sees as “post-hegemonic multilateralism.” We shall see.

Global order today—using the perspective of global governance—is filled with state and non-state actors, with economic and political influence. And the global order encompasses an array of networks—both public, private, and mixed—that serve a growing number of leader gatherings.

“Iceberg Theory” of Global Summitry

Many who have turned attention to contemporary global governance have focused, as we described above, on its nonhierarchical dimensions and on the informal structures that have emerged. The emphasis is on non-state actors in great diversity, including individuals. Recently Mitzen, in her book Concert of Europe, underscores that the much of the discourse on global governance has become tied to globalization. As a result, she says:

… what has come to be known as global governance in IR has been, largely, neoliberal global governance, that is, the institutional preconditions for the invisible hand of the market to operate beyond the state. (Mitzen 2013, 3)

Still while international law, political economy, and international relations have more generally extended beyond states alone, the focus remains authority-oriented and the capacity and commitment to implement policy. Global summitry acknowledges the flattening of authority structures, yet the state and institutions of the global system remain at the heart of global summitry. Global summitry is about decision-making. Slaughter suggests in respect of governmental organizations and contemporary networks that the state does not disappear, but often finds itself “… disaggregating into its component institutions which are increasingly interacting principally with their foreign counterparts across borders.” (Slaughter 2004, 18)

Global summitry is especially attuned to leaders’ summits. However, summitry must take into account the many organizations that, as we have described above, constitute the “galaxy of global order.” This broadened scope of inquiry underlies the “Iceberg Theory” of global governance. Below the leaders’ level lies not only a significant international bureaucratic machinery: a system of meetings and the work of ministers, and their ministries, working groups, international institutions but also transgovernmental organizations and regulatory networks with formal and informal regulatory actors. As Dingwerth and Patterberg (2006, 191) describe in “Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics”:

In essence global governance implies a multi-actor perspective on world politics. … the term global governance conceives of world politics as a multilevel system in which local, national, regional, and global political processes are inseparably linked.

A more concise, targeted definition is posed by Goldin (2013, loc. 175 of 3186):

By global governance, I mean the institutions and processes which seek to manage global problems.

Below the “waterline,” the machinery of the Iceberg can best be understood in contemporary global summitry institutions such as the G20 Leaders’ Summit (figure 1)

Figure 1

Structure of the G20 preparatory process.

Figure 1

Structure of the G20 preparatory process.

Analysts generally, but the media in particular, tend to be drawn to the leaders’ gathering—the very top of the diagram; the tip of the iceberg. Though this graphic is not fully complete from the Mexico Summit in 2010, it reveals just some of the significant G20 machinery that operates at the global summitry level. Many relevant institutions and transgovernmental networks are tasked by leaders and their ministers and working groups to prepare the agendas, action plans, and reports that are in part the outputs of global summitry. In addition, the diagram identifies some of the outreach that the G20 global summitry undertakes as it prepares for annual meetings and partakes in policy consultations.

Evolving Global Summitry

There is no consensus on the evolution of global summitry. For instance, the international relations theorist Hedley Bull (1966b, 36) suggests a teleological vector:

The League of Nations and the United Nations we are invited to see not as diplomatic machinery in the tradition of the Concert of Europe, but as first steps towards a world state.

The question remains: is Bull’s perspective correct? Significant changes occur with each institutional reconfiguration. In the following section we point to a few revolutionary turns. However, advances in the international order do not necessarily imply an ineluctable path toward world government.

Confusion in the terminology of global order and the mechanics of creating stability in the international system hinders an examination of the arrangements and behavior of states. For instance, there is a long-standing misperception of “balance of power.” Balance of power is often used in reference to the nation or nations that hold economic and military sway over the rest. Many international relations theorists presume, for instance, that balance of power governed through much of the nineteenth century even though the first decades after the Napoleonic Wars were governed by the Concert of Europe. One of the true balance of power historians, Vose Gulick (1955, 305–6), in his classic study distinguishes between what he calls “alliance balance” and “coalition equilibrium”:

The years 1812-1815 are especially meaningful to the student of the balance of power for the further reason that they witnessed the temporary evolution of a coalition equilibrium from the antecedent, eighteenth century system of alliance balance [emphasis added]. … is the conception of the coalition equilibrium which emerged at Chaumont, suffered various vicissitudes at Vienna, and remained, after the dust had begun to settled, as the chief means of enforcing Europe’s new territorial balance. The choice between the alliance and the coalition is a very fundamental decision, since the consequences are so different. Both may start near the same point, but they diverge quickly and widely as one advances along their paths, and they end at separate places. For example, if enforcement by coalitions sticks, certain means of the alliance balance should wither away, such as the magpies’ nest of bilateral alliances and holding the balance. The major allied powers of 1815, chose the coalition and wrote this conception into the Quadruple Alliance of November 20, 1815, where they provided for periodic conferences of sovereigns or ministers to deal with the major postwar problems, this decision laying the legal basis for the international conferences of the next decade by which European statesmen hoped to give a peacetime reality to their new coalition equilibrium.

Vose Gulick is pointing out the distinction between balance of power and what some analysts refer to as “concert diplomacy.” While balance of power discussions center round power, concert diplomacy shifts analysis to the institutions and the mechanics of collaboration.

Elrod (1976), a well-known diplomatic historian, argues that diplomats of the nineteenth century recognized the need for a different mechanism from the balance of power. Too many of these diplomats of the time recognized that the disorder generated by balance of power had to be avoided. Thus both Elrod 1976 and Schroeder (1994) argue that it was not a balance of power that operated following the Napoleonic Wars. As Elrod (1976, 161) contends:

In the first instance, the Concert derived from the common realization of European statesmen of the Napoleonic era that something new and different must be devised to mitigate the increasingly chaotic and warlike balance-of-power system of the previous century. Both critics and defenders of the balance-of-power idea, even during its apogee, recognized that it was unsatisfactory.

This coalition equilibrium, concert diplomacy, or in the specific historical circumstance, the Concert of Europe, then marks the emergence of concert diplomacy and indeed modern summitry. In more contemporary social science terms, Mitzen (2013, 11) describes what historically has been identified as a concert:

The framework I develop in this book helps bring into focus a distinct and relatively neglected public beyond the state: the power constituted by states acting together, sharing authority and responsibility for their actions. … My argument is that one way states manage their security situation in a given issue is by forming collective intentions, that is, by committing to address the issue together. From here, the dynamics of sharing authority constitute those states as an international public power.

As implied by the definition, and in contrast to hegemony, the emphasis in the description of concert diplomacy is not on hierarchy nor the special responsibilities and relationships of the hegemon. It is also not built on the explicit commitment to come to the defense of the other members—collective security, in other words.9

The Concert of Europe

As Ikenberry properly points out, throughout history rearrangements of great power generally followed the conclusion of major wars. But postwar creation of concert diplomacy is in fact apparently no longer the monopoly moment, notwithstanding Ikenberry and indeed Jervis’s (1986, 60) injunction that concert diplomacy “form[s] after, and only after, a large war against a potential hegemon because such a conflict alters the last two assumptions and increases the incentives to cooperate.” And the less explicit assumption—that is that global summitry is focused on the creation and passage of formal institutions only—is also no longer the case either as we describe the “rise of the informals” below. Starting in the 1970s, informal institutions have arisen and global summitry today in large measure operates through informal mechanisms. This is notwithstanding that the so-called Gx system is seldom identified by international relations experts as representing any more than a minor aspect in the evolution of global governance.10

The dilemma for leaders of each concert organization is to promote order and stability, but at the same time to permit change. Elrod (1976, 169) suggests that the summit system created after the Vienna Congress did just that:

At best, it represented a reasonably satisfactory solution to the most difficult problem of international systems: how to accommodate the forces of change and yet preserve peace and stability. Concert diplomacy allowed the great powers to sanction necessary alterations of the existing order; it provided the means of legitimizing change without endangering the general system.

The pattern of global summitry evolution started in the nineteenth century following twenty years of Napoleonic conflict and continued through several decades of the century.

It can indeed be agreed that, seen from the vantage point of 1986, [when the article was written] the greatest significance of the Vienna settlement lies in the fact that it saw the creation of the first deliberately contrived international system rather than in the precise nature of its territorial dispositions. Such a development had been proposed on many occasions throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, but had signally failed to attract the interest or support of rulers or statesmen: the propositions remained of purely intellectual interest. Since 1815, however, the world has never been without a deliberately contrived international organization of some kind. Vienna was thus in this respect a pivotal point (Langhorne 1986, 314).

While there is no consensus on the particular mechanisms employed by the Congress of Europe, certainly the periodic gathering of the great powers was the noticeable mechanism. Great powers acknowledged the collective restraint that concert brought; while the concert could not eradicate conflict, it made a concerted effort to manage international strife. The Concert of Europe was built on ideological uniformity but the decades of concert diplomacy, namely the Bismarckian Concert of 1871–1890, a later hybrid concert system, that was built less on common ideology than on practical crosscutting alliances (Rosecrance 2010, 25). Thus, mechanisms have varied over periods of concert diplomacy.

The League of Nations

Ad hoc conferences and congresses addressed great power problems—in what Castlereagh (Webster 1934, 144) referred to as “reunions.” Castlereagh contends that such gatherings were key to maintaining stability through congress diplomacy in the nineteenth century:

I am quite convinced that past habits, common glory and those occasional meetings, displays and repledges are among the best securities Europe now has for a durable peace (144).

However the conferences became passé after the formative years of the Concert of Europe: concert diplomacy faded away. The crises leading up to the outbreak of war in August 1914, invoked little interest for a gathering of the great powers to resolve the issues in Europe. They simply did not meet. War followed—the Great War or the “War to End All Wars.” (Lauren, Craig, and George 1983, 2014, 46):

Structurally, for example, there was not much left of the some of the best-known entities of the past. Of the five Great Powers that had dominated the classical system, more than half – the German Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire – had succumbed to revolution and collapsed. The Ottoman Empire no longer existed.

The complex ending of the war by the allied and associate leaders failed to reflect back in any substantial way to the concert diplomacy of Vienna and the Congress of Europe. While the peace efforts devised at the Paris Peace Conference were incomplete, and in some respects harmful, there were significant innovations in concert diplomacy devised by the Leaders. Though Jervis (1986, 58) suggests that concert diplomacy existed just for a year, in fact the concert diplomacy of the League organization struggled on for years before ending with the outbreak of World War II.11

The League of Nations was the first permanent institution designed to maintain international order. With the Covenant, the League the great powers sought to employ collective security to prevent future aggression. The great powers would form the core of a new “democratic” community, at least according to its principle advocate U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, but the balance of power politics would be replaced by the rule of law and collective dispute resolution. The key article in the management of international governance for this concert diplomacy was Article 10:

The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

While a revolutionary effort to promote collective great power commitment, the League and its collective security principle were deeply flawed. Besides the fact that U.S. Senate rejected the League, which led to U.S. withdrawal from League arrangements, the collective security commitment was limited and weak. In part due to U.S. sovereignty concerns, the collective security commitment relied principally on the moral force of global publics. The collective security pledge, in fact, was built largely on a foundation of persuasion and not great power commitment.

As Ikenberry (2011, 26) assesses the League:

The Wilsonian version of liberal internationalism was built not just around a “thin” set of institutional commitments, but also on the assumption that a “thick” set of norms and pressures – public opinion and the moral rectitude of statesmen – would activate sanctions and enforce the territorial peace.

Little explored but a rather unique intergovernmental body of the League, including representation from nonmember states, most particularly the United States, was the Economic and Financial Organization (EFO). The EFO was the first intergovernmental body dedicated to promoting economic and monetary cooperation. Though most countries believed that international economics and international finance were to be left to the work of central bankers and private actors, the Great Depression and the failed international efforts to ameliorate the global economic conditions, most particularly the 1933 London Economic Conference, left a deep impression on officials and leaders in the West.

Many features of this failed concert diplomacy, a formal institution including a secretariat, a collective security commitment by the great powers and even the development of policies with respect to economics, development and human rights were to be reborn with the conclusion of the next war.

UN and the Bretton Woods System

Well before the end of World War II, leaders were considering the management of international order. The Commission to Study the Organization of Peace (CSOP) in fact was created in 1939 by professors Quincy Wright, James T. Shotwell, and Clyde Eagleton to examine the future international architecture. This Commission was not as formal as the Inquiry—an expert panel of 150 academics, directed by Colonel House, Wilson’s close advisor, and initiated to help Wilson develop his ideas for peace and recommend specific elements for a comprehensive peace settlement. Nevertheless the CSOP prepared reports about a postwar order. Among those who aided its efforts were Sumner Welles, the Undersecretary of State and also the future Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. These reports were provided to Secretary of State Cordell Hull and to President Franklin Roosevelt himself. The reports provided valuable recommendations for building the postwar order and the CSOP was eventually included in the State Department’s planning process.

In the reports from the CSOP, driven particularly by Professor Wright, were recommendations to achieve the goal of a world organization that would provide globally collective security, “but also collaborative action to reduce poverty, disease, and hunger and provide for greater opportunities for education, social growth and cultural exchange.” (Throntveit 2011, 369) The CSOP recognized that such a world organization could not be created immediately and it foresaw that for a “transitional period” and in light of the tremendous problems presented the war’s end, the great powers—the leaders of the anti-fascist alliance, the United States, Russia, Great Britain and China, Roosevelt’s Four Policemen—would be required to take the lead and govern.

The victorious powers and their allies gathered in San Francisco in 1945 to construct a new global order. The organization contemplated first a small but powerful Security Council, a reflection of earlier concert diplomacy with 15 members but dominated by the five great powers: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China. These five, the P5, were granted permanent membership and veto authority. In fact the transitional period of leadership envisioned by the CSOP was adopted by San Francisco in the Security Council. Roosevelt and his officials, however, determined that the great powers needed to be permanent and have a continuing role in the international order:

The temporary great-power directorate became, with a few alterations, a permanent feature of the United Nations Organization in the form of the Security Council – which by common agreement among its creators-cum-permanent members gave each of the Great Powers veto over the rest of the world’s decisions. (Throntveit 2011, 370)

In addition to the Security Council, the gathering created a General Assembly to serve as a setting where global public opinion could be heard through their governments. In addition, the San Francisco assembly created an Economic and Social Council to “address conditions of stability and well-being, including issues of human rights” (Lauren, Craig, and George 1983, 2014, 77). In addition, the gathering created a Trusteeship Council for the yet non-sovereign people of the world. Finally, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established to advance international law and to serve as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice set up in 1922 and attached to the League of Nations.

The United Nations, through its Charter, identified two sources for the use of force in international settings—self-defense and a resolution of the Security Council under Chapter VII. The use of force is justified to maintain or restore peace where there is a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression. Here then was a much strengthened collective security mechanism—in contrast to the League of Nations—that could, it was hoped, create and maintain a postwar security system. But the architecture that was created at San Francisco was barely able to function as the allied powers split apart. The Cold War saw the United States emerge as a nascent hegemon that built a liberal world order in the West and sought to contain the Soviet Union and Communist China. Eventually, with the end of the Cold War, the United States emerged as the sole hegemon over what would be seen as a truly global economy.12

The UN system was not the only architecture put together by the victors at the end of the war (Black 2010, 212). The most substantive revolution at that time in global summitry was the creation of international economic institutions—the IMF, the World Bank, albeit marred by the failed effort to create the International Trade Organization—that would limp on to become the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (technically the ITO and then the GATT were parts of the UN system).13 The prevailing view of the time was that the Great Depression gave rise to fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany. To avoid such outcomes in the future required the victors to build organizations to regulate international finance and economics. Global economics was too important to be left to business and central bankers. Until the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, the postwar economic order was

… built on an historic political compromise: Unlike the economic nationalism of the thirties, the international economic order would be multilateral in character; but unlike the liberalism of the gold standard and free trade, its multilateralism would be predicated upon domestic interventionism. (Ikenberry 1992, 294–5)

Economic issues have long had a place in global summitry, although in the past the concerns were more about dividing the economic pie rather than enlarging it—settling scores on war reparations as was done at Versailles in 1919, for example, or drawing imperial borders as was the case in the Hadda Agreement in November 1925 between the British and the House of Saud.

At the Paris Peace Conference in particular, the delegates’ lack of understanding of the negative economic consequences of the proposed Versailles Treaty prompted John Maynard Keynes, perhaps the most insightful economist of the twentieth century, to write presciently, “The Economic Consequences of the Peace.” According to Keynes, it was a “Carthaginian peace” that would brutally crush the enemy at the cost of future peaceful prosperity.

This lack of appreciation of the economics of interdependent nations was to come into sharp relief twenty-five years later at the famous conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire with forty-three countries represented. Keynes, then a British delegate, remembered the lessons from Versailles as well as the Great Depression. The so-called Bretton Woods institutions—the World Bank and the IMF—emerged as part of the coordinative effort to rebuild the shattered postwar economy. At Keynes’ insistence, an orderly, resilient international economic system was agreed as central to a new world economic order. Such institution building requires coordination and commitment at the highest level.

Other summit-like initiatives of the time reflect similar insights into the importance of agreements to achieve aims of common interest, especially peace and prosperity. The Marshall Plan tore a page from The Economic Consequences of the Peace. The Treaty of Rome (officially the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, 1957) advanced the progressive ideas of Jean Monnet, a senior French civil servant, and Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, in the Treaty of Paris (1950)—to wit, an economically integrated Europe is less likely to resort to war.

Two milestones mark the rise to prominence of economics in later day global summitry. First, was the US reticence to continue to permit the convertibility of U.S. dollars for gold, the so-called “closing of the gold window” in 1971. Until then, á la the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates, global exchange rate stability had relied on major currencies being tied to the U.S. dollar and the U.S. dollar in turn to gold. The IMF stood by to deal with nations in currency crisis. All that ended abruptly in August 1971. The U.S. unilateral action was driven in part by its own reckless monetary policy and the inflation that it generated. Thus began the modern era of flexible exchange rates along with exchange rate volatility and unfamiliar forms of risk associated with interest rates, capital flows, and international trade. Such issues demanded international discussion regarding the state of international finance, which led to the Rambouillet meetings in 1975, described below.

The second event to propel the role of economics in summitry is, of course, the global financial crisis of 2007–08 and its aftermath, now referred to as the Great Recession. The global financial crisis was ignited in the United States; the flames quickly spread throughout the world, shifting from bank failure to widespread collapse of credit. Asset values plummeted. The impact on the “real” economy was felt in sharply reduced growth, contraction of international trade, and a steep rise in unemployment. Macroeconomic shocks looped back into key established power public finances and erosion of the balance sheets of the banking systems of most major countries. This was a crisis of global proportions.

Intervention was swift. U.S. President George W. Bush was persuaded to call a high-level meeting to be held Washington. The perplexing question was, “Who to invite?” In the end President Bush turned to the membership of the G20, which to that point had been an informal forum for central bank governors and finance ministers. He invited the heads of state of the G20 member nations, all of whom agreed to attend in November 2008. The shift to Leaders in the G20 marked the “leap to leaders” in the world’s most prominent summit and a significant rise in the prominence of economics in the agenda.

The legacy of the global financial crisis includes its history of massive economic stimulus, new ways to operationalize that stimulus (such as “quantitative easing”), and extensive reassessment of risk in the banking sector and management of that risk.

Economics in global summitry today is now broader than the concern for global growth and financial sector resiliency. Environmental protection, trade, food safety, infant health, nuclear security, immigration, income inequality, international taxation, and the like all have an underlying economic foundation. All these concerns affect sovereign nations individually while the aim and purpose of global summitry is to address the interdependencies, recognizing that we are more than the sum of the parts.

In national capitals across the globe, economists’ planning and policy development skills are in play to prepare the summit leaders and their Sherpas of pertinent, often technically intensive analysis that inform priorities and proposals that ascend to summit meetings. The multilateral agencies, including the World Bank and the IMF, play crucial coordinative roles in policy development. We are of course deeply interested in receiving submissions on all these economic questions—whether the policy or the institutions that drive the global economy today.

Keynes would no doubt be proud of his profession, especially its modern integration with other social sciences. While Keynes would not likely crow about the “superiority of economists,”14 his views resonate to this day. In his words, “The master economist must possess a rare combination of gifts … He must be a mathematician, historian, statesman and philosopher – in some degree.” This combination of intellectual gifts underpins the success of summitry.

Rise of the Informals

In some respects, the revolutionary character of the “rise of the informals” is premised on their very existence. The first to appear was the G7—actually the G5 and then G6 but then the G7 by 1975 at Rambouillet, as noted above. Subsequently, a significant number of other informals have appeared to tackle the international order broadly but then also targeted on very specific sectors and problems. The originality of the informals has disappeared and they are not limited to the Gx system of institutions. Just recently, President Obama convened the Nuclear Security Summit in 2010 and Summits were held in 2012 and 2014. But in this particular summit process, a time deadline has been incorporated. This global summit will meet in Washington once again in 2016 and, at least for the moment, this would appear to be the last Leaders’ Summit for this particular Informal.

These changes—particularly the emergence of the G7 (an informal leaders gathering) and then the creation of the G20 leaders’ summit in 2008—have come without the reordering occasioned by the termination of major power conflict. Though some have argued that the events that gave rise to this first Informal represented an effort to meet and overcome the consequences in economic terms of something akin to a conflict in political terms, it seems rather an exaggerated premise. In one of the first examinations on the rise of informal global summitry, Putnam and Bayne (1984/1987, 14), argue that these structural changes caused ministers and then leaders of the G5 to come together. These structural changes included: the growing interdependence among the advanced industrial countries; the decline in U.S. hegemony (though this appears to be a repeated narrative) and the growing bureaucratization in these states that led to much frustration by leaders over the disaggregation of policy authority. The international economic order was changing, it appears, and it seems that the United States had decided that it could not lead. It chose a minilateral leaders forum. Nevertheless, the contemporary era has witnessed the evolution of global summitry without the necessity of a postwar period rearrangement.15

The Rambouillet Summit in 1975 was then the first G-summit. The G7 leaders addressed challenges faced by nations that are sovereign but nevertheless economically interdependent with others. The Rambouillet agenda included inter alia the imperative of global growth, the economic gains from expanded world trade, the threat of protectionism, the new reality of flexible exchange rates, cooperation via IOs, and the importance of understanding developing countries—soon to be called developing and emerging powers. The Rambouillet doctrine, which carries through to today, was a call for economic counsel to politicians and bureaucrats.

The summits, many of which meet annually at the leader and ministerial levels, vary in form and foundation. Many of these global summits do not have permanent secretariats, though some do. Most are self-identified and fail to have anything close to universal membership. The most evident small club was of course the first, the G7, frequently referred to as the “Club of the Rich.” Most are not built on formal legal foundations and their decisions bind only those states whose leaders attend. And even in those circumstances, national implementation may or may not be forthcoming.

What is evident is that at least in political economy issues, global summits have taken leaders outside the formal institutions created following World War II. And in fact, as is evident in the case of the G20 Leaders’ summit, the leaders and their ministers have tasked formal institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to prepare some of the policy initiatives that these Leaders have subsequently ratified.

This selective historical review illustrates the complex evolution of the global political order over the last two hundred years. Much ground is left for historians, political scientists, economists, lawyers, and others to examine in their inquiries into past and current global summitry.

Closing Remarks—Linked to the Aims of the Global Summitry Journal

This lead piece in the inaugural issue of Global Summitry: Politics, Economics and Law in International Governance outlines the scope of inquiry of the journal while giving definition and shape to the basic concept, “global summitry.” It depicts the contemporary international order and defines key terms that animate summitry and analysis of global governance. Part 2, in the next issue, will focus on structure and power and how summitry fits within established concepts of international relations while exploring traditional and not-so-traditional concepts of international cooperation.

We have proposed the “Iceberg Theory” of global summitry, metaphor for the substantial ongoing below-the-surface activity that gives support to world leaders’ ensemble. Global summitry—a multifaceted organizational process—is distinguished from global governance, a political philosophical concept, by raising to prominence the actors in summitry that inform governance. The article also outlines the historical evolution of summitry, highlighting “revolutionary” changes over the last two hundred years. As its subtitle signals, this new journal is committed to a multidisciplinary approach to engage economists, lawyers, and historians as well as experts in international relations.

1Paul Schroeder is one of diplomatic history’s contemporary greats. He adds analytic clarity to the world of diplomacy. His most influential work sets out Europe’s eighteenth and nineteenth century diplomatic history (see Schroeder 1994).
2China, for instance, has objected to the security dimension in the discussions at the EAS.
3This term emerges in the climate change literature. See for instance: Keohane and Victor (2011, 7–23).
4Buzan is perhaps the most descriptive and analytic of experts interested in the English School and its various elements of world order: the international system, international society, and world society (see Buzan 2004).
5It is possible to add focus to “agenda setting.” Many experts are concerned with who sets the agenda. Agenda setting is not unimportant in trying to assess effectiveness; we feel that on balance the “outputs” side remains key to assessing effectiveness.
6A number of attempts to review the ups and downs in the international relations of IOs include: Rochester (1986), Kratochwil and Ruggie (1986).
7A passionate debate in international relations deals with whether IOs have much impact at all in international relations outcomes. Realists generally minimize the impact of IOs. A well-known critique of IOs is Mearsheimer (1994).
8There are technical definitional differences between IOs and international institutions. For a discussion of these differences, see Stein (2008a). As is commonly the case, we use the terms here interchangeably.
9Kupchan and Kupchan (1991, 119) argue that at one point the Concert of Europe represented a collective security arrangement, though at another point, Charles Kupchan alone suggests that the Concert of Europe is in fact a pluralistic security community (Kupchan 2010).
10A typical example is the recent volume by Hale, Held, and Young (2013).
11The demise of this fatally flawed institution, and the criticism of the leaders that brought it to life, has left much still to be written on The League of Nations. Still there are a number of valuable studies including Berg (2013), Clavin (2013), Clavin and Wessels (2005), Levin (1972), Northedge (1986), and Smith (1965).
12The pertinent literature is extensive. A few select studies include: Kelsen (1948, 1950), Goodrich and Hambro (1949), Hurd (2008), Weiss and Daws (2008), Weiss, Thakur, and Ruggie (2010), Weiss and Urquhart (2012).
13Again, the literature dealing with the political security dimensions of the global order is extensive. Select number works include: Helleiner (1994), Kenen (1994), Eichengreen (1996, 2008), Pauly (1996), Jackson (1997), Zeiler (1999), Andrews, Henning, and Pauly (2002), Irwin (2010), Drezner (2014), and Helleiner (2014).
14“The Superiority of Economists” is the provocative title of a recent article in the prestigious Journal of Economic Perspectives (Fourcade, Ollion, and Algan 2015). In the pecking order of social sciences, it seems that economics is at the top. This pride of place stems from economics’ empirical, model-based analytic methods—versus the more discursive approaches of political science, law, sociology, or history.
15John Kirton in many respects is the unsung hero of the “rise of the informals.” As the head of the G8/G20 Research Groups at the University of Toronto, Kirton and his colleagues have examined the informals’ evolution of in constructive detail. See Kirton (2010, 2013) and the work of his colleague Hajnal (1999, 2013) and Nicholas Bayne (2000).

Works Cited

Abbott
Kenneth
Snidal
Duncan
.
2000
.
Hard and Soft Law in International Governance
.
International Organization
 
54
(
3
):
421
56
.
Abbott
Kenneth
Green
Jessica
Keohane
Robert
.
2015
.
Organizational Ecology and Institutional Change in Global Governance
 . http://ssrn.com/abstract=2293678 (accessed June 10, 2015).
Acharya
Amitav
.
2014
.
Post-hegemonic multilateralism
. In
International organization and global governance
 , eds.
Weiss
Thomas G.
Wilkinson
Rorden
,
192
204
.
London and NY
:
Routledge
.
Alexandroff
Alan S.
, ed.
2008
.
Can the world be governed? Possibilities for effective multilateralism
 .
Waterloo, ON
:
Wilfred Laurier University Press
.
Alexandroff
Alan S.
2010
.
“Challenges in Global Governance: Opportunities for G-x Leadership,”
The Stanley Foundation: Policy Analysis Brief
 ,
March 2010
.
Alexandroff
Alan S.
Kirton
John
.
2010
.
The “Great Recession” and the emergence of the G-20 leaders’ summit
. In
Rising states, rising institutions: Challenges for global governance
 , eds.
Alan S.
Alexandroff
Cooper
Andrew F.
.
Washington
:
Brookings Institution Press
.
177
95
.
Alexandroff
Alan
.
2015b
.
Before the war: Three styles of diplomacy
. In
The next great war? The roots of World War I and the risk of US-China conflict
 , eds.
Rosecrance
Richard N.
Miller
Steven E.
,
3
12
.
Cambridge, MA and London
:
The MIT Press
.
Andrews
David, C.
Henning
Randall
Pauly
Louis W.
, eds.
2002
.
Governing the World’s money
 .
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Avent
Deborah D.
Finnemore
Martha
Sell
Susan K.
, eds.
2010
.
Who governs the globe?
 ,
1
31
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Barnett
Michael
Duvall
Raymond
, eds.
2005
.
Power in Global Governance
,
1
32
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Bayne
Nicholas
.
2000
.
The G7 Summit’s contribution: Past, present, and prospective
. In
Shaping a new international financial system
 , eds.
Kaiser
Karl
Kirton
John
Daniels
Joseph
.
Aldershot, UK
:
Ashgate
.
Berg
A. Scott
.
2013
.
Wilson
 .
New York
:
G.P Putnam’s and Sons
.
Black
Jeremy
.
2010
.
A history of diplomacy
 .
London
:
Reaktion Books
.
Brummer
Chris
.
2012
.
Soft law and the global financial system: Rule making in the 21st century
 .
New York
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Brummer
Chris
2014
.
Minilateralism: How trade alliances, soft law and financial engineering are redefining economic statecraft
 .
New York
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Bull
Hedley
.
1966a
.
The Grotian conception of international society
. In
Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics
 , eds.
Butterfield
Herbert
Wight
Martin
,
51
73
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
.
Bull
Hedley
1966b
.
Society and anarchy in international relations
. In
Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics
 , eds.
Butterfield
Herbert
Wight
Martin
,
35
50
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
.
Bully
Hedley
.
1977
.
The anarchical society
 .
London
:
MacMillan
.
Bull
Hedley
Watson
Adam
, eds.
1984
.
The expansion of international society
 .
London
:
Oxford University Press
.
Buzan
Barry
.
2004
.
From international to world society? English school theory and the social structure of globalisation, Cambridge studies in international relations
 .
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Claude
Inis
Jr.
1962
.
Power and International Relations
 ,
New York
:
Random House
.
Claude
Inis
Jr.
1989
.
The balance of power revisited
.
Review of International Studies (Special Issue on the Balance of Power)
 
15
(
2
):
77
85
.
Clavin
Patricia
Wessels
Jens-Wilhelm
.
2005
.
Transnationalism and the League of Nations: Understanding the work of its economic and financial organization
.
Contemporary European History
 
14
(
4
):
465
92
.
Clavin
Patricia
.
2013
.
Securing the world economy: The reinvention of the League of Nations: 1920-1946
 .
New York and Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Diehl
Paul F.
Frederking
Brian
, eds.
2010
.
The politics of global governance: International Organizations in an interdependent world
 ,
4th ed.
Boulder CO and London
:
Lynne Rienner Publishers
.
Dingwerth
Klaus
Patterberg
Philipp
.
2006
.
Global governance as a perspective on world politics
.
Global Governance
 
12
(
2
):
185
203
.
Drezner
Daniel W.
2012
.
“Whose World is it Anyway,”
The National Interest: Crisis of the Old Order
 ,
May–June, 2012
.
Drezner
Daniel W.
2014
.
The system worked: How the world stopped another Great Depression
 .
New York and London
:
Oxford University Press
.
Eichengreen
Barry
.
2008
.
Globalizing capital: A history of the monetary system
 ,
2nd ed.
Princeton
:
Princeton University Press
.
Elrod
Richard
.
1976
.
The concert of Europe: A fresh look at an international system
.
World Politics
 
28
(
2
):
159
74
.
Fourcade
Marion
Ollion
Etienne
Algan
Yann
.
2015
.
The superiority of economists
.
Journal of Economic Perspectives
 
29
(
1
):
89
114
.
Friedman
Thomas
.
2006
.
“Order vs. Disorder,”
The New York Times
 , .
Friedman
Thomas
.
2014a
.
“Order vs. Disorder, Part 2,”
The New York Times
 , .
Friedman
Thomas
2014b
.
“Order vs. Disorder, Part 3,”
The New York Times
 , .
Friedman
Thomas
2014c
.
“Order vs. Disorder, Part 4,”
The New York Times
 , .
Goldin
Ian
.
2013
.
Divided nations: Why global governance is failing, and what can we do about it
 .
London
:
Oxford University Press
.
Goodrich
Leland M.
Hambro
Edvard
.
1949
.
The Charter of the United Nations: commentary and documents
 .
New York
:
World Peace Foundation
.
Gulick
Edward Vose
.
1955
.
Europe’s classical balance of power
 .
New York
:
W.W. Norton
.
Hale
Thomas
Held
David
Young
Kevin
.
2013
.
Gridlock: Why global cooperation is failing when we need it most
 .
Malden, MA and Cambridge, UK
:
Polity Press
.
Hamilton
Keith
Langhorne
Richard
.
1995, 2011
.
The practice of diplomacy: It’s evolution, theory and administration
 ,
2nd ed.
New York and London
:
Routledge
.
Hajnal
Peter I.
1999
.
The G7/G8 system
 .
Aldershot, UK
:
Ashgate Publishing Limited
.
Hajnal
Peter I.
2007
.
The G8 system and the G20
 .
Aldershot, UK
:
Ashgate Publishing Limited
.
Helleiner
Eric
.
1994
.
States and the reemergence of global finance: From Bretton Woods to the 1990s
 .
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Helleiner
Eric
2014
.
Forgotten foundations of Bretton Woods: International development and the making of the postwar order
 .
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Hinsley
F. H.
1963
.
Power and the pursuit of peace
 .
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Hurd
Ian
.
2008
.
After anarchy: Legitimacy and power in the United Nations Security Council
 .
Princeton
:
Princeton University Press
.
Ikenberry
G. John
.
1992
.
A world economy restored: Expert consensus and the Anglo-American postwar settlement
.
International Organization
 
46
(
1
):
289
322
.
Ikenberry
G. John
2001
.
After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars
 .
Princeton and Oxford
:
Princeton University Press
.
Ikenberry
G. John
2010
.
The three faces of liberal internationalism
. In
Rising states, rising institutions
 , eds.
Alexandroff
Alan S
Cooper
Andrew F
,
17
47
.
Washington and Waterloo, ON
:
Brookings Institution Press and CIGI
.
Ikenberry
G. John
2011
.
Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order
 .
Princeton and Oxford
:
Princeton University Press
.
Irwin
Douglas
.
1997
.
Against the tide: An intellectual history of free trade
 .
Princeton
:
Princeton University Press
.
Jervis
Robert
.
1978
.
Cooperation under the security dilemma
.
World Politics
 
30
(
2
):
167
214
.
Jervis
Robert
1986
.
From balance to concert: A study of international security cooperation
. In
Cooperation under anarchy
 , ed.
Oye
Kenneth
,
58
79
.
Princeton and London
:
Princeton University Press
.
Kahler
Miles
.
1992
.
Multilateralism with small and large numbers
.
International Organization
 
46
(
3
):
681
708
.
Karns
Margaret
Mingst
Karen
.
2010
.
International Organizations: The politics and processes of global governance
 ,
2nd ed.
Boulder and London
:
Lynne Rienner Publishers
.
Kelsen
Hans
.
1948
.
Collective security and collective self-defense under the Charter of the United Nations
.
American Journal of International Law
 
42
:
783
.
Kelsen
Hans
1950
.
The law of the United Nations: A critical analysis of its fundamental problems
 .
Union, NJ
:
The Lawbook Exchange
.
Kenen
Peter
, ed.
1994
.
Managing the world economy: Fifty years after Bretton Woods
 .
Washington
:
Institute for International Economics
.
Keohane
Robert O.
1980
.
The theory of hegemonic stability and changes in international economic regimes
,
1967
1977
. In
Change in the international system
 , eds.
Holsti
Ole
Siverson
Randolph
George
Alexander
,
131
62
.
Westview Press
:
Boulder CO
.
Keohane
Robert O.
1982
.
The demand for international regimes
. In
International regimes
 , ed.
Krasner
Stephen
,
141
72
.
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Keohane
Robert
.
1984, 2005
.
After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy
 .
Princeton and London
:
Princeton University Press
.
Keohane
Robert O.
1990
.
Multilateralism: And agenda
.
International Journal
 
45
:
731
64
.
Keohane
Robert
Victor
David
.
2011
.
The regime complex for climate change
.
Perspectives on Politics
 
9
(
1
):
7
23
.
Keynes
John Maynard
.
1920
.
The economic consequences of the peace
 .
New York
:
Harcourt Brace
.
Kindleberger
Charles
.
1986
.
The world in depression, 1929-1939
 .
Berkeley, CA
:
University of California Press
.
Kirton
John
.
2010
.
The G-20 finance ministers: Network governance
. In
Rising states, rising institutions: Challenges for global governance
 , eds.
Alan S
Alexandroff
Cooper
Andrew F.
,
196
217
.
Washington
:
Brookings Institution Press
.
Kirton
John J.
2013
.
G20 governance for a globalized world
 .
Farnham, UK
:
Ashgate Publishing Limited
.
Kissinger
Henry
.
1957
.
A world restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the problems of peace, 1812-22
 .
Boston
:
Houghton Mifflin
.
Kissinger
Henry
2011
.
On China
 .
New York
:
Penguin Books
.
Kissinger
Henry
2014
.
World Order
 .
New York
:
Penguin Books
.
Krasner
Stephen
.
1982a
.
Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables
. In
International regimes
 , ed.
Krasner
Stephen
,
1
22
.
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Krasner
Stephen
1982b
.
Regimes and the limits of realism: regimes as autonomous variables
. In
International regimes
 , ed.
Krasner
Stephen
,
355
68
.
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Krasner
Stephen
, ed.
1983
.
International regimes
 .
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Kratochwil
Friedrich
Ruggie
John Gerard
.
1986
.
IO as an art of the state: A regime critique
.
International Organization
 
40
(
4
)
(Autumn, 1986), 753–76
.
Kupchan
Charles
Kupchan
Clifford
.
1991
.
Concerts, collective security, and the future of Europe
.
International Security
 
16
(
1
):
114
61
.
Kupchan
Charles A.
2010
.
How enemies become friends: The sources of stable peace
 .
Princeton and Oxford
:
Princeton University Press
.
Kupchan
Charles
.
2012
.
No one’s world: The west, the rising rest, and the coming global turn
 .
New York, Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Langer
William L.
1931, 1964
.
European alliances & alignments: 1871-1890
 .
New York
:
Random House
.
Langhorne
Richard
.
1986
.
Reflections on the significance of the Congress of Vienna
.
Review of International Studies
 
12
(
4
):
313
24
.
Lauren
Paul Gordon
Craig
Gordon A
George
Alexander L.
.
1983, 2014
.
Force and statecraft: Diplomatic challenges of our time
 ,
5th ed
.
New York and Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Levin
N. Gordon
, ed.,
1972
.
Woodrow Wilson and the Paris Peace Conference
 ,
2nd ed.
Lexington MA
:
D.C. Heath and Company
.
Martin
Lisa L.
Simmons
Beth
.
1998
.
Theories and empirical studies of international institutions
.
International Organization
 
52
(
4
):
729
58
.
Mead
Walter Russell
.
2014
.
“The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers,”
Foreign Affairs
 ,
May/June 2014
.
Mearsheimer
John
.
1994
.
“The False Promise of International Institutions”
IS19:3 (Winter 1994–1995)
5
49
.
Micklethwait
John
.
2014
.
“As the World Turns,”
Sunday Book Review, New York Times
 ,
September 11, 2014
.
Mitzen
Jennifer
.
2013
.
Power in concert: The nineteenth-century origins of global governance
 .
Chicago and London
:
The University of Chicago Press
.
Murphy
Craig N.
1994
.
International Organization and industrial change: Global governance since 1850
 .
Cambridge and Oxford
:
Polity Press
.
Nicholson
Harold
.
1946, 1963
.
The Congress of Vienna, a study in allied unity: 1812-1822
 .
New York
:
Harcourt Brace
.
Northedge
F.S.
1986
.
The League of Nations: its life and times, 1920-1946
 .
New York
:
Holmes & Meier
.
Nye
Joseph
.
1995
.
East Asian security: The case for deep engagement
.
Foreign Affairs
 
74
(
4
):
90
102
.
Oye
Kenneth
, ed.
1986
.
Cooperation under anarchy
 .
Princeton and London
:
Princeton University Press
.
Patrick
Stewart
Bennett
Isabella
.
2015
.
Geopolitics Is Back—and Global Governance Is Out
. .
Pauly
Louis W.
1996
.
“The League of Nations and the Foreshadowing of the International Monetary Fund,”
Essays in International Finance, Princeton
 ,
No. 201, December, 1996
.
Putnam
Robert D.
Bayne
Nicholas
.
1984/1987
.
Hanging together: Cooperation and conflict in the seven-power summits
 .
Cambridge MA
:
Harvard University Press
.
Reynolds
David
.
2007
.
Summits: Six meetings that shaped the twentieth century
 .
New York
:
Basic Books
.
Rochester
J. Martin
.
1986
.
IO as a field of study: An institutional analysis
.
International Organization
 
40
(
4
):
777
814
.
Rosecrance
Richard
, ed.
2001
.
The new great power coalition: Toward a world concert of nations
 .
Lanham and Boulder CO
:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc
.
Rosecrance
Richard
2010
.
Transformation in power
. In
History and Neorealism
 , eds.
May
Ernest R.
Rosecrance
Richard
Steiner
Zara
.
Cambridge and New York
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Rosecrance
Richard
2013
.
The resurgence of the west: How a transatlantic union can prevent war and restore the United States and Europe
 .
New Haven and London
:
Yale University Press
.
Rosenau
James
.
1992
.
Governance, order and change in world politics
. In
Governance without government: Order and change in world politics
 , eds.
Rosenau
James
Czempiel
E.O.
,
1
29
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Ruggie
John Gerard
.
1983
.
International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order
. In
International Regimes
 , ed.
Krasner
Stephen
,
195
232
.
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Ruggie
John Gerard
1992
.
Multilateralism: The anatomy of an institution
.
International Organization
 
46
(
3
):
561
98
.
Russell Mead
Walter
2014
.
“The Return of Geopolitics,”
Foreign Affairs
 ,
May/June 2014
.
Schroeder
Paul W.
1976
.
1815-1945: Weapons of power and tools of management
. In
Historical Dimensions of National Security Problems
 , ed.
Knorr
Klaus
,
227
62
.
Lawrence, KA
:
University Press of Kansas
.
Schroeder
Paul W.
1989
.
The nineteenth century system: Balance of power or political equilibrium
.
Review of International Studies
 
19
:
135
53
.
Schroeder
Paul W.
1994
.
Balance of power and political equilibrium: A response
.
The International History Review
 
16
(
4
):
745
54
.
Schroeder
Paul W.
1994
.
The transformation of European politics 1763-1848
 .
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Schroeder
Paul W.
2000
.
“The cold war and its ending in ‘long-duration’ international history.”
In
Peace, Prosperity, and Politics
 , ed.
Mueller
John
,
257
282
.
Boulder, CO
:
Westview Press
.
Schroeder
Paul W.
2010
.
Not even for seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: Power and order in the early modern era
. In
History and Neorealism
 , eds.
May
Ernest R.
Rosecrance
Richard
Steiner
Zara
,
78
102
.
Cambridge and New York
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Sell
Susan K.
2014
.
Who governs the globe?
In
International Organization and global governance
 , eds.
Weiss
Thomas G.
Wilkinson
Rorden
,
73
85
.
London and NY
:
Routledge
.
Slaughter
Anne-Marie
.
2004
.
A new world order
 .
Princeton and Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Slaughter
Anne-Marie
2013
.
The Arab spring and climate change
.
A Climate and Security Correlations Series: Preface
 ,
(February, 2013), 1–6
.
Smith
Daniel M.
1965
.
The great departure: The United States and World War I
 .
New York
:
McGraw Hill Text
.
Snidal
Duncan
.
1986
.
The game theory of international politics
. In
Cooperation under anarchy
 , ed.
Oye
Kenneth
,
25
57
.
Princeton and London
:
Princeton University Press
.
Stein
Arthur
.
1982
.
Coordination and collaboration: Regimes in an anarchic world
. In
International Regimes
 , ed.
Krasner
Stephen
,
115
40
.
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Stein
Arthur
1990
.
Why nations cooperate: Circumstance and choice in international relations
 .
Ithaca NY and London
:
Cornell University Press
.
Stein
Arthur
2008a
.
Neoliberal Institutionalism
. In
The Oxford Handbook of international relation
 , eds.
Reus-Smit
Christian
Snidal
Duncan
,
201
21
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Stein
Arthur
2008b
.
Incentive compatibility and global governance: Existential multilateralism, a weakly confederal world, and hegemony
. In
Can the world be governed? Possibilities for effective multilateralism
 , ed.
Alexandroff
Alan S.
,
17
84
.
Waterloo, ON
:
Wilfred University Press
.
Taylor
A.J.P.
1954, 1971
.
The struggle for mastery in Europe: 1848-1918
 .
New York and Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Throntveit
Trygve
2011
.
A strange fate: Quincy Wright and the trans-war trajectory of Wilsonian Internationalism
.
White House Studies
 
10
(
4
):
261
377
.
Traub
James
2015
.
“Book Review: ‘WorldOrder’ by Henry KIssinger,”
.
Webster
Charles
.
1934
.
The foreign policy of Castlereagh: Britain and the European alliance
 ,
2nd ed.
,
115–122. London: G. Bell
.
Weiss
Thomas G.
Daws
Sam
2008
.
The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations
 .
New York and Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Weiss
Thomas G.
Thakur
Ramesh
Ruggie
John
.
2010
.
Global governance and the UN: An unfinished journey
 .
Bloomington and Indianapolis
:
Indiana University Press
.
Weiss
Thomas G.
Urquhart
Brian
.
2012
.
What’s wrong with the United Nations and how to fix it
 .
Cambridge
:
Polity Press
.
Weiss
Thomas G.
Wilkinson
Rorden
, eds.
2014a
.
International Organization and global governance
 .
London and NY
:
Routledge
.
Weiss
Thomas G.
Wilkinson
Rorden
, eds.
2014b
.
International Organization and global governance: What matters and why
,
3
18
.
London and NY
:
Routledge
.
Vose Gulick
Edward
.
1955
.
Europe's classical balance of power
 .
New York
:
W.W. Norton & Sons
.
Weiss
Thomas G.
Wilkinson
Rorden
.
2014c
.
Rethinking global governance? Complexity, authority, power, change
.
International Studies Quarterly
 
58
(
1
):
207
15
.
Zeiler
Thomas
.
1999
.
Free trade free world: The advent of the GATT
 .
Chapel Hill
:
University of North Carolina Press
.

Supplementary data