By Abdul Kadir Jailani

Indonesia will now be part of the major political forces of the Global South in its quest for a more inclusive, equitable and balanced multipolar world order. Through BRICS, Indonesia is also committed to genuine multilateralism where the developing countries will have more meaningful roles in the global decision-making process.

For the Global South, the contemporary global legal order is a construct rooted in Eurocentric values and Western ideals. Its formation has neglected the perspectives and interests of the developing countries.

The rules and norms of the current global legal order have been instrumental in legitimizing the political agendas of the so-called liberal international order. The application of double standards have become an effective modus operandi for sustaining the hegemonic order. These practices signify the decline of international rule of law and expose the deep fractures within the liberal international order.

Against this backdrop, BRICS was established with a clear mission: To reform the contemporary global legal order with a paradigm of justice that emphasizes sovereign equality among states. BRICS nations are working toward changing the rules and norms that are biased against the developing countries.

The mission is not to replace the existing global order. It would be achieved more inside than outside the existing order. The principles of international law remain an indispensable cornerstone, and the role of the United Nations in the international system continues to be central.

Through various strategic initiatives, BRICS promotes adherence to international rule of law and contests the strategic use of international law to serve particular political preferences and power interests.

The emergence of BRICS has turned its members from passive recipients to active contributors of international rules and norms. Amitav Acharya, in The End of American World Order, stresses that BRICS has redefined international norms to make them more responsive to the aspirations of the Global South.

The BRICS’ effect on the application of international rules or norms are evident across several critical global issues, including national sovereignty, human rights, climate change, economic governance and the reform of international institutions.

Defending the sanctity of the principle of respect for national sovereignty, BRICS does not stand for unilateral actions and interventions against any country. While maintaining that peaceful resolution remains a fundamental rule of thumb for any dispute, BRICS also mainstreams the need to apply a balanced approach that upholds sovereign equality and non-interference.

This perspective also appears in BRICS’s approach to human rights. The balance between the protection of human rights and respect for national sovereignty is underscored. Additionally, BRICS voices concern over the selective application of the concept of the Responsibility to Protect. Arguably, the concept has been abused as a pretext for regime change or pursuing geopolitical interests.

On climate change, BRICS has championed the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”. This ensures that climate actions consider different levels of development while balancing environmental goals with economic growth and poverty. Moreover, BRICS played a key role in introducing the notion of “climate justice” into the Paris Agreement.

To BRICS members, promoting more inclusive international economic governance is one of the core political ideals of the Global South. They have been collaborating to make the international trade and investment regimes more equitable, inclusive, transparent and non-discriminatory.

Furthermore, BRICS also challenges the dominance of Western powers in global institutions. It pushes for reforms in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Some of BRICS members also demand greater representation of the Global South in the UN Security Council

The capability of BRICS to produce normative changes are not without constraints. Some circles even argue BRICS does not actually present disruptive challenges to the Western legal order.

Internal divergences in political objectives, economic priorities and regional concerns, such as the competitive dynamics between China and India, pose obstacles to unified action. Economic and political instability within some BRICS nations further complicates their ability to reframe the normative meaning of the existing global norms.

In addition to the resistance from Western powers seeking to maintain the status quo, BRICS institutions remain relatively underdeveloped compared to their Western counterparts. It has not been able to create a new institutional foundation for its ambitious agenda. Given the fundamental importance of institutions in driving a normative change, this constraint definitely limits BRICS’ role as a norm maker.

Amid the erosion of the international rule of law, the entry into BRICS offers Indonesia a strategic opportunity to pursue its aspirations and amplify the collective voice of the Global South. This role not only addresses critiques of the global legal order, but also strives for normative changes within the order. Such a commitment resonates deeply with Indonesia’s foreign policy principles of non-alignment and multilateralism.

With its strong diplomatic experience in ASEAN, Indonesia is well positioned to bridge internal divides within BRICS. By fostering dialogue and collaboration within the group, Indonesia can enhance BRICS’s cohesion and strengthen its capacity to drive normative changes.

In doing so, Indonesia positions itself as a key advocate for a fairer global legal order that truly reflects power dynamics of the 21st century. It is not an easy undertaking. Yet, Indonesia’s ability to navigate the complex challenges will be crucial in realizing this vision.