The BRICS-framework is difficult to fully grasp, when applying western standards of multilateralism. It consists of partners that at least partly hold tense bilateral relations, contrary geopolitical interests and even sometimes are involved in direct confrontation. Analysing BRICS+ from an institutional perspective fails to explain the phenomenon. BRICS, while lacking a formal legal structure and binding agreements, might serve as a significant forum for dialogue and cooperation. Its annual summits offer a platform for both established partners and countries without strong economic ties to deepen their connections. This is particularly relevant with the BRICS+ initiative, which includes nations with moderate but promising relations. Significant issues addressed by BRICS are especially limitations of existing institutions like the UN and WTO. Given the WTO’s current dysfunction, there is a noticeable global shift towards bilateral agreements over traditional multilateral frameworks. This trend has led countries to explore alternative platforms for trade cooperation, focusing on bilateral, minilateral and regional agreements that align more closely with their economic interests and developmental goals.
To date, cooperation between BRICS countries has been mostly of economic nature. BRICS+ countries are home to over 40% of the world’s population, hold most of the oil resources and combine significant economic strength. However, since they do not act as a unanimous body, bilateral relations with these countries are not directly influenced by BRICS. The bilateral BRICS cooperation supports their aim of economic growth, technological advancement and de-dollarisation. By setting new trade standards and enhancing economic sovereignty through instruments like the New Development Bank (NDB), BRICS+ exemplifies a movement towards a more multipolar and diversified global trade system. Furthermore, many BRICS+ countries deepened their security cooperation, particularly on matters of cyber security and anti-terrorism.
Looking at the bilateral pairings within BRICS, a few observations stand out: (1) China’s leading and formative role is quite apparent, as it holds good and relatively close relations to most if not all new members, which in contrast cannot be said for all other countries; (2) China’s relations to the other BRICS states are at times very asymmetric, with several other members being economically, and sometimes also politically, quite dependent on China, while China pursues a rather diversified strategy without risking dependence on another country; (3) not all BRICS+ members get along well or hold substantial relations with each other, nor too all original BRICS-States, which certainly affects the internal dynamics as well.
During the process of this project, a few additional aspects became apparent. Information about these countries and their respective relationships is not always accessible or transparent. There are stark differences in the transparency as well as the quality of data available, especially when put in contrast with countries that are members of the OECD for example. Thus, especially now with the expansion of BRICS into BRICS+ improvements regarding reliable data on these countries and their relationships with one another would be valuable paths for future research. The impact of the BRICS forum on economic and diplomatic cooperation among the newly joined BRICS+ countries remain an area of significant interest and potential development. The signals sent by some BRICS countries can be ambiguous and this is a further reason why it is so important to analyse this elusive phenomenon as part of the wider