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

320

BRICS POLICIES TOWARDS THE UNITED NATIONS, WORLD TRADE

ORGANISATION AND EUROPEAN UNION

ZEKERI MOMOH

momohzekeri@gmail.com, momohz@kku.edu.ng

Faculty of Arts, Management and Social Sciences, Department of Political Science,

Karl Kumm University, Vom-Plateau State (Nigeria). https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7938-8738

Abstract

The BRICS bloc, initially comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, expanded

in 2023 to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates, forming what is now

informally called BRICS+. With 13 additional partner countries, such as Algeria, Belarus,

Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda,

Uzbekistan, and Vietnam, BRICS represents a population of 3.27 billion, around 41.13% of

the world’s total and contributes 32% of global GDP. Leveraging this demographic and

economic power, BRICS seeks to influence global governance, particularly within the United

Nations (UN), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and in its relations with the European

Union (EU). This study is anchored on realist theory, while secondary data were used for the

study and content analysis was used to evaluate the effectiveness of BRICS policies toward

these institutions. It is argued that BRICS collectively challenges Western dominance by

advocating for reforms that enhance the voice of emerging economies. At the UN, BRICS

supports reforming the Security Council to reflect today’s geopolitical realities. Within the

WTO, it promotes a transparent, rules-based, and inclusive trading system. While BRICS does

not engage the EU as a unified bloc, individual member states interact with the EU

independently. Nevertheless, the bloc has jointly criticised the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment

Mechanism (CBAM), viewing it as a veiled protectionist policy that harms BRICS exporters.

The study concludes by recommending that BRICS strengthen its advocacy for UN reform,

maintain a united front for equitable WTO rules, and deepen diplomatic engagement with the

EU based on mutual respect and fair economic practices.

Keywords

BRICS Plus, United Nations, WTO, EU, G7, Policies, Power, Economy.

Resumo

O bloco BRICS, inicialmente composto por Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul,

expandiu-se em 2023 para incluir Egito, Etiópia, Irão e Emirados Árabes Unidos, formando o

que hoje é informalmente chamado de BRICS+. Com 13 países parceiros adicionais, como

Argélia, Bielorrússia, Bolívia, Cuba, Indonésia, Cazaquistão, Malásia, Nigéria, Tailândia,

Turquia, Uganda, Uzbequistão e Vietname, o BRICS representa uma população de 3,27 mil

milhões, cerca de 41,13% do total mundial, e contribui com 32% do PIB global. Aproveitando

esse poder demográfico e económico, o BRICS busca influenciar a governança global,

particularmente dentro das Nações Unidas (ONU), da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC)

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

321

e nas suas relações com a União Europeia (UE). Este estudo está ancorado na teoria realista,

enquanto dados secundários foram usados para o estudo e a análise de conteúdo foi usada

para avaliar a eficácia das políticas do BRICS em relação a essas instituições. Argumenta-se

que o BRICS desafia coletivamente o domínio ocidental, defendendo reformas que aumentem

a voz das economias emergentes. Na ONU, o BRICS apoia a reforma do Conselho de

Segurança para refletir as realidades geopolíticas atuais. Na OMC, promove um sistema

comercial transparente, baseado em regras e inclusivo. Embora o BRICS não se envolva com

a UE como um bloco unificado, os Estados-membros individuais interagem com a UE de forma

independente. No entanto, o bloco criticou conjuntamente o Mecanismo de Ajustamento

Carbónico nas Fronteiras (CBAM) da UE, considerando-o uma política protecionista velada que

prejudica os exportadores do BRICS. O estudo conclui recomendando que o BRICS reforce a

sua defesa da reforma da ONU, mantenha uma frente unida para regras equitativas da OMC

e aprofunde o envolvimento diplomático com a UE com base no respeito mútuo e em práticas

económicas justas.

Palavras-chave

BRICS Plus, Nações Unidas, OMC, UE, G7, Políticas, Poder, Economia.

How to cite this article

Momoh, Zekeri (2025). BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and

European Union. 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.

320-341. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0525.17

Article submitted on 24th July 2025 and accepted for publication on 01st 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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

322

BRICS POLICIES TOWARDS THE UNITED NATIONS, WORLD

TRADE ORGANISATION AND EUROPEAN UNION

ZEKERI MOMOH

Introduction

The word BRIC was an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, and China, which was first

coined by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill in his research paper titled Building

Better Global Economic BRICs, in 2001. He argued that the growth of Brazil, Russia,

India, and China was poised to challenge the G7 nations, describing the growth as

significant in reshaping the international economy (O’Neill, 2001).

Moreover, Brazil, Russia, India, and China began formal diplomatic engagement with

each other in 2006 on how to strengthen their economic tie. The first BRIC summit was

held in Yekaterinburg, Russia, in 2009. In 2010, South Africa was invited by the BRIC

nations to join their economic platform, thereby expanding the BRIC platform into BRICS

(Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) (BRICS, 2010). Since then, BRICS nations

have transformed into a significant multilateral political and economic platform within the

global economy, advocating for critical reforms in international governance and

promoting a more multipolar world order as opposed to the present unipolar world order

dominated by the United States.

In recent years, a number of reasons have been advanced in the literature of

International Political Economy for the growing influence of BRICS countries, particularly

China and India. One of the reasons has been attributed to the growing population of

China and India, as both nations possess massive populations that serve as both sources

of consumer market and labour sources. Besides, many BRICS nations have undergone

accelerated industrialisation and urban development, such as China, India, Russia, Brazil

and South Africa, leading to increased productivity, infrastructure expansion, and

manufacturing output (Stuenkel, 2020).

Similarly, BRICS nations are continuously diversifying their economy beyond primary

commodities into manufacturing and services. For instance, Brazil is expanding its

agribusiness sector, India is developing its services and tech sectors, while China has

become a global leader in manufacturing and green technology. It is also important to

note that high levels of public investment in infrastructure, education, and research and

development have enabled BRICS countries, especially China and India, to enhance their

competitiveness and productivity at the international level (World Bank, 2023). Also,

BRICS states tend to promote economic cooperation among developing countries,

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

323

thereby facilitating trade, investment, and political solidarity. This effort helps to

strengthen their bargaining power in global institutions like the UN and WTO (Gasper et

al., 2023).

Furthermore, the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) and Contingent

Reserve Arrangement (CRA) by BRICS states provides alternative sources of finance and

monetary support to member states and helps in reducing dependency on Western-

dominated institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

(Cooper, 2021). Consequently, BRICS states such as Russia, Brazil, and South Africa are

endowed with abundant energy, minerals, and agricultural resources, making them

critical players in global commodity markets, especially amid rising global demand for

rare earth.

In contemporary times, BRICS states are beginning to forge bilateral and multilateral

trade agreements, thereby expanding their influence in Asia, Africa, and Latin America,

through the promotion of de-dollarisation in trade settlements, which has continued to

enhance BRICS states’ monetary autonomy (Thakur, 2020). Although, despite global

slowdowns, BRICS nations such as India and China have continued to record robust GDP

growth, contributing significantly to global economic expansion and lifting millions out of

poverty.

Since the formation of BRICS, the international political and economic order has

undergone significant changes, with the BRICS nations increasingly challenging Western

dominance within the international system. Over the years, BRICS nations have evolved

from a theoretical economic construct into a significant geopolitical bloc that now actively

shapes global governance debates. One of the requirements for the selection of the

BRICS nations was based on their population size, natural resource endowments,

economic growth trajectories, and potential for global influence.

Furthermore, the BRICS and G7 are two influential global blocs representing the

emerging political and economic power centres within the international system. While the

G7 as of today consists of advanced industrialised nations with high per capita income,

such as the U.S., Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Japan. BRICS includes

major emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Other

newly admitted members of the BRICS include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the UAE, with

partners such as Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand,

Uganda, and Uzbekistan. The strategic goals of the G7 are to lead global policy on

security, climate change, pandemic response and global finance, while BRICS seeks to

pursue multipolarity, financial alternatives to Western-led institutions, promote trade in

local currencies and reform the United Nations, especially the United Nations Security

Council and World Bank structures. It is against this background that this study seeks to

investigate the efficacy of the BRICS policies towards the United Nations, the WTO and

the European Union.

Literature Review

There are growing empirical studies that indicate BRICS collective action in seeking UN

Security Council reform to better reflect contemporary global realities. For instance,

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

324

Mearsheimer (2001) argues that power transitions usually influence institutional

redesign, which supports BRICS’ demands for a new world order that is multipolar in

nature. In a content analysis of BRICS summit declarations (2009–2022), Stuenkel

(2015) found repeated calls by BRICS for equitable representation and greater roles for

developing countries in global governance. This has been demonstrated by China and

Russia at the UN Security Council to check Western hegemony, while BRICS nations such

as India, Brazil, and South Africa have continued to lobby for permanent seats at the UN

Security Council.

Bond (2016), using qualitative interviews with diplomats, documented how India and

Brazil use multilateral forums to push for UN reform. However, Bond (2016) argued that

the internal contradictions within BRICS have continued to impede this effort. Similarly,

Acharya (2017) empirically traced the shift from Western liberal hegemony to a

multipolar world order, emphasising how BRICS’ coordinated positions at the UN General

Assembly (UNGA) have continued to reflect a broader move towards norm diffusion

rather than outright rejection of liberal institutionalism.

However, Sinha and Mishra (2020) in their study observed that China and India

increasingly file and defend cases, challenging EU and U.S. agricultural and intellectual

property policies at the WTO. They further argued that BRICS have adopted both

defensive and proactive stances in their engagement against the EU and the U.S in many

fora. Furthermore, Sinha and Mishra (2020) employed data from WTO dispute settlement

proceedings in their study to back up their argument. Consequently, Hopewell (2018) in

his study argues that BRICS Trade Ministers’ Meetings have continued to emphasise the

preservation of the multilateral trading system. Hopewell (2018) further shows how India

and Brazil act as “norm entrepreneurs” in resisting trade liberalisation by Western nations

that undermines domestic industries in the Global South. In a related study, Hopewell

(2016) argued that China’s support for Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) has been

documented in WTO archives and debates, underscoring BRICS’ solidarity with the

developing countries around the world. In the same vein, Bond (2016) has argued that

empirical data have revealed growing divergences, especially in China’s economic clout,

which often sidelines other BRICS members, and South Africa’s weaker bargaining power

has limited its strategic influence at the international level.

Empirical evidence from Stuenkel (2015) and Bond (2016) shows that while the EU seeks

to engage BRICS as a body, BRICS countries prefer bilateral engagement with the EU

due to divergent interests. Evidence from the WTO indicates that between 2009 and

2022, the EU filed 34 complaints against BRICS+ countries, while BRICS+ countries, on

the other hand, filed 16 complaints against the EU (WTO Dispute Settlement Database,

2023). Therefore, BRICS-EU relations are complex and marked by both dialogue and

dispute.

Furthermore, Acharya (2017) argues that despite overlapping economic interests, BRICS

members are sceptical of EU normative agendas, especially on climate change and

human rights, as EU-BRICS dialogue forums have shown limited coherence. For instance,

empirical studies from the European Council on Foreign Relations revealed BRICS

resistance to EU conditionalities in trade and aid negotiations. Nevertheless, empirical

studies have also shown that the BRICS collective influence has continued to challenge

Western dominance and remains critical in reshaping global institutional norms.

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

325

On the whole, from the review of empirical literature, BRICS adopts strategic interest-

based policies toward the UN, WTO, and EU, while unified in statement, internal

asymmetries and conflicting national interests have continued to undermine BRICS

cohesion. Therefore, from the review of literature, there is a gap in the literature, such

as Mearsheimer (2001), Stuenkel (2015), Bond (2016), Hopewell (2018), Acharya

(2017), and Sinha and Mishra (2020) on a comparative study of BRICS policies towards

the UN, WTO, and EU in a single study. It is against this background that this study seeks

to interrogate the efficacy of the BRICS policies towards the trio of multilateral platforms

(United Nations, WTO and the European Union).

Theoretical Framework

Scholars in International relations have developed a number of theories for the study of

multilateralism, such as constructivism, dependency theory and realism. Constructivism

focuses on identity, norms, and shared ideas among states at the international level.

BRICS presents itself as a platform for developing countries at the international level or

the voice of the Global South in promoting sovereignty among nations, non-intervention

in the domestic affairs of other nations, and a promoter of development-oriented norms

at the international level. At the UN, BRICS have continued to advocate for multipolarity

as a normative value by insisting on a world order that represents the diversity of global

cultures. In the WTO, BRICS usually promotes equity and justice in trade rules. With the

EU, BRICS has continued to challenge the Eurocentric narratives or posture of the EU,

while still engaging in norm diffusion on issues of trade and climate change. For instance,

most BRICS communiqués have continuously sought to promote “inclusive global

governance” and the significance of cultural diversity in the developmental processes

(Acharya, 2017).

However, Dependency theory argues that international capitalism benefits core

(developed) states while underdeveloping the periphery (developing). BRICS policies

often seek to reverse this imbalance in the International Political Economy. At the UN,

BRICS demand more equitable representation for the Global South. At the WTO, BRICS

also challenge contemporary neocolonial trade structures and demand technology

transfer to the Global South. BRICS engagement with the EU involves resisting trade

conditionalities and pushing back against exploitative investment practices. For instance,

BRICS countries continued to criticise the EU’s carbon border tax as a strategy of green

protectionism that has continued to undermine the industrial growth of developing

nations (Bond, 2016).

According to realism, states act mainly in pursuit of power and national interest at the

international level. Therefore, BRICS nations seek to challenge the dominance of Western

powers in notable international institutions. For instance, at the United Nations, BRICS

have been advocating for the reform of the United Nations Security Council in order to

allow for the expansion of a permanent member seat that will ensure the representation

of developing nations and balance Western hegemony. In the WTO, BRICS often defends

the “trade interests” of the developing nations by opposing the European Union and the

United States’ agricultural subsidies. It is important to note that BRICs engagement with

the European Union is a clear reflection of its strategic hedging cooperation, where

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

326

interests align particularly in the area of trade and climate, but at variance with the issue

of a multipolar world order. Today, Russia and China have continued to veto many United

Nations Security Council resolutions aimed at promoting Western hegemony, which has

further demonstrated that states pursue their strategic interests under realist persuasion

(Mearsheimer, 2001).

From the foregoing analysis of constructivism, dependency theory and realism to the

study of BRICS policies towards the UN, WTO and EU. This study recognises the relevance

of constructivism and dependency theory as a useful framework for analysis of BRICS

policies towards the UN, WTO and EU, but considers realism as the most effective

theoretical framework to explain BRICS policies towards the UN, WTO, and EU due to the

BRICS strategic pursuit of influence and security in the international arena. For instance,

at the UN, BRICS’ continuous advocacy for the reform of the UN Security Council is not

merely for inclusivity, but to gain hard institutional power (Stuenkel, 2015). Again, at

the WTO, BRICS have continued to pursue national economic interests, protecting

domestic industries and forming coalitions to counterbalance Western trade dominance.

In BRICS relations with the EU, the bloc has continued to act pragmatically by engaging

in partnerships that are beneficial but outrightly rejects Western overreach, perceived

issues such as human rights or sanctions. On the whole, realism as a framework of

analysis in this study captures the geopolitical calculations, strategic alignments, and

power-maximising behaviour that underpin BRICS’s multilateral engagements at the

international level.

Methodology

The data for this study were collected from secondary sources of data such as textbooks,

journal articles and BRICS statements, resolutions, communiqués, and policy documents.

Content analysis was used to examine statements, resolutions, communiqués, and policy

documents from BRICS. This includes the BRICS joint statement on South Africa’s

admission on December 24, 2010; the Sixth BRICS Summit – Fortaleza Declaration from

July 15, 2014; the 15th BRICS Summit Johannesburg II Declaration from August 24,

2023; the Third BRICS Summit Declaration from April 14, 2011; the Joint Declaration of

the 15th BRICS Trade Ministers Meeting from May 21, 2025, World Bank, World Trade

Organization, Bali Ministerial Declaration of December 7, 2013 and WTO Dispute

Settlement Database (2023). These documents relate to the UN, WTO, and EU. They

express support for multilateralism, call for reform, trade liberalisation, and

protectionism, along with criticism of Western dominance and cooperation with the EU.

The reason for using content analysis is that these primary official documents show how

BRICS collectively states its positions. This approach ensures reliability instead of relying

on secondary interpretations. Additionally, these documents come directly from official

BRICS platforms, providing authentic insights into BRICS’ stance. They also reveal how

BRICS balances cooperative and confrontational attitudes toward global institutions.

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

327

BRICS Contribution to World Economic Growth in relation to G7

The BRICS is the acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and the G7

consist of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United

States, which represent two significant blocs shaping global economic dynamics. While

the G7 symbolises the world’s most advanced economies, the BRICS reflects a coalition

of emerging powers from the Global South with increasing influence in global economic

governance (Stuenkel, 2020).

Available statistics from the IMF show that in 2024, BRICS accounts for approximately

32% of global GDP on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, surpassing the G7’s share

of about 30% (IMF, 2024). The key drivers of BRICS’ growth are China and India, which

have continued to post higher economic growth rates relative to G7 nations, benefiting

from large populations, expanding markets, and a relatively youthful population (World

Bank, 2023). In contrast, G7 economies face structural constraints such as ageing

populations and slower productivity growth, though they remain dominant in innovation,

capital markets, and institutional governance (OECD, 2022).

It is pertinent to note that BRICS has made notable strides in creating alternative financial

mechanisms, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve

Arrangement (CRA), aimed at reducing dependency on Western-led institutions like the

IMF and World Bank (Cooper, 2021). This reflects BRICS’ strategic ambition to shape a

multipolar global financial system. Meanwhile, G7 countries maintain control over major

global financial and trade institutions and dominate international aid, investment, and

technology flows (Kirton, 2018).

Moreover, while the G7 emphasises preserving the liberal international order, promoting

democracy, and addressing transnational threats such as climate change and pandemics,

BRICS emphasises reforming the global governance architecture to reflect the voices of

developing nations. The bloc has consistently called for restructuring the UN Security

Council and the WTO to make them more representative and equitable (Thakur, 2020).

Despite divergent approaches, both blocs are indispensable to global economic growth.

BRICS contributes by fueling development-led growth, especially across Asia and Africa,

while the G7 contributes through advanced industrial capacity, financial innovation, and

global regulatory standards. Therefore, rather than competition alone, enhanced

cooperation between BRICS and G7 is crucial for addressing shared global challenges,

including climate change, digital transformation, and geopolitical instability (Gasper et

al., 2023). Table 1 below shows the share of BRICS contribution to World Economic

Growth (2024-2029).

Table 1 shows that the BRICS contribution to World Economic Growth between 2024 and

2029 is estimated at 44.3 per cent. Brazil is expected to contribute 1.8 per cent, Russia

1.8 per cent, India 14.2percent, China 21.2 per cent, South Africa 0.3 per cent, Egypt

1.5 per cent, Iran 0.9 per cent, Saudi Arabia 1.5 per cent, United Arab Emirates 0.7 per

cent and Ethiopia 0.4 per cent. From the above data, India and China will jointly

contribute 35.4 per cent to global economic growth between 2024 and 2029, making

both countries the largest BRICS countries that will contribute the largest share to Global

Economic Growth. The implication is that India and China’s contributions to Global

Economic Growth will surpass that of other BRICS countries combined. This shows that

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

328

India and China’s economies remain critical in the development of Global Economic

Growth.

Table 1. Showing BRICS Contribution to World Economic Growth (2024-2029)

Country

Percentage

Brazil

1.8%

Russia

1.8%

India

14.2%

China

21.2%

South Africa

0.3%

Egypt

1.5%

Iran

0.9%

Saudi Arabia

1.5%

United Arab Emirates

0.7%

Ethiopia

0.4%

Total

44.3%

Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook (April 2024)

Table 2 shows that the G7 nations’ Contribution to Global Economic Growth between

2024 and 2029 is estimated at 20.1 per cent of Global Economic Growth. Japan is

expected to contribute 1.8 per cent, France 1.4 per cent, the United Kingdom 1.5 per

cent, Germany 1.7 per cent, Canada 1.0 per cent, Italy 0.8 per cent and the United States

11.9 per cent. This further shows that the United States will be the largest contributor

among the G7 nations to Global Economic Growth. The implication is that the United

States will contribute 50percent of the entire Global Economic Growth of the G7 nations.

Table 2. Showing G7 Contribution to World Economic Growth (2024-2029)

Country

Percentage

Japan

1.8%

France

1.4%

United Kingdom

1.5%

Germany

1.7%

Canada

1.0%

Italy

0.8%

United States

11.9%

Total

20.1%

Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook (April 2024)

However, comparative analysis of data from Table 1 and Table 2 shows that the BRICS

contributions to Global Economic Growth are estimated at 44.3 per cent, while the G7 is

estimated at 20.1percent. Other nations that are neither BRICS nor G7 are expected to

contribute 35.6percent of Global Economic Growth. A critical analysis of the above data

shows that the percentage of BRICS to Global Economic Growth will surpass that of the

G7 in the years under review. The implication of the above findings shows that BRICS,

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

329

especially India and China, remain key drivers of future Global Economic Growth based

on the present assessment of their economic performance.

Consequently, a comparative analysis of BRICS and G7 contributions to Global Economic

Growth in 2001, 2023 and 2060 projections is shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Showing a Comparative Analysis of G7 and BRICS Contributions to Global GDP in PPP

terms (2001, 2023 and 2060)

YEAR

G7

BRICS

2001

43%

19%

2023

30%

32%

2060

19%

45%

Source: OECD (2022), IMF (2024)

Table 3 above shows that in 2001, the contributions of G7 to Global GDP in Purchasing

Power Parity terms were estimated at 43 per cent, while the BRICS was 19 per cent. In

2023, the contributions of the G7 to Global GDP in Purchasing Power Parity terms were

estimated at 30 per cent, while BRICS nations’ contributions to Global GDP in Purchasing

Power Parity terms rose from an earlier 19 per cent to 32 per cent, with a 13 per cent

increase. In 2060, it is projected that G7 contributions to Global GDP in Purchasing Power

Parity terms will decrease to 19 per cent, showing an 11 per cent decrease. The

implication of the above findings shows that BRICS contributions to Global GDP in

Purchasing Power Parity terms by 2060 surpass that of the G7 by 26 per cent. This will,

among other things, help the BRICS nations to influence global trade.

BRICS and G7: Contrasting Institutional Strategies at the United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is a multilateral platform where global powers pursue their

strategic interests through institutional engagement. Both the BRICS and the G7 use the

UN to shape multilateral decision-making. However, their institutional strategies differ

greatly because of their geopolitical positions, economic priorities, and governance views.

The G7’s approach at the UN is rooted in its commitment to liberal internationalism and

multilateral cooperation. It aims to uphold the rules-based order established after World

War II. The G7 countries, on the other hand, have consistently taken advantage of their

economic and financial strength to support UN programmes by focusing on issues of

democracy promotion, human rights protection, humanitarian aid, and ensuring

sustainable development (Luckhurst, 2020). For example, G7 members often coordinate

their voting patterns and diplomatic efforts in the UN General Assembly and the Security

Council. They often push for resolutions related to humanitarian intervention,

peacekeeping, and sanctions, especially in situations like Syria and North Korea (Patrick,

2019). The BRICS strategy relies on working together, with the G7 acting as an informal

group to unify their positions before formal negotiations at the UN.

BRICS focuses on challenging Western dominance and promoting a multipolar world

within the UN system. BRICS countries coordinate their actions to push back against what

they see as Western overreach, especially regarding issues like sovereignty, intervention,

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

330

and development financing. For instance, BRICS states often dispute the G7’s view of the

“Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). They argue that more emphasis should be placed on

state sovereignty and non-interference (Stuenkel, 2015). In the UN Security Council,

Russia and China, both permanent members of the United Nations, have frequently used

their veto power to overturn resolutions led by the West that are detrimental to the

interests of the developing countries. Meanwhile, Brazil, India, and South Africa have

continued to advocate for reforms in the Security Council to give more voice to emerging

powers (Hodzi, 2019). This strategy reflects BRICS’ long-term goal of reforming

institutions to balance global governance.

Another significant difference lies in their approaches to development and economic

governance. The G7 focuses on financing through established UN-related institutions

such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In contrast, BRICS

promote alternatives such as the New Development Bank (NDB), which operates both

alongside and outside traditional UN financing pathways. At the level of the UN, BRICS

states have continued to highlight the principle of “common but differentiated

responsibilities,” especially in climate talks, to point out the differences between

developed and developing countries (Bhandari, 2021). This approach contrasts with the

G7’s method of setting binding global standards and stressing accountability.

On the whole, the G7 uses the UN to strengthen and promote the liberal political and

economic world order. Meanwhile, BRICS treat the UN as a platform to challenge Western

dominance by calling for the reform of the UN Security Council and support for a

multipolar world. These differing strategies reflect not only the tension between

established and emerging powers but also the ongoing struggle over the legitimacy and

future of global governance.

BRICS and G7: Divergent Policy Instruments at the WTO

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the main global forum for managing international

trade among states. However, different economic groups around the world have shown

significant differences in their strategies towards the WTO. Two of the most notable

groups are the Group of Seven (G7), which consists of the United States, Britain, France,

Germany, Canada, Japan and Italy and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South

Africa). Both groups work with the WTO to influence outcomes that serve their interests,

but they use different policy strategies that reflect their foundations, priorities, and

political world views.

The first major difference in this strategy is in how they coordinate their activities and

their institutional structures. For instance, BRICS is a loose group of emerging economies

without a binding treaty or central institutions. This institutional setup of BRICS allows

for more flexible but less unified policy tools at the WTO. Recently, BRICS members have

increased their efforts to align their trade policies through initiatives such as the Contact

Group on Economic and Trade Issues (CGETI), which facilitates trade-related discussions

about WTO reforms and global trade challenges (CPPR, 2024). Although BRICS joint

statements often highlight the need to restore the WTO’s Appellate Body and strengthen

the dispute resolution system, to reflect priorities that benefit developing countries

(BRICS Research Institute, 2025). In contrast, the G7 consist of seven industrialised

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

331

nations that are committed to a strong level of policy and institutional unity. G7, during

their annual summits, regularly release detailed statements that act as signals for

political intentions and agreement before WTO meetings (CLAWS, 2024). Therefore,

while BRICS relies on coordinated statements and flexible arrangements, the G7 uses

formal declarations that are integrated into multilateral discussions.

Another difference is that BRICS and G7 focus on institutional reform versus political

messaging. BRICS uses its policy tools to push for structural changes in the WTO that

promote inclusiveness and uphold the special rights of developing countries. This is clear

in BRICS’ common position and calls for a fair, rules-based trading system and the

reinforcement of developing countries’ rights under WTO agreements (InfoBRICS, 2024;

BRICS Research Institute, 2025). However, the G7 uses its strategies mainly to set

agendas. Its statements often express shared values and indicate negotiation positions

such as supporting flexibility in intellectual property for public health without making

binding commitments (SDG Knowledge Hub, 2023). This contrast shows that BRICS

focuses on the WTO’s longevity and reform, while the G7 prioritises immediate political

influence.

BRICS employs formal mechanisms such as summit resolutions, joint statements, and

task groups to advocate for systemic reforms of the WTO, such as reviving the dispute

resolution system (The BFT, 2024). In contrast, G7 strategies mainly come in the form

of non-binding statements, serving as platforms for political expression rather than

practical plans. For instance, during the WTO talks about trade-related aspects of

intellectual property (TRIPS), the G7 utilised summit statements to support flexibility for

vaccine licensing within the Doha Declaration, while steering clear of institutional

commitments that could limit their freedom (SDG Knowledge Hub, 2023).

In conclusion, BRICS and the G7 approach the WTO in fundamentally different ways.

BRICS focuses on institutional reform, inclusiveness, and priorities for developing

countries, using coordinated statements and specific working groups. Meanwhile, the G7

relies on non-binding statements and expressions of intent to signal priorities and

maintain negotiating strength without making structural changes to the multilateral

system. These differences mirror their broader roles in the global economy: The goal of

BRICS is to adjust the activities of the WTO to address the challenges developing nations

face, while the goal of the G7 is to maintain influence and reinforce its leadership in the

contemporary international system.

BRICS and G7 Strategies Compared to the EU

The European Union (EU) represents one of the unique models of governance that

combines shared sovereignty with collective decision-making at the international level.

In contrast, both BRICS and G7 pursue noticeably different strategies in terms of

structure, policies, and approaches. While the G7 often supports EU initiatives, BRICS

tends to oppose EU-led agendas, focusing instead on multipolarity, sovereignty, and

development.

The G7 shares many similarities with the EU, as both are rooted in liberal democracy,

international rules, and open market policies (Kirton, 2020). This common ground

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

332

enables both the G7 and the EU to coordinate their efforts at the United Nations (UN)

and World Trade Organisation (WTO). The G7 and EU policies often confront issues such

as human rights, climate change, and global economic stability (Smith, 2021). For

instance, the EU’s Green Deal and the G7’s commitments to climate finance often support

one another, highlighting their shared goals for sustainability (Youngs & Panchulidze,

2020).

Besides, both the G7 and EU most often engage in diplomatic efforts to impose sanctions

against states that threaten international stability, as seen in their unified response to

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 (Keukeleire & Raube, 2022). Therefore, the G7 acts

as a supporter of the EU’s liberal strategies. In contrast, BRICS adopt a different strategy

that often contests the EU’s leadership in setting norms. At the same time, the EU focuses

on regulatory influence and spreading standards, especially in areas such as climate

policy, trade, and human rights. BRICS emphasises sovereignty, non-interference, and

development cooperation (Stuenkel, 2020).

BRICS also differs from the EU in economic and trade governance. The EU functions as a

cohesive customs and regulatory block, while BRICS operates as a loose alliance without

formal binding structures, relying on cooperation between governments (Roberts, Armijo,

& Katada, 2018). This flexibility allows BRICS members to resist EU regulatory influence,

such as the European Green Deal’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which

BRICS views as protectionist and a threat to development goals (Bastos, 2022). Thus,

BRICS focuses on strengthening its bargaining power, forming coalitions with other

developing nations, and resisting EU influence.

Another major difference is the internal cohesion of these groups. The EU operates under

a supranational model with binding institutions such as the European Commission and

European Court of Justice. In contrast, both BRICS and G7 depend on intergovernmental

consensus. However, the G7 is more aligned with the EU because of shared values and

overlapping membership. On the other hand, BRICS deals with internal issues, such as

tensions between China and India and South Africa’s limited economic influence, which

hinder its ability to effectively counter EU strategies (Hurrell, 2018). These internal

challenges diminish BRICS’ capacity to present a strong alternative to the EU, despite its

emphasis on multipolarity.

In conclusion, the institutional strategies of BRICS and the G7 differ sharply when

compared to the EU. The G7 supports EU liberal values, promoting a rules-based order

based on democracy, free markets, and collective security. In contrast, BRICS challenges

the EU’s normative power by advocating for sovereignty and development priorities,

while also facing hurdles related to internal unity. This positions the G7 as a natural ally

for the EU in global governance, while BRICS serves as both a challenger and a

counterbalance to European influence.

BRICS policies towards the United Nations

The policies of BRICS towards the United Nations have consistently focused on a

comprehensive reform of the United Nations (UN) system, with reference to the United

Nations Security Council (UNSC), in ensuring that there is fairer representation and

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

333

decision-making space for developing nations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil et al.,

2025). These policies are anchored on the long-standing perceived imbalance in the

United Nations governance structures, where five permanent members of the United

Nations Security Council popularly known as the P5 which include the United States, the

United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China has veto power, while emerging economies

especially BRICS nations such as India, Brazil, and South Africa lack permanent

representation at the United Nations Security Council.

One of the classic examples of this advocacy was seen at the 2011 BRICS Summit in

Sanya, China, where BRICS member states unequivocally demonstrated their support for

India, Brazil, and South Africa’s aspirations for permanent seats on the United Nations

Security Council. This further strengthens BRICS’s position on the need to reform the

UNSC to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities of the 21st century (BRICS Summit

Declaration, 2011).

Similarly, at the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, in 2024, BRICS member states

further reaffirmed their support and commitment to adherence to the United Nations

Charter and advocated for Palestine’s full participation in the UN, based on the two-state

solution framework, which reflects past collective positions of BRICS on peace and

security in the Middle East. This is in line with the BRICS long-standing position on the

need for respect for international law and multipolar world order, as demonstrated during

the 2014 Fortaleza Declaration, where BRICS leaders called for the United Nations to

take decisive actions on issues relating to international security seriously while resisting

unilateral military interventions by any state within the international system (BRICS

Fortaleza Declaration, 2014).

Moreover, BRICS states, through their Foreign Ministers forum, have emphasised

transparent, merit-based processes for senior UN appointments and equitable geographic

representation, highlighting the need for diversity and preventing domination by a single

bloc or country within the UN Secretariat (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil et al.,

2025). A clear example of this principle was the BRICS joint statement in 2021, during

António Guterres’ reappointment as UN Secretary-General, where BRICS nations

demanded a more open selection process for top UN roles, ensuring that developing

nations’ candidates were really considered (UN News, 2021).

However, progress has been negligible due to entrenched resistance from the current

permanent members of the UN Security Council, who are reluctant to dilute their veto

powers. Furthermore, internal divergences within BRICS, such as China’s hesitancy to

endorse India’s UNSC ambitions, have slowed down cohesive lobbying efforts. As a result,

BRICS has been more successful in raising awareness and keeping the reform debate

active rather than enacting structural changes within the UN.

Conclusively, BRICS’ unified stance has been instrumental in keeping the reform agenda

alive at the UN General Assembly, where they often coordinate votes to reflect Global

South interests (Stuenkel, 2020). Yet, critics have argued that internal contradictions like

China’s reluctance to endorse Japan or India’s full UNSC ambitions are continuing to

undermine the bloc’s effectiveness (Alden & Vieira, 2018).

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

334

BRICS policies towards the World Trade Organisation (WTO)

The BRICS nations support the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as a critical institution

for a transparent, rules-based, inclusive, and non-discriminatory international trading

system, which has been encouraging. However, BRICS policies towards the WTO have

been that it must evolve to reflect the shifting balance of economic power toward

emerging markets. This position was reinforced during the 2011 Sanya BRICS Summit in

China, where member states requested that WTO rules better accommodate Global South

interests, especially in agriculture and intellectual property rights (BRICS Summit

Declaration, 2011). BRICS have also consistently criticised protectionist practices by the

Global South, such as agricultural subsidies by the European Union and the United States,

which distort trade and harm Global South exporters. For instance, during the 2013 Bali

Ministerial Conference, BRICS countries advocated for food security provisions to protect

farmers in countries like India and Brazil from the effects of subsidy-driven dumping by

the Global South (WTO, 2013).

During the September 2024 BRICS Trade Ministerial Meeting in Moscow, BRICS nations

agreed to create a policy coordination platform within the WTO to strengthen the voice

of the developing nations in negotiations on digital trade, agricultural subsidies, and trade

facilitation (Infobrics, 2024). This strategy was anchored on earlier efforts made by the

bloc, such as the BRICS Trade and Investment Cooperation Framework Agreement of

2015, which sought to enhance coordination on trade rules, supply chains, and

investment standards. The 2014 Fortaleza Declaration also underlined BRICS opposition

to unilateral trade measures such as sanctions and tariffs, arguing that they undermine

the spirit of WTO-based multilateralism (BRICS Fortaleza Declaration, 2014).

In a related development, in May 2025, the BRICS Joint Declaration, by its Trade

Ministers, called for the restoration of the WTO Appellate Body, which has been redundant

since 2019 due to the United States’ refusal to appoint new judges (BRICS Trade

Ministers, 2025). The implication of this is that the redundancy of the WTO Appellate

Body that has affected international trade has been seen in the U.S.-China tariff disputes

(2018-2020) (Hoekman & Mavroidis, 2021). At present, U.S.-China tariff disputes have

continued to hinder international trade due to the absence of a fully functioning appellate

mechanism at the WTO. Today, BRICS nations have continued to argue that such

dysfunction undermines the predictability of the current international trade order, which

they seek to reinforce through multilateral dialogue and legal reform.

It is pertinent to note, however, that India and China have worked within BRICS to block

harmful agricultural subsidy policies pushed by G7 nations, by building on joint positions

right from the 2013 Bali Ministerial Conference (WTO, 2013). Nevertheless, BRICS has

not yet achieved significant reforms at the WTO due to resistance from developed

economies, especially the U.S. and EU, which prioritise bilateral trade deals and new

digital trade rules (Hoekman & Mavroidis, 2021). The creation of a BRICS policy

coordination platform during the 2024 Moscow summit is a step in the right direction,

but the efficacy of this mechanism remains untested in shaping future WTO negotiations

(Infobrics, 2024).

At the WTO level, BRICS has emerged as a defender of multilateral trade frameworks,

opposing unilateral trade measures like the U.S.-China trade tariffs that disrupted global

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

335

markets. The bloc’s insistence on reviving the Appellate Body and resisting protectionism

was reaffirmed during the 2025 BRICS Trade Ministers’ Meeting, where members

stressed that any meaningful global trade order must give developing countries greater

bargaining power. However, while BRICS’ influence is evident in maintaining pressure for

WTO reform, the organisation’s slow pace of structural change and the rise of regional

trade agreements (RTAs) have hindered concrete results. A classic example is the failure

of WTO negotiations on agricultural subsidies, where, despite BRICS’ joint stance,

developed nations like the U.S. and EU have continued to maintain high domestic support

for their farmers, undermining fair competition.

BRICS policies towards the European Union

It is pertinent to note that BRICS does not engage directly with the European Union (EU)

as a bloc in official forums; rather, each BRICS member nation relates to the EU

independently. In recent years, BRICS declarations have continuously shown strong

criticism of EU-imposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM), which were

alleged as disguised protectionist measures that negatively affect competitive exporters

from BRICS countries (India Today analysis of summit communiqué, 2025; Drishti IAS,

2025). Similarly, CBAM, which imposes tariffs on imports based on their carbon

emissions, is seen by BRICS members, especially India, China, and South Africa, as an

unfair trade barrier that disproportionately targets the Global South, which is still reliant

on carbon-intensive industries. For instance, during the 2021 UN Climate Change

Conference (COP26), India and China jointly denounced unilateral carbon tariffs, arguing

that they violated the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” under the

Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2021). Similarly, during the 2023 Johannesburg BRICS

Summit, BRICS leaders warned that green tariffs such as the EU’s CBAM risked

“weaponising climate policies” against emerging markets, especially in steel and cement

exports from Brazil, India, and South Africa (BRICS Johannesburg Declaration, 2023).

It is also important to note that BRICS does not name the EU explicitly in formal UN or

WTO statements; it has condemned unilateral trade barriers, including CBAM and other

green tariff mechanisms that seek to undermine the principles of fair trade and equitable

development for developing nations (BRICS Trade Ministers, 2025). In related

development, South Africa’s Trade Minister, in a 2024 statement, criticised CBAM as

violating WTO non-discrimination rules and announced plans to coordinate with BRICS

partners to challenge the measure at the WTO level (Mail & Guardian, 2024). This

replicates BRICS’ wider opposition to climate-related trade barriers that

disproportionately penalise the Global South while ignoring the historical emissions of

advanced economies, especially the U.S, Britain, France, Italy and Canada.

BRICS’ policies have largely centred on criticising climate-linked trade barriers, notably

the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). BRICS leaders, particularly from

India, China, and South Africa, have described CBAM as a form of “green protectionism”

that penalises exporters from the Global South. For example, during the 2023

Johannesburg Summit, BRICS leaders issued a joint statement warning that CBAM and

similar measures could increase the economic marginalisation of developing economies,

particularly in industries like steel and cement. While these criticisms have drawn

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

336

international attention to the equity implications of climate trade policies, BRICS has not

been able to significantly influence EU policymaking, which remains firmly committed to

its Green Deal agenda. Instead, BRICS countries have been compelled to negotiate

bilaterally with the EU rather than as a unified bloc, limiting their collective leverage.

BRICS has publicly condemned WTO policies, but the bloc lacks a coordinated

enforcement mechanism to counter EU regulations because BRICS member states relate

individually to the EU, which remains legally entrenched within the EU Green Deal

framework. BRICS member states have instead resorted to bilateral negotiations with

the EU, such as Brazil’s talks on agricultural exports, rather than confronting the EU as

a unified bloc (Drishti IAS, 2025). Today, BRICS has successfully framed CBAM as

protectionist in global debates, but it is yet to alter the EU’s implementation of such

measures.

The EU has often favoured bilateral trade agreements instead of dealing with BRICS as

a whole. Its agreements with Brazil, through Mercosur, and India, through free trade

negotiations, show this preference (Meunier & Nicolaïdis, 2019). In contrast, BRICS does

not have a unified trade policy. The differing economic models of its members, such as

China’s state-led capitalism, India’s protectionism, and Brazil’s focus on agricultural

exports, make it hard to negotiate collectively (Hopewell, 2021). The EU’s Carbon Border

Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) impacts BRICS exporters directly, and their reactions

differ. Russia views it as protectionism, Brazil sees it as a threat to its agricultural

competitiveness, while China is cautiously negotiating compliance (Oberthür & Dupont,

2021). This lack of a unified response weakens BRICS’s ability to challenge the EU’s trade

power.

In terms of security, the EU focuses on multilateral conflict prevention, human rights,

and a rules-based order. BRICS, on the other hand, prioritises sovereignty and non-

interference (Stuenkel, 2020). Russia’s conflict with the EU over Ukraine and China’s

assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific have put a strain on their relationship. India, although

a BRICS member, tends to side more with the EU and the U.S. on security issues in the

Indo-Pacific (Bava, 2021). South Africa, meanwhile, lacks the economic or military

strength to significantly impact EU security policy. These differences show that while

BRICS can criticise the EU’s liberal interventionism, it does not have the internal unity

needed to offer a clear alternative security approach.

Beyond climate issues, BRICS views the EU’s agenda on human rights, democracy

promotion, and digital governance as Eurocentric and sometimes intrusive (Lucarelli &

Fioramonti, 2010). For instance, Russia and China resist EU proposals for internet

reforms based on data privacy and transparency because they see these as threats to

digital sovereignty (Barkin & Senn, 2018). Similarly, Brazil and South Africa have mixed

feelings. They support the EU’s commitment to multilateralism but oppose conditions tied

to development aid. Therefore, while the EU is seen as a strong “norm entrepreneur,”

BRICS’ viewpoint is divided along geopolitical and developmental lines.

The internal divisions within BRICS greatly weaken its bargaining power against the EU.

Rivalries between China and India, driven by border disputes and competition for EU

trade and investment, hinder coordinated economic diplomacy (Hurrell, 2018). Russia’s

distancing from Europe since 2014 complicates collective negotiation. Moscow often tries

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

337

to undermine EU positions instead of working together. South Africa, despite representing

BRICS’ Global South identity, has limited influence because of its small economy, which

reduces its ability to guide shared positions (Taylor, 2020). These divisions mean that

while BRICS wants to balance EU influence in global governance, its fragmented

strategies leave it reactive rather than proactive.

On the whole, the EU’s relationship with BRICS involves both structural inequalities and

disagreements over norms. The EU prefers bilateral deals over working collectively with

BRICS, has an assertive security approach, and displays more normative power,

highlighting its institutional maturity in comparison to BRICS. Yet, BRICS struggles to

resolve its internal conflicts, especially between China and India or Russia and the West,

diminishing its negotiating power against the EU. In the end, while the EU shows cohesive

institutional strategies, BRICS is limited by conflicting national interests, undermining its

effectiveness as a counterbalance in the global arena.

Conclusion

From the foregoing analysis, BRICS policies toward the United Nations (UN), World Trade

Organisation (WTO), and European Union (EU) are strategically aligned with the bloc’s

long-term goal of fostering a multipolar global order and protecting the economic and

political interests of the developing nations. This approach represents a collective

rejection of Western dominance in global institutions such as the UN, WTO and EU and a

push for greater inclusion of emerging economies in global decision-making processes.

Despite this strategic alignment, the efficacy of these policies remains mixed, as

structural and geopolitical barriers continue to limit tangible outcomes. Therefore, this

study has been able to provide a comparative analysis of BRICS policies towards the UN,

WTO and EU, which were lacking in a single study in existing literature. Thus, this study

has further strengthened existing literature within the framework of BRICs policies

towards multilateral institutions such as the UN, WTO and EU in contemporary times.

Recommendations

a. BRICS should intensify coordinated advocacy for United Nations Security Council

reform, present a unified front for fairer World Trade Organisation rules that support

development, and engage the European Union through strategic diplomacy that

promotes mutual respect and counters protectionist tendencies.

b. The United Nations should engage BRICS more directly in institutional reform

dialogues to enhance inclusivity and legitimacy in global governance.

c. The World Trade Organisation should facilitate more balanced trade negotiations by

recognising BRICS’ collective demands for fairer rules that reflect the

developmental needs of emerging economies.

d. The European Union should adopt a pragmatic partnership approach with BRICS by

focusing on shared interests like climate change, digital economy, and global

health, despite geopolitical divergences.

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

338

e. BRICS should establish a permanent conflict-resolution and policy coordination

mechanism to manage internal disparities in political systems, economic priorities,

and strategic interests, thereby strengthening collective coherence and

effectiveness.

References

Acharya, A. (2017). After liberal hegemony: The advent of a multiplex world order. Ethics

& International Affairs, 31(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941700020X

Alden, C., & Vieira, M. (2018). The BRICS and the reform of global governance. South

African Journal of International Affairs, 25(3), 293–307.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2018.1526704

Barkin, J. S., & Senn, M. (2018). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses and

international institutions. Oxford University Press.

Bastos, M. A. (2022). Climate policy, trade disputes, and the EU’s Carbon Border

Adjustment Mechanism: Implications for emerging economies. Journal of World Trade,

56(4), 623–645.

Bava, U. (2021). India–EU relations: The quest for strategic convergence. International

Affairs, 97(2), 345–362.

Bhandari, S. (2021). Emerging Powers and the United Nations: Contestation and Reform.

Routledge.

Bond, P. (2016). BRICS: An anti-capitalist critique. Pluto Press.

BRICS Fortaleza Declaration, (2014, July 15). Sixth BRICS Summit – Fortaleza

Declaration. BRICS Information Portal. https://www.brics2024.gov.br/fortaleza-

declaration

BRICS Johannesburg Declaration, (2023, August 24). 15th BRICS Summit Johannesburg

II Declaration. BRICS Information Centre. http://www.brics.utoronto.ca

BRICS Research Institute (2025). Summit resolutions. Retrieved from

https://www.bricsri.co.za/summit-resolutions

BRICS Summit Declaration, (2011, April 14). Sanya Declaration – Third BRICS Summit.

BRICS Information Portal. https://www.brics2024.gov.br/sanya-declaration

BRICS Trade Ministers (2025, May 21). Joint Declaration of the 15th BRICS Trade

Ministers Meeting. BRICS Brasil. https://brics.br/en/news/brics-approves-joint-

declaration-for-fairer-more-inclusive-global-trade

BRICS (2010, December 24). BRICS joint statement on the admission of South Africa.

https://www.brics.utoronto.ca/docs/101224-leaders.html

Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR), (2024). A call for WTO reform: What can G20

and BRICS do? Retrieved from https://www.cppr.in/articles/a-call-for-wto-reform-what-

can-g20-and-brics-do

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

339

CLAWS (2024), BRICS vs. G7: Can they truly be compared? Retrieved from

https://claws.co.in/brics-vs-g7-can-they-truly-be-compared

Cooper, A. F. (2021). BRICS and the New Development Bank: Engagement and influence

in global financial governance. Routledge.

Drishti, IAS. (2025, July 8). BRICS Summit Highlights: Criticism of the EU’s Carbon

Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Drishti IAS. https://www.drishtiias.com

Gasper, D., Portocarrero, A. V., & St. Clair, A. L. (2023). The future of global development

cooperation: Between BRICS and the West. Palgrave Macmillan.

Hodzi, O. (2019). The End of China’s Non-Intervention Policy in Africa. Springer.

Hoekman, B., & Mavroidis, P. C. (2021). To Save the WTO, Reform the Dispute

Settlement Mechanism. Peterson Institute for International Economics.

https://www.piie.com

Hopewell, K. (2016). Breaking the WTO: How emerging powers disrupted the neoliberal

project. Stanford University Press.

Hopewell, K. (2018). US-China conflict in global trade governance: The new politics of

agricultural subsidies at the WTO. Review of International Political Economy, 25(3), 393–

419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2018.1459780

Hopewell, K. (2021). The BRICS in the WTO: Emerging powers, development states and

the challenge to global trade governance. Third World Quarterly, 42(6), 1163–1180.

Hurrell, A. (2018). Beyond BRICS: Power, pluralism and the future of global order. Ethics

& International Affairs, 32(1), 89–101.

IMF (International Monetary Fund), (2024). World Economic Outlook: April 2024 – Global

divergence and resilience. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO

IMF (2024). World Economic Outlook April 2024: Global divergence and resilience.

International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO

India Today analysis of summit communiqué (2025, July 9). BRICS leaders denounce the

EU’s CBAM as disguised protectionism. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in

InfoBRICS, (2024). BRICS agree on policy coordination in the WTO. Retrieved from

https://infobrics.org/post/42116/news/society/news/political-cooperation

Infobrics, (2024, September 3). BRICS Agree on Policy Coordination in the WTO.

Infobrics. https://infobrics.org/post/42116/news/society/news/political-cooperation

International Monetary Fund (2024, April). World Economic Outlook: Steady but Slow –

Resilience Amid Divergence. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Retrieved

from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2024/04/16/world-economic-

outlook-april-2024

Keukeleire, S., & Raube, K. (2022). The EU and the G7: Partners in defending liberal

order? Global Affairs, 8(2), 145–162.

Kirton, J. (2020). The G7 and global governance: The summit decade. Routledge.

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

340

Kirton, J. J. (2018). G7 and global governance: Capacity, legitimacy, and reform.

Routledge.

Lucarelli, S., & Fioramonti, L. (2010). External perceptions of the European Union as a

global actor. Routledge.

Luckhurst, J. (2020). G7 and G20 as Global Steering Committees for the UN. Global

Governance, 26(4), 553–571.

Mail & Guardian, (2024, June 15). South Africa calls the EU’s Carbon Border Mechanism

a WTO violation. Mail & Guardian. https://mg.co.za

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton & Company.

Meunier, S., & Nicolaïdis, K. (2019). The EU as a trade power. In C. Hill, M. Smith & S.

Vanhoonacker (Eds.), International Relations and the European Union (pp. 275–298).

Oxford University Press.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. (2025, May

21). Declaration of the Presidency of the Meeting of Foreign Ministers of BRICS Member

States on Global Governance Reform. https://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br

O’Neill, J. (2001). Building better global economic BRICs (Global Economics Paper No.

66). Goldman Sachs. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/archive/archive-

pdfs/build-better-brics.pdf

Oberthür, S., & Dupont, C. (2021). The European Union’s international climate

leadership: Towards a grand climate strategy? Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7),

1095–1114.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), (2022). Global plastics

outlook: Policy scenarios to 2060. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/aa1edf33-

en

OECD (2022). Economic Outlook 2022: Volume I. Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development. https://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook

Patrick, S. (2019). “When the System Fails: G7, G20, and the Future of Global Order.”

Council on Foreign Relations Report.

Roberts, C., Armijo, L. E., & Katada, S. N. (2018). The BRICS and collective financial

statecraft. Oxford University Press.

SDG Knowledge Hub (2023). G7 leaders set out priorities ahead of WTO ministerials.

Retrieved from https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/policy-briefs/g7-leaders-set-out-

priorities-ahead-of-wto-ministerials

Sinha, M., & Mishra, R. (2020). Role of BRICS in WTO dispute settlement: Evidence from

panel decisions. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 19(1), 25–43.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-12-2019-0081

Smith, K. E. (2021). The European Union, the G7 and global governance. Journal of

Common Market Studies, 59(1), 45–62.

Stuenkel, O. (2015). The BRICS and the future of global order. Lexington Books.

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. 320-341

BRICS Policies Towards the United Nations, World Trade Organisation and European Union

Zekeri Momoh

341

Stuenkel, O. (2020). Post-Western world: How emerging powers are remaking global

order. Polity Press.

Stuenkel, O. (2020). The BRICS and the future of global order. Lexington Books.

Taylor, I. (2020). South Africa and BRICS: A critical appraisal. South African Journal of

International Affairs, 27(1), 1–18.

Thakur, R. (2020). The United Nations, peace and security: From collective security to

the responsibility to protect. Cambridge University Press.

The BFT (2024). Unlocking WTO potentials in changing geopolitical world*. Retrieved

from https://thebftonline.com/2024/11/19/unlocking-wto-potentials-in-changing-

geopolitical-world

UN News, (2021, June 8). Guterres secures second term as UN Secretary-General

following reappointment by the General Assembly. United Nations. https://news.un.org

UNFCCC (2021, November 13). COP26 Outcomes on Climate Tariffs and Trade. United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int

World Bank (2023). Global economic prospects, June 2023. World Bank.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects

World Trade Organisation, (2013, December 7). Bali Ministerial Declaration. WTO.

https://www.wto.org

WTO Dispute Settlement Database, (2023). List of disputes and complaints by country.

World Trade Organisation.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm

Xue, C., & Wang, H. (2021). Reforming global governance: The BRICS’ strategy at the

United Nations. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 14(3), 357–379.

Youngs, R., & Panchulidze, E. (2020). EU foreign policy in a fragile world. Carnegie

Europe.