The term G-Zero was first coined by political scientists Ian Bremmer and David F. Gordon. G-Zero became the main theme of Ian Bremmer’s book, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World (Portfolio, May 2012).
It is a reference to a perceived shift away from the pre-eminence of the Group of Sevenindustrialized countries and the expanded Group of Twenty, which includes major emerging powers like China, India, Brazil, Turkey and others. It is also a rejection of terms like G2, often used to identify a possible strategic partnership between the US and Chinese governments, or G3, which represents an attempt to align US, European and Japanese interests to defend free market democracy from the rise of Chinese-inspired state-dominated capitalism.
Those who argue that the G-Zero has become the current international order warn that the G7 has become obsolete, that the G20 offers too many competing visions of the proper role of government in an economy to produce well-coordinated policies, that China has no interest in the responsibilities that come with a G2, and that America, Europe and Japan are too mired in internal problems to forge a common approach to economic and security policy.
In an article called “From G8 to G20 to G-Zero: Why no one wants to take charge in the new global order,” Ian Bremmer writes that making compromises are difficult since each country has their own values and developed countries have voters that want their leader’s focus to be domestic community, not the international one. Some of these developed countries include: the United States, Britain, Germany, France, and Japan. As developed countries start to focus on their domestic issues, the lack of global leadership increases which in turn increases the transnational problems. As global leadership decreases, clashes between countries are also increasing such as America and China having different views on “statedriven and free-market varieties of capitalism”. There are also issues arising in Asia between nations such as China and Japan in the East China Sea. The US has to also focus on changes in their energy sector and whether they should participate in Syria’s civil war.
Bremmer explains that governments can adapt to the G-Zero through focusing on regional solutions such as China’s deals with the Association of South-East Asian Nations(ASEAN) and the United States’ progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Governments can also form relationships with a diversity of partners. However some countries may still not be able to adapt to the G-0 because of three impacting events in the world: “China’s rise, Middle East turmoil and the redesign of Europe”. Countries affected by these events would be Japan, Israel and Britain. 
The concept of the G-Zero has been criticized by some who argue that it overstates the decline in America’s political and economic power and underestimates the willingness ofdeveloping countries to play a larger role on the international stage.
- Jump up^ Eurasia Group Top 10 Risks of 2011
- Jump up^ G-Zero, New York Times, February 1, 2011.
- Jump up^ Racanelli, Vito. Davos: Who or What is G-Zero?, Barron’s, January 26, 2011.
- Jump up^ The Friday Podcast: G-Zero. NPR Planet Money, January 7, 2011.
- Jump up^ Reece, Damian. Davos WEF 2011: East and West must cooperate if we’re to survive this economic mess, The Telegraph, January 26, 2011.
- Jump up^ Reece, Damian, G20 Paris: Sarkozy Dares to Dream in a G-Zero World The Telegraph, February 18, 2011.
- Jump up^ Khanna, Parag and Leonard, Mark Why China wants a G-3 World The International Herald Tribune, September 8, 2011.
- Jump up^ Ian Bremmer, “From G8 to G20 to G-Zero: Why no one wants to take charge in the new global order”, Newstatesman, June 11, 2013
- Jump up^ http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/02/28/g-zero-gee-another-idea-with-zero-to-s
- و «صفر الأقطاب»، وهو مصطلح ابتدعه أستاذا العلوم السياسية إيان بريمر، وديفيد جوردون، وكان أساسًا لكتاب إيان «كل أمة لنفسها.. الفائزون والخاسرون في عالم بدون أقطاب».
تنص النظرية على أن عالم اليوم والمستقبل، هو عالم بلا أقطاب، وبلا قوى عظمى، حيث لا وجود فعلي للدول السبع الصناعية الكبرى (G7)، وأيضًا للعظماء العشرين (G20)، والذين تحركهم مصالح دولهم فقط، ولا وجود لشيء مستقبلي مثل G2 «الولايات المتحدة/ الصين»، أو G3 «الولايات المتحدة والاتحاد الأوروبي واليابان»، كأقطاب جديدة مستقبلية. ثم تنطلق النظرية من تحرير الأمر إلى الجزم بأهمية أن تقوم كل أمة بنفسها فقط، وأن تراعي مصالحها كشيء واقع الآن، مع تركيز قادتها على مجتمعاتهم المحلية، وقضاياهم الداخلية، كأمر ينبغي أن يتوسع مستقبلًا.