Academic

When I write about international financial cooperation, I write about how the informal networks that provide it are getting more formal; I've also written that the G20 has, after the financial crisis, evolved into a political director of networks.

Other people write about how the G20 and the financial regulators are vectors of international conflict, where countries try to strongarm other countries into playing by their rules (David Singer does this, so does Daniel Drezner).  The roadmap offered by the WSJ on the banking aspects of the upcoming G20 meeting suggests that they are on to something:

In Europe, bank executives say there is likely to be a gap of more than ?1 trillion ($1.2 trillion) between banks' current capital and liquidity buffers and what would be required under the Basel proposals.

In comparison, stress tests ordered by the U.S. government last year resulted in 10 of the nation's biggest banks being told to raise a combined $74.6 billion in capital to cushion themselves.

So Europe is urging delay on the adoption of new capital requirements, the US wants them implemented soon, and you'll note which banks would benefit from requiring everyone to hold more capital.  And Canada, the country from where I write this, has the best capitalized, but sleepiest banks.  Count on them being with the United States.