Global Governance and International Institutions

This chapter explores the BRICS’ vision of global governance and its implications for the reform of international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Emerging as a coalition of major non-Western powers, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) seek to transform the postwar Liberal International Order , which they regard as outdated, exclusionary, and reflective of Western geopolitical dominance. For the BRICS, global governance must be restructured to reflect contemporary multipolar realities and ensure a more equitable distribution of voice and representation within international decision-making bodies. Their critique targets the persistence of hierarchical power relations and conditionalities imposed by Western-led institutions, which, according to the BRICS, constrain national sovereignty and perpetuate economic dependency. In response, the group has developed alternative mechanisms such as the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, aimed at fostering South–South cooperation, sustainable development, and financial autonomy. These institutions not only complement existing global frameworks but also signal a paradigm shift toward a more inclusive and plural form of multilateralism. The EU, by contrast, continues to champion a rule-based international order rooted in legal conditionality, democratic norms, and human rights. While this model has contributed to stability and institutionalization, it often clashes with the BRICS’ emphasis on sovereignty, mutual respect, and non-interference. The tension between these two approaches reflects broader debates over the nature of legitimacy, governance, and norm diffusion in a rapidly changing world. Rather than representing a zero-sum confrontation, the interaction between the EU and the BRICS may lead to a hybridization of global governance, where Western normative frameworks coexist and gradually integrate with alternative, non-Western perspectives. Such hybridization could pave the way for a more adaptive and balanced international system—one that combines the strengths of institutional discipline with the inclusiveness and pluralism required to manage global interdependence in the twenty-first century.