Mutually assured destruction or co-dependence? The G20 and the UN

The G20 forum has acted to crystallise important changes in the architecture of global governance emerging since the 1970s. This has seen the locus of power shift away from the United Nations (UN) System as smaller and poorer states become increasingly adept at exercising their power within UN structures. Yet it is too simple to set the G20 against the UN, for example as minilateralism versus multilateralism. While the UN seems increasingly constrained and less relevant, it is not about to disappear. Moreover, we argue there are two significant obstacles to the G20 claiming the mantle of dominant global governance institution. First, that minilateralism is still a form of multilateralism, and ultimately subject to the same problems with the generation of consensus if extended, as in the G20, to include sufficiently diverse state members for a claim of legitimacy. Second, its emergence from the Global Financial Crisis and historical focus on financial governance means its agenda is excessively narrow at a time when food and environmental crises command similar global political significance. We conclude by considering some of the different elements of the emerging G20/UN dynamic, and whether this emerging dialectic can enhance prospects for wide ranging reforms to global trade, finance and economic structures that are currently incapable of functioning sustainably or preventing wide scale famine.<br>