New Dimension of International Cooperation within the BRICS: International Legal Approach

INTRODUCTION. This article discusses how such principle of international law as principle of cooperation develops within the BRICS. The choice of this topic is based on the fact that today we are facing crisis of classical international organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization on the one hand and on the other hand active and effective development of international cooperation within the BRICS. However, BRICS does not possess international legal capacity. This means that, it does not possess international rights and obligations; it cannot act as subject of international law. From the first sight these facts should be regarded as obvious weakness of such form of international cooperation as BRICS. However, this form of cooperation as will be shown in this article have demonstrated its effectiveness in development of international cooperation in various spheres. Alongside with that, BRICS attracted very little attention in the international legal scholarship and was predominantly assessed by political science and political economy. This article is aimed at filling this gap, assessing BRICS from international legal perspective.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. General scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction), special legal methods (formal-legal, technical-legal, method of legal analogy), comparative legal and case study method were used in the presented research.
RESEARCH METHODS. This article elaborates on new landscape of international legal principle of international cooperation through soft law-making and informality addressing the question whether such form of international cooperation as BRICS may provide an alternate or a complementary forum to cooperate and agree to mutually acceptable decisions on matters relating to international rulemaking. The author proposes conceptual discussion on whether duty to cooperate, to be indeed effective, should be based on the principles enshrined in the BRICS instruments such as multipolarity, inclusiveness and mutual benefit and whether these instruments reflect progressive development of principle of international cooperation. The author continues with a discussion on whether “soft” nature of BRICS and its approach to the principle of cooperation could provide a way to overcome today’s crisis that classic international organizations are facing.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The author of this paper argues that considering BRICS phenomena, international law should evolve focusing on progressive development of principle of international cooperation. This will increase efficiency of international law under today’s crisis of classical international organizations. BRICS could be regarded as a soft institution (by analogy with so called “soft law”) which at least supplement classical international organizations or at most may substitute them. National interests, multipolarity, inclusiveness and mutual benefit as main pillars reflecting development of cooperation withing the BRICS should be taken as basis for progressive development of international legal principle of international cooperation.

1. Abashidze A.H. BRICS: International Legal Dimension. – Observer. 2024 No. 4. P. 115-123. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.48137/2074-2975_2024_4_115.

2. Adler E. World Ordering: A Social Theory of Cognitive Evolution. Cambridge University Press. 2019.

3. Ahford E. Yes, the World Is Multipolarю. – Foreign Policy. 2023. October. URL: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/05/usa-china-multipolar-bipolar-unipo-lar/ (дата обращения: 04.10.2025).

4. Angeles F., Roy R., Yarina Y. Shifting from Consensus Decision-Making to Joint Statement Initiatives: Opportunities and Challenges. Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 2020. URL: https://repository.graduateinstitute.ch/record/299033 (дата обращения: 04.10.2025).

5. Anufrieva L.P. BRICS: Legal Nature and Principles of Cooperation. – Actual Problems of Russian law. 2019. No. 12(109). P. 123-133. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2019.109.12.123-133.

6. Aurescu B., Cissé Y., Galvão Teles P., Oral N., Santolaria J. Sea-level rise in relation to international law. – Report of the International Law Commission on the work on its seventeenth session. PART IV: Development of international law. 2023. P. 224-229.

7. Aust A. The Theory and Practice of Informal International Instruments. – International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1986. No. 35. P. 787-812.

8. Babaev K.V., Lavrov S.V. In Scope and Depth. – Russia in Global Affairs. 2023. No. 1(4). P. 5-8. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2023-21-4-124-137.

9. Barrett S., Stavins R.N. Increasing participation and compliance in international climate change agreements. – International Environmental Agreements Politics, Law and Economics. 2003. No. 3(4). P. 349-376. DOI.org/10.2139/ssrn.351602.

10. Bas H. Understanding Success and Failure in Establishing New Multilateral Development Banks: The SCO Development Bank, the NDB, and the AIIB. – Asian Perspective. 2021. No. 45(2). P. 445-467. DOI:10.1353/apr.2021.0008.

11. Boklan D., Starshinova O., Bahri A. Joint Statement Initiatives: A Legitimate End to ‘Until Everything Is Agreed’? – Journal of World Trade. 2023. No. 2(57). P. 1-23.

12. Bogdandy A., Dann P., Goldmann M. Developing the Publicness of Public International Law: Towards a Legal Framework for Global Governance Activities. – German Law Journal. 2008. No. 9. P. 1375-1400.

13. Chernykh I., Volodin D. The Principle of International Cooperation and Sharing of Information Principle under International Space Law: Towards Synergy. – Space Policy. 2023. No. 67. DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2023.101593.

14. Coning C., Mandrup T., Odgaard L. The BRICS and Coexistence: An Alternative Vision of World Order. Routledge. 2015.

15. Dargin J. The Rise of the Global South: Philosophical, Geopolitical and Economic Trends of the 21st Century. World Scientific Publishing. 2013.

16. Duggan N., Carlos J. From Yekaterinburg to Brasilia: BRICS and the G20, road to nowhere? – Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional. 2020. No. 63(1). P. 1-18.

17. Duggan N., Rewizorski M., Arapova E. Symposium: ‘The BRICS, Global Governance, and Challenges for South– South Cooperation in a Post-Western World’ December. – International Political Science Review. 2021. No. 43(2). DOI:10.1177/01925121211052211.

18. Glenn H.P. Legal Traditions of the World: Sustainable Diversity in Law. Oxford University Press. 2007.

19. Johnson M.L. Mind, Metaphor, Law. – Mercer Law Review. 2007. No. 58(3). P. 845-868.

20. Kadarudin, Thamrin, Liao, Satalak Mutual Benefit Principle as Bilateral Basis of Indonesia with Thailand and Taiwa. – International Journal of Global Community. 2019. No. 2. P. 33-52.

21. Kamal M. Towards BRICS Membership. – Egypt Independent. 2023 No. 1 May. URL: https://www.almasry-alyoum.com/news/details/2875518 (дата обращения: 04.10.2025).

22. Kern A., Lorez K., Zobl M., Thürer D. The Legitimacy of the G20 – A Critique Under International Law. 2014. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2431164 (дата обращения: 04.10.2025).

23. Kirton J., Larionova M. The First Fifteen Years of the BRICS. – International Organisations Research Journal. 2022. No. 17 (2). P. 7-30. DOI:10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-01.

24. Lipson C. Why Are Some International Agreements Informal? – International Organization. 1991. No. 45. P. 495-538.

25. Luckhurst J. The New G20 Politics of Global Economic Governance. – International Organisations Research Journal. 2020. No. 15(2). P. 42-59. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2020-02-03.

26. Martino R. The Shift to Soft Law at Europe Borders: Between Legal Efficiency and Legal Validity. – Global Jurist. 2023. No. 23 (1). P. 23-41. URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2022-0040 (дата обращения: 04.10.2025).

27. Meyer T. Shifting Sands: Power, Uncertainty and the Form of International Legal Cooperation. – European Journal of International Law. 2016. No. 27 (1). P. 161-185.

28. Neuwirth R., Svetlicinii A., De Castro Halis D. The BRICSLawyers' Guide to Global Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2017.

29. Niall D., Azalia J., Rewizorski M. The structural power of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in multilateral development finance: A case study of the New Development Bank. – International Political Science Review. 2021. No. 43. P. 495-511.

30. Oral N. The International Law Commission and the Progressive Development and Codification of Principles of International Environmental Law. – Florida International University Law Review. 2019 No. 13. P. 1075-1100. DOI: 10.25148/lawrev.13.6.10.

31. Ott A. Informalization of EU Bilateral Instruments: Categorization, Contestation, and Challenges. – Yearbook of European Law. 2021. No. 39. P. 569-601.

32. Pauwelyn J. Informal International Lawmaking: Framing the Concept and Research Questions. 2011. P. 13-34. URL: –https://ssrn.com/abstract=1738464 (дата обращения: 04.10.2025).

33. Raustiala K., Victor D.G. The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory and Practice. 1998. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and MIT Press.

34. Romashev Yu.S., Postnikova E.V. (2023) Principles in International Law. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 192–220 (in Russ.)

35. Scaffardi L. BRICS, a Multi-Centre 'Legal Network'? – Beijing Law Review. 2014. No. 5. P. 140-148.

36. Shaffer G., Pollack M. Hard vs. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements and Antagonists in International Governance. – Minnesota Law Review. 2010 No. 94 P. 706-799.

37. Wanner M.S.T. The effectiveness of soft law in international environmental regimes: participation and compliance in the Hyogo Framework for Action. – International Environmental Agreements. 2021. No. 21. P.113–132. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09490-8 (дата обращения: 04.10.2025).

38. Ziero G.W. Looking for a BRICS perspective on international law. – Revista de Direito Internacional. 2015. No. 12(2). P. 303-322.