OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between

Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025

48

THE ROLE OF BRICS IN SUPPORTING EMERGING POWERS AT THE GLOBAL

LEVEL: DEEPER INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION AND ASSOCIATED

CHALLENGES

CHRISTIAN PLOBERGER

plobchr@gmail.com

Lecturer, CBIS, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan, Bangkok (Thailand)

Abstract

With the passage of time, BRICS has become not only a recognised cooperation of emerging

states but also a focus for states of the so-called Global South to join. One may argue that

those states are in search of additional support to enhance their international recognition and

to ensure that their interests are taken into consideration at the global level. The question

arises as to what extent BRICS, as a cooperation, can deliver on this expectation. Doing so

would require BRICS to develop a strong institutional setting, to strengthen internal

coherence, so that it can take on an influential role within the international system. However,

this is where BRICS, like any other emerging organisation, faces a critical challenge. Stronger

institutional development implies addressing and integrating the different interests of its

members, while agreeing on a unified strategy as an organisation. The political, economic,

and social heterogeneity of its members and the stated goal of supporting each member’s

national interest equally do not fit well with such strategic requirements. Failing to formulate

a unified strategy, to deepen institutional cooperation, BRICS may not be able to deliver on

what its members are expecting: to become a strong voice for their interests at the global

level.

Keywords

BRICS; emerging power; institutional development; international organisation; international

system.

Resumo

Com o passar do tempo, os BRICS tornaram-se não apenas uma cooperação reconhecida

entre países emergentes, mas também um foco para os países do chamado Sul Global se

unirem. Pode-se argumentar que esses países estão em busca de apoio adicional para

aumentar o seu reconhecimento internacional e garantir que os seus interesses sejam levados

em consideração a nível global. Surge a questão de até que ponto os BRICS, como

cooperação, podem corresponder a essa expectativa. Para isso, seria necessário que os BRICS

desenvolvessem um quadro institucional forte, reforçassem a coesão interna, para que

pudessem assumir um papel influente no sistema internacional. No entanto, é aqui que os

BRICS, como qualquer outra organização emergente, enfrentam um desafio crítico. Um

desenvolvimento institucional mais forte implica abordar e integrar os diferentes interesses

dos seus membros, ao mesmo tempo que se chega a um acordo sobre uma estratégia

unificada como organização. A heterogeneidade política, económica e social dos seus

membros e o objetivo declarado de apoiar igualmente os interesses nacionais de cada membro

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

49

não se coadunam bem com tais requisitos estratégicos. Se não conseguirem formular uma

estratégia unificada e aprofundar a cooperação institucional, os BRICS poderão não ser

capazes de corresponder às expectativas dos seus membros: tornar-se uma voz forte para os

seus interesses a nível global.

Palavras-chave

BRICS; potência emergente; desenvolvimento institucional; organização internacional;

sistema internacional.

How to cite this article

Ploberger, Christian (2025). The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level:

Deeper Institutional Cooperation and Associated Challenges. Janus.net, e-journal of international

relations. Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations,

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1, December 2025, pp. 48-62. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0525.3

Article submitted on 17th January 2025 and accepted for publication on 10th September

2025.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

50

THE ROLE OF BRICS IN SUPPORTING EMERGING POWERS AT THE

GLOBAL LEVEL: DEEPER INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION AND

ASSOCIATED CHALLENGES

CHRISTIAN PLOBERGER

Introduction

While its origins are based on financial market imaginations, BRICS has undergone a

considerable transformation to become a recognisable cooperation aiming to facilitate

the international status and interests of its members in global politics. In doing so, it may

also contribute to a change within the existing international system, as the voices of

emerging powers and countries of the Global South gain more recognition. After all, the

existing international system is still based on the interests of the dominant powers in the

aftermath of the Second World War and especially on the geopolitical interests of the

United States, which was the most influential actor in creating the existing global

institutional setting. However, the current distribution of economic power has changed

from that in the years following the Second World War, and emerging powers demand to

have a strong impact on global political-economic decision-making in accordance with

their economic influence. The critical question is this: Can BRICS as an organisation

deliver what its members are expecting from it, like a recognition of their interests and

to enhance their decision-making power within global political-economic decision-

making? As such, BRICS is facing the same challenges as other international cooperations

and organisations: the struggle to align the various interests of its members so it can

speak with one voice and consequently increase its impact. We should remember a key

factor in global affairs: the internal strength of an organisation generates international

recognition. Once again, will BRICS be able to deliver? This represents a vital question,

not least when considering its origin, starting in the imagination of a finance investment

manager with no political support in the beginning. However, BRICS has already

undergone some impressive structural changes. After all, it has now become a forum

where the political leaders of emerging powers regularly meet. Taking the advantage of

hindsight, one can argue that, with the expansion from BRIC to BRICS, the inclusion of

South Africa represented the first indication of internal structural change, as it no longer

followed a single financial logic in selecting new members, as was the original argument.

This signified a change towards the inclusion of political considerations when considering

membership extension and set the foundation for what it has become today, a voice of

emerging powers and of countries of the Global South. In doing so, it also raised its

profile as a potential challenger to the existing international order, questioning the

political influence of the existing global institutional setting, arguing that the current

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

51

distribution of political-economic power represents a historical and outdated political-

economic power distribution, which no longer corresponds with the current distribution

of political-economic power. As recent membership expansion strongly indicates, its

attractiveness as a cooperation for emerging powers is still rising. Not only has the

membership increased considerably, but the number of associated members has also

increased. However, with increasing membership, the internal complexity increases as

well, since, after all, a principal stance within the BRICS cooperation is to support the

interests of its members. When considering the impact of BRICS on the contemporary

character of the international system, we also have to take into consideration how we

interpret the international system from a structural perspective, what power constellation

we can identify (uni-/ bi-/ or multipolarity), and what kind of dynamic drives changes

within the international system.

An alternative forum for cooperation between emerging countries

Own into the fact that BRICS members represent emerging powers, their influence as

individual nations on the global level is rather limited and country-specific. While some

members may generate an appreciable impact within their respective regions, to assert

meaningful influence in global politics, they need to work together, and even then, the

extent of their impact is not guaranteed. Indeed, asymmetric global economic and

political influence and impact, different political systems have been a major characteristic

of BRICS members from the very beginning, generating a practical challenge for

cooperation. Comparing the size of the GDP of the original BRICS countries, this diversity

becomes quite recognisable, with China clearly dominating. The four graphics below,

covering a 14-year period in five-year intervals, indicate the dominant economic status

of China among the group, as well as the increasing relevance of India over time. While

there is no suggestion that China will manipulate the BRICS as an instrument for its own

strategic rise, the GDP distribution among the original BRICS members also indicates a

different level of global influence. While the recent increase in membership will extend

the GDP size of the BRICS countries as a whole, it will have a smaller impact on the

ranking among the BRICS countries. A long-running GDP growth rate comparison of the

original BRICS countries shows a bit of a different picture, as between 2010 and 2019,

China and India formed a closer group compared to the other members. Yet from 2021

to 2024, the data indicate a change with India taking the lead, with China, Brazil, and

later Russia forming another group. While South Africa performs below this group. The

growth data also indicate that the BRICS countries are less able to isolate themselves

from overall global impacts. Thus, BRICS countries are not only confronted with a

challenge of representation in the decision-making within the international institutional

setting of the liberal international order, dominated by the United States, but also with

an individual challenge, as most would not be able to exercise a meaningful impact on

the global level as individual countries. Yet, one could argue that this provides additional

incentives for cooperation and, in extension, for organisational development. Yet, as the

original BRICS member are located in different regional settings, they also face different

political-economic challenges within their respective regions, which in turn could generate

an impact on their readiness to cooperate. Another, but related topic is that, for example,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

52

two BRICS members are in direct competition at the regional level, as is the case between

India and China, which could also impact their readiness to cooperate. While Noort (2019,

462) describes BRICS as an informal diplomatic group, Nuruzzaman (2020, 59-60)

identifies some of the critical internal weaknesses of BRICS, as it was not able to converge

the foreign policy aims of its members into one shared foreign policy goal. This can be

interpreted as a practical implication of the group’s political and economic heterogeneity.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

53

Source: Chart derived from online World Bank Data.

Indeed, BRICS’s ability to influence global politics and the existing global order is linked

with its ability to manage internal contradictions and to facilitate consensus among its

members. Indeed, as asserted by van Noort, generating a comprehensive organisation-

based narrative in support of it would be a preferable strategy (van Noort 2016). A more

diverse membership will increase the challenge of generating such a narrative.

BRICS’s international standing may be enhanced through the actions of some of its

members. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is the most prominent case. Certainly, India

also has a strong development engagement with the countries in South Asia and Russia,

with Central Asian countries, even though its position may be weakened because of the

Ukraine war. That the BRICS countries are aiming to improve their international

recognition by enhancing their relations with countries of the Global South is also

recognised by Petrone (2019). Interestingly enough, Nayyar (2016) asks for caution

because, while stronger engagement with the countries of the Global South offers a

potential avenue for stronger South-South cooperation and international recognition of

BRICS, it could also lead to a perception of what he describes as subimperialism,

generating a new form of dependency associated with earlier forms of imperialism.

India's engagement with the smaller states of South Asia, in combination with its self-

perception of being the dominant leader of the region, may offer a good example. Even

though South-South engagement could contribute to a BRICS narrative of the ‘Voice of

the South’, so far, the BRICS members are only partly successful in doing so. Within this

context, Nuruzzaman (2020, 61) assesses that BRICS’s weak internal cohesion

undermines its ability to formulate an alternative world vision. This, in turn, weakens its

ability to challenge the existing international order, dominated by the United States. In

this regard, we need to address a fundamental question: Does BRICS aim for a

fundamental change of the existing international system, or does it aim for changes

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

54

within the existing international system? Or, as asked by Petrone (2019), are the BRICS

members aiming to create a parallel or alternative system, or to create a new space for

acting within the existing international liberal order? The first option aims to undermine

and even completely change the existing global institutional setting, while the second

option indicates a willingness to accept the existing global institutional setting, but

demands that their interests are taken into consideration, resisting United States

dominance and hegemonic policy behaviour within that global institutional setting. With

regard to the potential systemic challenges that BRICS poses to the established liberal

order, Stuenkel (2016) states that emerging countries are less interested in challenging

the underlying norms of the existing liberal system but rather in institutionalising their

enhanced power position. Similarly, Roberts (2015) argues that, while the BRICS

countries contest the West’s pretensions to permanent stewardship of the global

institutional organisations, they do not demand a systemic change to the existing

international system itself. Indeed, in their official statements, regular support for

establishing global institutions can be identified, such as the World Bank, IMF, or the UN,

but with a strong demand for structural power adjustment to give emerging powers a

stronger role in decision-making.

Considering that every existing international system is based on the political, economic,

and strategic interests of the dominant country, we should not be too surprised that the

United States continues to explore and exploit its strong position to its advantage, even

though it is quite successful in generating the image of a benevolent hegemon. With

reference to the current existing international order, Ikenberry describes the existing

contradictions within the rule-based liberal order as a ‘hierarchical order with liberal

characteristics’ (Ikenberry 2012). Therefore, enhancing the influence of BRICS could

offer some more impactful engagement of the countries of the Global South within the

existing United States-dominated international system. Stuenkel (2016) points out that

the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS-led New

Development Bank (NDB) will strengthen the Global South’s position within the existing

global institutional setting. He adds that, while they will not challenge the existing global

setting, they aim at decreasing the United States’ institutional dominance within that

setting. At the same time, we can observe what Ikenberry describes as the diffusion

outward, the loss of the overwhelming power the United States once possessed

(Ikenberry 2014). This, in turn, favours the position of emerging powers of the Global

South. However, one still has to recognise the institutional weakness of BRICS as

assessed by van Noort, who stated that their internal diversity undermines the generation

and communication of a strategic narrative in supporting the BRICS position and its role

in global politics (van Noort 2019, 465).

Institutional development could contribute to a stronger recognition of BRICS in global

politics. Yet institutional development faces a number of challenges, which will be the

focus of the next section.

Institutional development: Characterising international organisations

Taking into consideration that BRICS so far only represents a loose form of cooperation,

a deeper institutional development could offer a strategy to enhance its global standing.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

55

Transforming BRICS into a bona fide international organisation (IO) faces several serious

challenges, even though one could argue that a degree of institutionalisation has already

occurred since its first official meeting in Yekaterinburg in 2009. To apprehend the

challenges involved, we should begin with a short assessment of IOs in general.

International organisations: Some general characterisations

When considering that BRICS aims to support the interests of its members and to address

unequal decision-making power in global politics, a primary issue arises: how to

strengthen BRICS’s role in global politics and within the existing global institutional

setting? Stronger cooperation between its members represents a critical step forward.

Transforming the BRICS cooperation into an international organisation could offer a

strategic response that would enhance its global role. However, there are various issues

related to establishing an IO. To begin with, Keohane (1989, 166) reminds us that the

promise of mutual benefits is the sine qua non for international institutions; otherwise,

there is no reason for forming international institutions. Lugg (2024), meanwhile, points

towards a general acknowledgement that international organisations are usually created

by a great power to lock in a particular structural power distribution or to support the

creation of one. The formation of an IO requires addressing another fundamental issue

in international politics: trust. Based on the anarchic character of the international system

and the associated security dilemma, countries can hardly trust each other. Yet forming

an IO must be founded upon a process of generating trust among independent political

units (Higgott, 2006). Indeed, transforming a loose cooperation into an IO requires a

willingness for deeper cooperation. For Keohane (1984), cooperation requires that the

actions of separate actors, who are not acting in pre-existent harmony, be brought into

conformity. To facilitate such a process, IOs are based on certain rules and norms, which

are institutionalised by treaties which members have to agree to and are expected to

follow. March and Olsen (2006, 3-4) describe an IO as an enduring collection of rules and

organised practices, which in turn facilitates a process described as institutional logic,

generating predictability of members’ behaviour. However, Keohane (1989, 3) reminds

us that while an IO generates predictability and trust among its members, it also limits

the choices available for its members.

This short overview highlights the challenges associated with creating an IO, as well as

the potential trade-offs, between each country of ‘going on its own’ or aligning with other

countries to speak ‘with one voice’ in global politics to increase the potential impact. A

closer assessment of BRICS’s internal development is required to assess the challenges

BRICS is facing in transforming itself into a genuine IO.

BRICS as an international organisation: Assessing the challenges

So far, BRICS can be described as a loose cooperation of states, and transforming it into

an IO to increase its impact on global politics would require considerable effort. Even so,

the present state of facilitating cooperation among BRICS members should not be

underestimated. Considering the above-mentioned characteristics of an IO, we may start

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

56

assessing the most fundamental one: What potential mutual benefits can be identified?

While it seems at first quite simple to answer this question, it becomes more challenging

when undertaking a closer evaluation of the annual statements produced. Certainly, from

the very beginning, in all official statements, the mutual benefits of cooperation to

support the demands of emerging countries have been emphasised. Specific issues to be

addressed are the reform of existing international financial institutions and the formation

of a multi-polar world order. As specified in the Yekaterinburg Statement (2009), recent

changes in the global economy need to be recognised, consequently offering emerging

economies a stronger voice and better representation within the existing global

institutional setting. On a general level, it is stated that cooperation should serve the

common interests of emerging powers. Equality, mutual support, and inclusiveness in

support of its members and emerging powers are also stressed in the Goa Declaration

(2016). Alike reads the Johannesburg II Declaration (2023, 1-2), declaring that the

benefits of cooperation are based on three pillars: political and security; economic and

financial; and cultural and people-to-people cooperation. It adds that enhancing and

improving global governance, as well as increasing the representation of emerging

powers in international organisations, represents another ongoing and primary task. The

Kazan Declaration (2024) reiterates a commitment to the three-pillar cooperation, a

more inclusive international financial architecture, and a multi-polar world order, so as

to enhance the benefits and roles of emerging and developing states. Thus, one can

argue that enhancing the members’ global standing and participation in decision-making

within the established global institutional setting can be identified as a primary mutual

benefit target, which in turn could offer a basis for a deeper institutional development.

However, when we consider one of the alternative explanations for creating an IO, based

on the interests of a dominant great power, BRICS seems unlikely to be a medium for

any great power. While we can identify some potential regional great powers among the

BRICS members, only China would qualify as a potential global great power. Yet neither

has China signalled any willingness to take on, nor would the other members accept, a

special role for China in usurping BRICS as an instrument of national power enhancement

to dominate global politics. Nor is there any other member state that could do so. Thus,

indicating that there needs to be existing great power interests in facilitating the

development of an IO does not fit well with the cooperation dynamic observed within

BRICS so far. Does this mean that BRICS will be the exception to the rule? Future

developments will show.

Another, earlier mentioned, topic is building trust among independent political units. Has

the current stage of its development already generated enough trust among its members

to be a basis for further institutional development? A preliminary assessment would

indicate that it has. An associated question is whether we can identify rules and norms

as another source of enhanced cooperation and a basis for transforming BRICS from a

loose cooperation of states into an IO. Equality, respect for national sovereignty,

recognition of the role of emerging powers in global affairs, and support for the countries

of the Global South could serve as indications of shared norms and rules. A resilient

commitment to multilateralism - accompanied by a call for reforms to the existing global

institutional setting and a focus on a multi-polar world order - can be added as another

example of emerging norm-setting. The Yekaterinburg Statement (2009) delivers a

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

57

strong commitment to multilateral diplomacy, with the United Nations at its core, though

efforts for creating a multi-polar world order are also mentioned. The Goa Declaration

(2016, 2-3) restates those focuses by pointing out that BRICS envisages a transition to

a multi-polar world order based on the central role of the United Nations but includes the

comprehensive call for United Nations reforms, especially of the Security Council, to

become more representative of the current distribution of economic power and to include

more countries from the Global South in global decision-making. The Goa Declaration

also re-emphasises solidarity, equality, and mutual understanding. The Johannesburg II

Declaration (2023) reaffirms that sovereign equality, solidarity, consensus, and

multilateralism are the guiding principles of the BRICS cooperation. It also confirms that

the United Nations is the cornerstone of the international system, but upholds the earlier

call for comprehensive reforms. The Kazan Summit Declaration (2024) reiterates the

BRICS commitment to cooperation based on mutual respect, sovereign equality,

solidarity, and consensus. It also restates its support for multilateralism and a multi-

polar world order, as well as the continued recognition of the United Nations as the

cornerstone of the international system, while the call for reform is also upheld.

Assessing the performance of IOs in general, Lall (2017, 276) identifies narrow national

interests and opportunistic behaviour of its members as a primary obstacle, even when

at first a demand for collective action exists, but this may change once an IO has been

created, as countries may decide that a strategy of pushing national interests may be a

more suitable approach. Considering BRICS' commitment to support the national

interests of its members, aligning the national interests of its members becomes a critical

challenge for deeper integration, which will increase with rising membership. However,

creating a new institution to support the global standing of its members raises additional

issues. For instance, if any of them are already members of other global or regional

international organisations, how will this impact their behaviour with regard to specific

goals as members of another organisation? In this regard, Papa (2015) points towards

the impact of institutional density. For example, if country A is a member in organisations

X, Y, and Z, the specific response it decides on with regard to one membership may also

generate a knock-on effect as other members in one of the organisations start to question

the extent of country A’s commitment to that organisation and its goals, consequently

undermining a critical aspect for every organisation: trust and, with it, predictability.

BRICS has so far shown a commitment to cooperation with different regional

organisations, outlined in the various annual statements assessed for this paper,

permitting them to address regional issues by themselves, with a special emphasis on

the African Union and its Agenda 2063. Nor is the African Union the only regional

organisation BRICS focuses on; it has had some engagement with BIMSTEC leaders, as

well. In addition, BRICS highly values the role of the G20 as a primary global forum for

multilateral cooperation. As to whether this strong support for various regional

organisations and global forums, such as the G20, and membership overlay will develop

into a potential serious internal challenge for BRICS, only the future will show.

Nevertheless, when we consider where BRICS started, as the imagination of a financial

investment manager with no political support, it already had some remarkable success

in institutionalisation, based on its ability to organise regular annual heads of government

summits, with individual statements generated and an ever-increasing field of

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

58

cooperation among its members. Those fields are quite varied: supporting agricultural

development to enhance food security; establishment of a Digital Economy Working

Group; a Centre for Industrial Competence to increase human resource development;

support for infrastructure development; improving collective capacity for global pandemic

prevention; a Young Scientist Forum and Youth Council; disaster management

cooperation; people-to-people exchanges; and sporting events, just to name some of the

additional cooperation mechanisms. While each of them addresses a specific theme,

together they contribute to a rising visibility of BRICS among its members’ decision-

makers and people at the grassroots level, consequently increasing its profile and

contributing to a process of deeper cooperation.

In considering that BRICS may decide on a deeper cooperation, to form an IO, to increase

their recognition and influence in global politics and with the existing institutional global

setting, a critical question is how to assess their demand for change. In analysing the

various annual BRICS meeting statements, we can see that they also offer more clarity

on the extent to which BRICS members are revisionist, i.e., aim to ‘overthrow’ the

existing international order. The short answer is that they are not revisionists in the

original meaning of the term, as they aim for adjustments within the existing global

institutional setting, instead of overthrowing it. Indeed, there is a strong commitment to

existing institutions, like the United Nations, the WB, the IMF, the WTO, and the WHO.

While there is a strong appeal to adjust the inner workings of the existing global

institutional setting to allow more participation of emerging powers and developing states

in policy-making, there is no call for developing an alternative or parallel global

institutional setting, nor for abolishing the existing global institutional setting. Instead,

there are specific demands like for a strong global financial safety net founded on a

quota-based and adequately resourced IMF; for a multilateral, rule-based, non-

discriminatory trading system with the WTO at its centre; and an emphasis on the

indispensable cornerstone of the United Nations in the international system, even while

there are equally strong calls for United Nations reforms to enhance the presence and

role of emerging powers and developing states. Therefore, based on these commitments

to the established global institutional framework, describing BRICS as a source of

revisionism, as a source of change of the international system, as opposed to change

within, is grossly misleading, if not outright wrong. Indeed, in the context of recent

developments, such as the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO (whereas the BRICS

members reiterate their full support for the WHO as the central IO in addressing global

public health issues, including pandemic prevention), or in undermining the work and

rule-based process of the WTO, it seems that it is the United States that has become the

revisionist actor. Indeed, the unilateral trade policy the U.S. is obstinately pursuing only

adds to this impression.

What future International System?

In considering whether BRICS can be an influential actor in global politics, the character

of the international system is as relevant as its internal coherence. After all, we can

observe an ongoing discussion that we are in the midst of another critical change of the

international system, aligning the argument with the structural changes we witnessed in

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

59

the aftermath of the Second World War and the end of the Cold War, by referring to the

increasing pressure the liberal international order and its global institutional setting has

been facing to adapt to changing global developments, like the rise of emerging powers.

This pressure increases with the readiness of the current United States government to

undermine the global institutional setting through its policy strategies and related

decisions it takes. The general assessment is that the existing global liberal order was

created in the aftermath of the Second World War by the United States to support and

enhance its new great-power position. However, Acharya (2017) and Ney (2017) remind

us that its reach was never global, as during the Cold War period, the countries within

the Soviet Bloc, as well as China, India, and Indonesia, were never part of it. Nonetheless,

one could argue that the reach of the liberal international order expanded with the end

of the Cold War as the underlying system conflicts (political/economic/social) decreased,

giving the United States its hegemonic ‘moment’. However, recent challenges based on

emerging powers and a rising demand from the countries of the Global South to get

stronger recognition of their interests within the existing global institutional setting have

increased the challenge to the liberal international order and its basis. While it is

accepted, especially for China and its Reform and Opening Process, that some rising

powers did greatly profit from the established liberal international order, Acharya (2017,

276) points out that assuming that emerging powers would have the same stake in the

liberal order as Western countries have would be a misperception. Ward (2017, 10-11),

too, offers some insight into the complex relationship of rising powers with the existing

liberal international order, stating that they should not be perceived as revisionists per

se, but only to the extent that they become dissatisfied with the distribution of resources

or the norms and rules governing the existing institutional setting supporting the

international liberal order. In addition, and in an astonishing break with established

policy, the policy of the current Trump presidency contributes to the undermining of the

existing liberal international order. Indeed, it seems the United States has become the

revisionist, even though the United States was once the primary sponsor of the existing

global institutional setting.

Acknowledging that we are confronted with potential fundamental changes to the existing

liberal international system does not offer much of an answer, but rather leads to more

questions, in particular about the direction and nature of change. Indeed, when one tries

to evaluate this topic, different positions can easily be identified, even though there is

broad agreement that a change in the existing international liberal order will happen.

Though the issue is, will it be a structural change within or even of an existing

international system and to what extent the existing power constellation - unipolarity,

bi-polarity, tri-polarity, or multipolarity - may undergo change. In one way or another,

one of those constellations has been the foundation of every international system

throughout history. Yet current propositions about the structural changes the existing

international system will undergo argue that continuing to think about different forms of

polarity may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, alternative conceptions of a future

emerging international system, whether multiplex (Acharya 2017), polycentric (Cohen

2015), or multi-order (Flockhart 2016), support a perception of forthcoming structural

change. Cohen (2015, 3) describes a polycentric international order as being built on

three categories of states: first-order power, whose influence and capacities reach beyond

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

60

their own region; second-order power, major powers whose influence is limited to their

region; and third-order powers, with either distinctive cultural or ideological capacities to

influence their neighbours. However, he adds that geopolitical regions, a conglomerate

of countries based on geographical proximity, political, cultural, and military interaction

and shared historical experience, will be a crucial force in the shaping and radical

restructuring of the international system. Regarding the prospect of a multi-order

international system, Flockhart (2016) argues that there is compelling evidence that the

international system is changing towards a multi-order system instead of multi-polar, as

it will be composed of clusters of states with different cultural backgrounds and

experience in their process of rising modernity, leading to a generation of different sets

of norms underlying a multi-order international system. She also states that this

represents a diffusion of power, which contrasts with the various characterisations of

polarity we are familiar with. As for the conception of a multiplex international system,

Acharya (2017, 277) claims that it will be based on the experience of multiple

modernities, of interconnectedness and interdependence, representing a complex setting

of crosscutting ideas, perceptions, and power constellations; as such, it will not be

defined by a hegemon, a single country, or a single idea. In a more recent publication,

Acharya, Estevadeordal, & Goodan (2023) identify four features of multiplexity:

interaction capacity (the ability to influence the movement of ideas, goods, people,

money, and military power across the system); deep interdependence beyond economic

cooperation (such as environmental issues, governance, security, and connectivity);

shared, multidimensional, and diverse world-order leadership; and clusters of layers of

international cooperation based on or beyond geography-based interactions. Thus, a

multiplex international system will be a plural, multi-centred, and multidimensional world

where not a single power will dominate.

Conclusion

BRICS’s ability to influence global politics is linked with its ability to manage internal

contradictions and its ability to speak with one voice. Thus, institutional development

could contribute to a stronger recognition of BRICS in global politics. When considering

its origins, as a financial market imagination, it has already undergone a remarkable

institutionalisation process based on annual meetings of heads of state, annual strategy

documents, and a wide variety of cooperation mechanisms at the ministerial and societal

levels. However, BRICS is still, and rightly, described as a loose state cooperation, and

the critical question is: Can BRICS as an organisation deliver what its members are

expecting from it, recognition of their interests, to enhance their decision-making power

within the existing global institutional setting? In this regard, it is worth remembering

that asymmetry of global economic and political influence and impact has been a major

characteristic of BRICS members from their very beginning. Thus, facilitating deeper

cooperation would be instrumental in addressing this challenge. Transforming the BRICS

into an IO could offer a strategic response to increase its weight in global decision-making

and within the existing global institutional setting. Transformation into an IO would

require addressing a number of fundamental topics, as an IO requires some basic

requirements. The most fundamental are the promise of mutual benefits, to generate

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

61

trust among its members, the establishment of rules and norms that every member has

to follow, and hence the establishment of an institutional logic. Thus, can we identify

benefits, rules and norms within the BRICS cooperation which could support its

transformation towards an IO and a strong voice of its members at the global level? While

we can identify some specific aspects informing BRICS cooperation, like assured equality,

respect for national sovereignty, recognition of the role of emerging powers in global

affairs, strong support for emerging powers and the countries of the Global South and a

fundamental demand for reforming the existing global institutional setting, the question

remains if those aspects can be already be identified as rules and norms and a source

for transformation towards and IO. Whether such a transformation will ever be successful

or even attempted is an open question, but without the influence of BRICS on global

politics, the influence on instigating change within the existing global institutional setting

will be rather limited. Even if successful, the most likely outcome of an institutionalisation

process may lead to another ASEAN-style cooperation process, since a stronger internal

integration of the different members, towards a supranational organisation, is rather out

of the question.

References

Acharya, A. (2017). After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order.

Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271-285.

Acharya, A., Estevadeordal, A., & Goodman, L. W. (2023). Multipolar or multiplex?

Interaction capacity, global cooperation and world order. International Affairs, 99(6),

2339–2365.

Goa Declaration. (2016) 8th BRICS Summit Goa Declaration 2016.

http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/docs/161016-goa.pdf

Higgott, R. (2006). International Political Institutions. In R. A.W. Rhodes, S. A. Binder, &

B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (pp. 611-632).

Oxford Academic.

Ikenberry, G.J. (2012). The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world

order. Princeton University Press.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2014). Introduction: power, order, and change in world politics. In G.

J. Ikenberry (Ed.), Power, Order, and Change in World Politics (pp.1-16). Cambridge

University Press.

Johannesburg II Declaration (2023) XV BRICS Summit Johannesburg II Declaration

BRICS and Africa: Partnership for Mutually Accelerated Growth, Sustainable Development

and Inclusive Multilateralism. Sandton, Gauteng, South Africa, Wednesday 23 August

2023. https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Declaration_2408.pdf

Kazan Declaration (2024) XXI BRICS Summit Kazan Declaration Strengthening

Multilateralism For Just Global Development And Security. Kazan, Russian Federation, 23

October 2024. https://dirco.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/XVI-BRICS-Summit-

Kazan-Declaration-23-October-2024.pdf

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 48-62

The Role of BRICS in Supporting Emerging Powers at the Global Level: Deeper Institutional

Cooperation and Associated Challenges

Christian Ploberger

62

Kehoane, R. O. (1989). International Institutions and State Power: Essays in

International Relations Theory. Westview Press.

Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political

Economy. Princeton University Press.

Lall, R. (2017). Beyond Institutional Design: Explaining the Performance of International

Organisations. International Organisation, 71, Spring 2017, 245–280.

Lugg, A. (2024). Re-contracting intergovernmental organisations: Membership change

and the creation of linked intergovernmental organisations. The Review of International

Organisations, 19, 545–577

March, J. G. & Olson, J. P. (2006). Elaborating the ‘‘New Institutionalism in R. A.W.

Rhodes, S. A. Binder, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political

Institutions (pp. 3-22). Oxford Academic.

Nuruzzaman, M. (2020). Why BRICS Is No Threat to the Post-war Liberal World Order.

International Studies, 57(1), 51-66.

Nye, Joseph S (2017). Will the Liberal Order Survive? The History of an Idea. Foreign

Affairs, 96(1), 10-16.

Papa, Mihaela (2015) Sustainable Global Governance? Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle

Institutions. Global Environmental Politics 2015; 15 (4), 1–20.

Petrone, Francesco (2019). A Specter is Haunting the West: The BRICS and the Future

of Global Governance. The Rest, 9(1), 20-32.

Roberts, C. (2015). Are the BRICS building a non-Western concert of powers?.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/are-the-brics-building-non-western-concert powers-

13280?page¼show

Stuenkel, O. (2016). The BRICS: Seeking Privileges by Constructing and Running

Multilateral Institutions. Global Summitry, 2(1), 38–53.

van Noort, C. (2019). The Construction of Power in the Strategic Narratives of the BRICS.

Global Society, 33(4), 462-478.

Ward, S. (2017). Status and the Challenge of Rising Powers. Cambridge University Press.

World Bank GDP annual growth rate % (2025)

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

World Bank GDP current US$ (2025).

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

Yekaterinburg Statement. (2009). Joint Statement of the BRIC Countries’ Leaders

(Yekaterinburg, Russia, June 16, 2009). https://infobrics.org/document/3/