BRICS+ and the Global Game of International Law: Navigating Multilateral World Order and Soft Power Strategies

By Angela Khumalo

The basic nature of global governance and a feature of realism is that states are always propelled to act according to their interests and try to dominate global politics. International law attempts to mitigate this effect (1). Technically speaking, there is no set way the law can be enforced beyond the barriers of countries, so international law regulates universal domains such as human rights, trade, and diplomacy through customs, agreements, contracts, treaties, and institutions like the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) (2).

The rivalries – the West vs the Rest

The UN was established in October 1945, at the end of World War II, when everyone recognized the need for peace and security (3). It has five permanent members in the Security Council: China, the Soviet Union, France, the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK) (4). These members have veto power over any global decisions about security and peace (5). The twenty-seven European states also recognized the significance of uniting, resulting in an alliance known as the EU and the European Single Market with the common currency, the euro (6, 7). The latter established economic, social, and political growth and security benefits for the European region.

The Bretton Woods agreement asserted the preponderance of the US currency, resulting in Western countries greatly influencing global politics (8). Their combined influence enabled their soft power influence on other states globally, meaning that Western ideals have established a unipolar world system, and few counterbalancing measures of world order exist (9). However, the West’s unipolar system is being challenged for the first time in decades—a Thucydides trap (10).

The US and EU have had growing tensions recently (11). As an example, in 2018, the US unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to curb Iran’s nuclear program; it sparked the immediate disapproval of the EU and elevated existing tensions between the parties (12). Other world events, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, have forced the US and EU to come to terms with their limited ability to provide aid, causing tensions in US/EU and ally relationships (13).

These indications of growing weakness meant that emerging powers saw a power vacuum that could challenge the West’s dominance and present an alternative world order—a multipolar world order  (14, 15).

New players on the field

In 2009, Brazil, Russia, India, and China established an intergovernmental bloc, with South Africa joining the following year in 2010. Before the launch of BRICS, it was predicted by Jim O’Neill, former head of global economic research at Goldman Sachs, that these rising economies would make significant moves within global governance (16) and become big players in a game that has not been on the side of weaker nations thus far.

As a new player on the world stage, BRICS aims to counterbalance the dominance of Western influence in global governance (17). It seeks to provide a platform for emerging economies and bring alternative perspectives, which they coin as a multilateral order. BRICS members have vastly different national interests (18). For instance, China and Russia are authoritarian states, while Brazil, India, and South Africa lean towards a more democratic path (19, 20). Yet, despite their differences, they have all made efforts to influence and invest in one another’s development (21). The original members of BRICS have established trading systems among themselves. For instance, Brazil has developed a ‘South-South trade’ between Brazil, South Africa, and India (22). The original BRICS members have become the gateway for smaller, less prominent players to voice their interests through the expansion of BRICS into the broader, unofficial grouping, BRICS+ (23).

For instance, the bloc challenges the formal structures of global governance by establishing the New Development Bank in 2015 (24). In an attempt to topple US/West dominance and eradicate dependence on the dollar in trade, BRICS+ states (mainly Iran, Russia, and China) have made agreements to trade within their local currencies, thus increasing the value of BRICS+ countries and strengthening their alliance. Another way in which BRICS+ members have chosen to counterbalance Western domination is by showcasing their unity, for instance, by voting in favour of the ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war, while EU members showcased a more divided standpoint (25).

The demonstration of unity can be seen as the application of soft power. Soft power is ‘the ability to influence others to get the outcomes one wants without the use of coercion’ (26). However, the BRICS states also have their own political factions; for instance, China has invested in a project to expand its influence, waixuan gongzuo (roughly translated as ‘overseas propaganda’). Russia is also creating news sites such as Russia Today (RT), resulting in an information war that has caused major concern in the West (27).  These internal impedances have undermined the growth and influence of the bloc.

In contrast, other BRICS member states have demonstrated multipolarity through the discourse of soft power, such as South Africa and their role in promoting human rights during the Israel-Gaza War (28). After apartheid, South Africa’s main goal in global governance has been democratic peacekeeping in Africa, fair representation, and an emphasis on human rights, leading to South Africa being an influence for the Southern African Development Community. As the ‘trading hub’ of Africa, South Africa acts as a gateway to African countries both economically and on the global stage (29).

The BRICS bloc has yet to show that it can successfully challenge the established order. It may be that the Thucydides Trap states that the most likely consequence of a rising power challenging an established power is that war still awaits (30). The BRICS order has presented an alternative world order that appeals to many emerging economies. The growing preponderance and relevance of the bloc continue to justify a counterbalance at a global level. While the multilateral order is anticipated to alter global dynamics, international law is not exempted from these changes.

The BRICS bloc is only growing in popularity. With the addition of new members, who are mostly from the global south, it is only a matter of time before BRICS makes the necessary changes to global governance. Adding new members allows them to represent the concerns of more nations, which the current global governance system often ignores. It is important to note that even though BRICS is a loosely associated organization, the members within BRICS are part of other global organizations (31). This allows the members to bring any concerns or influence to these organizations outside of BRICS (32). The BRICS bloc attracts potential new members because of its multipolar approach that seeks to ensure the peaceful coexistence of different actors within the global governmental context (33). However, the steady growth of the BRICS bloc is closely linked to the decline of the current global governance system (34). Without this decline, global governance would not continue to grow at the exponential rate it currently does. Jim O’Neill’s prediction of the growth of BRICS was revolutionary for its time and still holds true  today (35). In due course, BRICS+ will continue to grow and change the political landscape of global governance as more nations seek alternative options the BRICS bloc offers.

Angela Khumalo is a Department of Politics and International Relations graduate from the University of Johannesburg.