Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
1-24
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis
from a constructivist perspective
1
Construindo uma Identidade do
BRICS: análise a partir da perspectiva
construtivista
La Construcción de la Identidad de los
BRICS: análisis desde una perspectiva
constructivista
DOI: 10.21530/ci.v20n1.2025.1562
Amanda Perachi
2
William Daldegan
3
Abstract
The BRICS is a complex phenomenon, marked by its internal
heterogeneity. However, there is a collective identity that defines
and influences the identities and interests of its members. The
article analyzes this identity construction from the five original
members, based on Wendt’s (1999) four types of identity, as well
as political, social, and economic data and its summit declarations.
It concludes that the collective identity of the BRICS contributes
to overcoming differences between members without imposing
1 Work developed with the support of the Coordination for the Improvement of
Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the Rio Grande do Sul State Research
Support Foundation (FAPERGS).
2 Mestre pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Política da Universidade
Federal de Pelotas (UFPel). (amandaperachi4@gmail.com). ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0009-0007-6139-951X.
3 Doutor em Relações Internacionais (San Tiago Dantas – Unesp/ Unicamp/ PUC
SP). Professor e Pesquisador do Instituto de Filosofia, Sociologia e Política,
curso de Relações Internacionais, e no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência
Política da Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel). (william.daldegan@ufpel.
edu.br). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5806-0557.
Artigo submetido em 07/02/2025 e aprovado em 09/06/2025.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE
RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS
Copyright:
• This is an open-access
article distributed under
the terms of a Creative
Commons Attribution
License, which permits
unrestricted use,
distribution, and
reproduction in any
medium, provided that
the original author and
source are credited.
• Este é um artigo
publicado em acesso aberto
e distribuído sob os termos
da Licença de Atribuição
Creative Commons,
que permite uso irrestrito,
distribuição e reprodução
em qualquer meio, desde
que o autor e a fonte
originais sejam creditados.
ISSN 2526-9038
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
2-24
constraints on independent actions, even though these influence the consolidation of a
collective identity and are influenced by it.
Keywords: BRICS, Types of Identity, Collective Identity, Constructivism, South-South
Dialogue.
Resumo
O BRICS é um fenômeno complexo, marcado pela sua heterogeneidade interna. Contudo,
há uma identidade coletiva que define e influencia as identidades e interesses de seus
membros. O artigo analisa essa construção identitária a partir dos cinco membros originais,
com base nos quatro tipos de identidade de Wendt (1999), além de dados políticos, sociais,
econômicos e as declarações de cúpula. Concluí que a identidade coletiva do BRICS contribui
para a superação de diferenças entre os membros sem impor constrangimentos a ações
independentes — ainda que essas influenciem a consolidação de uma identidade coletiva
e sejam influenciadas por ela.
Palavras-chave: BRICS, Tipos de Identidade, Identidade Coletiva, Construtivismo, Diálogo
Sul-Sul.
Resumen
El BRICS es un fenómeno complejo, marcado por su heterogeneidad interna. Empero, existe
una identidad colectiva que define e influye en las identidades e intereses de sus miembros.
El artículo analiza esta construcción identitaria a partir de los cinco miembros originales,
basándose en los cuatro tipos de identidad de Wendt (1999), datos políticos, sociales y
económicos y declaraciones de sus cumbres. Concluye que la identidad colectiva de los
BRICS contribuye a superar las diferencias entre los miembros sin imponer limitaciones a
las acciones independientes, aunque éstas influyan en la consolidación de una identidad
colectiva y se vean influidas por ella.
Palabras clave: BRICS, Tipos de Identidad, Identidad Colectiva, Constructivismo, Diálogo
Sur-Sur.
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
3-24
Introduction
The BRICS, initially composed of Brazil, Russia, India and China, emerged
from a proposal by Jim O’Neill (2001), then chief economist at Goldman Sachs.
In 2006, on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), these
four countries met to discuss issues on the international agenda, and in 2009,
they formalised the format of Annual Summits of Heads of State and Government,
which persists to this day. South Africa joined the group in 2011, thereby forming
the five original BRICS members. Despite recurring criticisms of its heterogeneity,
the BRICS marked its 15th anniversary in 2024 with the admission of Egypt, the
United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, and Iran. Indonesia joined in 2025, and a new
category of partner members was introduced.
The literature on the BRICS oscillates between recognising its potential as a
coalition and highlighting the challenges posed by its internal diversity (Stuenkel
2023; Daldegan and Carvalho 2022; Hooijmaaijers 2021). There is no consensus
regarding its nature: while some scholars regard it as a limited cooperation forum
due to divergent interests (Hooijmaaijers 2021), others emphasise its shared
ambition to become “rule-makers” in global governance, even as its legitimacy
as a representative of the Global South is contested (Duggan and Azalia 2020).
Alternatively, a portion of the literature characterises the group as an informal
institution whose flexibility and dynamism allow it to adapt to evolving agendas
(Han and Papa 2024; Daldegan and Carvalho 2022; Cooper and Farooq 2015;
Stuenkel 2012). Rinaldi (2021) suggests understanding the BRICS as a strategic
alignment based on convergent interests, albeit without formal commitments
or shared values, in line with Snyder’s (1991) logic that a series of behavioural
actions stems from the identification of common preferences among actors.
One example of such convergence was the motivation behind the 2009 BRICS
meeting, which responded directly to the 2008 global financial crisis by calling for
reforms to global financial governance—particularly the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) quota system—and for cooperative actions aimed at development,
later reinforced through the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB)
(Daldegan, Perachi and Souza 2023; Daldegan and Borba 2023).
This article investigates the construction of a collective identity within the
BRICS framework, understood as the result of its actions in promoting a fairer and
more inclusive international order. Specifically, it (i) identifies the constitutive
elements of the national identities of the five original members; (ii) analyses the
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
4-24
convergence of these elements in light of Wendt’s (1999) typology of identity; and
(iii) assesses the impact of this collective identity on the BRICS’s international
engagement. The article works with the hypothesis that the construction of a
common identity enables the BRICS to overcome significant differences among
its members, fostering a unified stance on strategic issues in the international
agenda. To this end, Wendt’s (1999) identity typology—corporate, type, role,
and collective—is employed, alongside political, social and economic data and
the BRICS annual summit declarations from 2009 to 2024, as compiled in the
BRICS Docs repository (2024), with the aid of AntConc software.
The constructivist perspective, which holds that the identities and interests of
agents are socially constructed through interaction, provides a valuable analytical
framework for this discussion. From the constructivist viewpoint, states are
socially constituted entities, and their interactions within the international system
(IS) are capable of generating new identities and redefining interests (Wendt
1999). International relations are thus understood not only as material relations
but fundamentally as social relations, in which the identities and interests of
agents are simultaneously structuring and structured in an ongoing process of
agent-structure co-constitution (Kratochwil 1989; Wendt 1992; Finnemore 1994).
Accordingly, if the BRICS are embedded in a dynamic system of agent-structure
co-constitution, their intra-group interactions inevitably (re)produce collective
identities, reshape shared interests, and transform pre-existing ones.
Beyond this introduction, the article is structured in three further sections
and concluding remarks. The following section discusses constructivism and its
understandings of international relations. The third section deepens the discussion
of constructivist concepts of identity and interest, particularly how these are
constituted, while the fourth section applies Wendt’s (1999) four identity types
to the construction of BRICS identity. This article contributes to the field of
Political Science and International Relations by advancing the understanding of
the BRICS and the processes of interaction and identity and interest formation
among international agents.
Constructivist in International Relations
Constructivism, which gained prominence in the field of International Relations
following the end of the Cold War, holds that international reality is socially
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
5-24
constructed, with states’ identities and interests shaped by beliefs, ideas, and norms
(Wendt 1999). In contrast to neorealist rationalism, this approach maintains that
agents and structures are co-constitutive: the structure reflects the distribution
of ideas to which agents assign meaning, while agents simultaneously reproduce
and transform these structures through interaction. Anarchy, therefore, is not
an objective condition of the international system but a social construct shaped
by state practices and perceptions (Wendt 1992).
Accordingly, the international structure is composed of three interdependent
elements: material conditions, interests, and ideas (Wendt 1999). As these
elements are intrinsically connected, changes to one alter the entire social system.
Thus, norms, rules, and institutions play a central role in the constitution of
states’ identities and interests (Kratochwil 1989; Finnemore 1994). Through the
internalisation of such norms, states not only constrain their behaviour but also
redefine their interests and values, demonstrating that international practices
are shaped by social and normative processes (Hopf 1998; Finnemore 1994).
Norms are, therefore, intersubjective and dependent upon collective acceptance
and are consequently subject to ongoing contestation among agents. While such
norms and rules have historical antecedents, their dissemination became a central
feature of the international system, particularly after the Second World War with
the proliferation of international organisations (IOs), multinational corporations,
non-governmental organisations, and others. The creation of IOs that seek to
regulate state activity across diverse spheres—economic, environmental, health,
and military, among others—and which are themselves constituted by states,
gave rise to what is now commonly referred to as the multilateral system.
Multilateralism is an institutional form that organises relations among
three or more states based on generalised principles of conduct (Ruggie
1992). For constructivists, such principles are not fixed but are the product
of social interaction, created and transformed by the states themselves. As
such, multilateralism reflects the dynamic relationship between agents and
structure. Communities of states are sustained not only by affective bonds but
also by intersubjective knowledge and shared identity, grounded in collective
understandings and norms that are both generated and consolidated through
institutions, whether newly formed or pre-existing (Adler 1997).
Ruggie (1992) argues that while collective identity is not equivalent to
multilateralism, it provides an important foundation, particularly for international
institutions, as it enhances the willingness to act upon principles and diffuse
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
6-24
reciprocity. For constructivists, it is collectivity that enables norms, principles,
and rules to exert influence over agents’ actions. This is because, although norms
may persist even when contested, they lose their structural power to shape state
behaviour if the majority cease to observe or apply them (Park 2023).
Collectivity can thus serve as a useful lens through which to characterise
and analyse the BRICS. None of the propositions outlined above implies that
collectivity requires uniform perceptions, objectives, interests, identities, or intentions.
Multilateralism, norms, rules, principles, and even the universalism associated
with the United Nations (UN) are not, in practice, fully consensual. While Glosny
(2010) contends that BRICS members maintain closer ties with the United States
than with each other, Duggan and Azalia (2020) argue that the grouping’s efforts to
reform the international order reflect the development of a common identity, which
serves as the driving force behind the BRICS’s engagement in global governance.
As agents within the international system, the identities of BRICS members
are acquired through relations with other agents, both within and beyond the
group, and form the basis for the construction of their interests. If BRICS operates
within a co-constitutive system of agents and structures, its internal interactions
inevitably generate new identities and interests while also reshaping pre-existing
ones. The following section explores how such identities emerge and what they
reveal about the agents’ relations and the formulation of their interests.
The Construction and Formulation of Agents’ Identities and
Interests
States are social actors—entities to which identity and interests may be
ascribed (Wendt 1999). However, such attributes are not given exogenously;
rather, they are intersubjective and systemic (Wendt 1996). Moreover, in and of
themselves, identity and interest are not immediately comprehensible—being is
not the same as wanting, and one cannot know what one wants without knowing
who one is (Wendt 1999).
From the constructivist perspective, identity refers to the understandings
and expectations an agent holds about itself, acquired through participation in
collective meaning-making (Wendt 1992). For Wendt (1992), identity is not only
essential to the definition of interests but is also inherently relational; identities
acquire meaning within a specific and socially constructed world. Thus, both
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
7-24
international and domestic environments shape state identities. Understanding
identity is therefore an empirical task that cannot be separated from its normative,
cultural, and institutional contexts.
One of the core contributions of the constructivist approach is the notion
that a state’s identity fundamentally shapes its preferences and actions. There
is broad consensus among scholars that state identities are constructed within
the social environment of international and domestic politics (Finnemore and
Sikkink 2001). While Wendt (1992) assigns greater weight to the international
environment, Katzenstein (1996) emphasises the significance of the domestic
environment, particularly national ideologies. According to Katzenstein (1996),
states’ interests and strategies are shaped by political processes that generate
behavioural patterns and are conditioned by their cultural-institutional contexts.
The importance of this context lies in the role of historical change, which
inevitably leaves a mark on state identity. He therefore argues that the processes
of nation- and state-building—of constructing identity—have domestic roots
that are projected internationally through interaction, setting actors apart from
one another in terms of national ideologies and purposes (Katzenstein 1996).
Identities are essential both internationally and domestically for understanding
international relations. A world devoid of identities would be chaotic; identities
provide a minimum level of predictability and order (Hopf 1998). Hopf (2009)
highlights different theoretical perspectives for understanding identity: from a
social theory perspective, identity only becomes relevant in relation to others and
is reproduced through interaction with them; from a cognitive theory standpoint,
the pre-social need for identity is psychological; and from a structural theory
perspective, an actor’s identities cannot be recognised or accepted without being
evaluated in relation to the prevailing social identities within a given community.
Identity thus serves three key functions in social interaction: it tells you
who you are, tells others who you are, and informs you of who others are. Due
to their subjective nature, identities are determined by shared meanings and
interpretations. They rely both on a state’s self-understanding and on how it is
perceived by others. As Wendt (1996) argues, identities are ontologically bound to
relations with other actors. Certain identifications, such as being “anti-communist”,
only make sense in relation to a defined counterpart, such as “communists”. In
short, identities are the outcome of both domestic and international interactions
across various social contexts and are dynamic in nature, capable of evolving
and transforming over time.
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
8-24
Interests, therefore, are a product of identity and cannot be assumed a priori,
as rationalist theories would argue (Hopf 1998). States may indeed act selfishly in
pursuit of their own interests, but this does not negate the fact that these interests
are shaped within the broader dynamic of mutual agent–structure constitution.
Interests, then, reflect the outcome of agents’ identification processes—both
individual and collective. This identification exists along a continuum ranging
from negative to positive. At the negative extreme, the “Other” is perceived as a
threat or in opposition to the “Self”; at the positive end, the other is seen as part
of or an extension of the self. The position an agent occupies on this spectrum
directly influences its actions and interests.
Wendt (1996) illustrates this idea by noting that a person might identify
with a state such as the United States on matters of military defence while
identifying with the planet on environmental issues. This instrumental view
of the other is central to his conception of “self-interest”: in the absence of
positive identification, interests tend to be defined in isolation from others,
driven by individual motivation. The nature of this identification—its strength
and type—determines where the agent draws the boundaries of the self. These
boundaries, in turn, shape how interests are defined and pursued and reveal
that such interests are not fixed but are socially constructed through interaction
and identification.
Norms and rules are also crucial in shaping states’ interests. Within the
dynamics of interaction in the IS, state interests are moulded within a normative
context of widely accepted understandings about what is appropriate and desirable.
This normative environment exerts influence not only on decision-makers but
also on the broader public, who can either support or constrain policy action.
As such norms, rules, and values evolve, they tend to bring about coordinated
changes in states’ interests and behaviour in the IS (Finnemore 1994).
Thus, while identity is fundamental to interests, it is also through the pursuit
of interests that identities are preserved. Yet how can we analyse the identities
and interests of states? Finnemore and Sikkink (2001) raise this question, noting
the difficulty in defining state identities and the range of possible identities that
might exist. They highlight Wendt’s (1999) efforts to classify possible identity types
within the IS. According to these authors, identity has become an expansive term
that helps explain a wide range of actions, yet does not allow us to definitively
predict that states with particular identities will behave in specific ways. This
suggests that generalisations are difficult and that the number of potential
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
9-24
identities is infinite. Wendt (1999) identifies four types of identity, based on both
internal and external interactions: corporate (or personal), type, role-based, and
collective identity.
Corporate (or Personal) Identity
The first form of identity concerns the self-organised structure that defines
agents as distinct units. In the case of individuals, this is grounded in the physical
body; in the case of states, it is constituted by a body politic and territorial
boundaries. Corporate identity is characterised by self-awareness and memory
and exists independently of others, based on an internalised sense of “self”
or ego. For states, this identity is grounded in domestic collective identities, a
notion of “group self” (Wendt 1999, 225 ). In this sense, corporate identity can
serve as a foundation for other identity forms.
Type Identity
Type identity refers to socially shared characteristics such as behavioural
patterns, language, values, and culture. This implies that a single agent may
assume multiple type identities. In the case of states, these may include regime
types or political systems—capitalist states, fascist states, and so on. Although
they are derived from shared features, type identities are still exogenous to
interaction with others. Wendt (1999) notes, for instance, that Japan became a
democracy after 1945 due to U.S. occupation, but this does not mean that its
democratic system is identical to others.
Role Identity
Role identity is grounded in the position an agent occupies within a social
structure. It is therefore relational and can only emerge in comparison to the Other.
The ideas shared between agents may be either cooperative or conflictual, with
the degree of interdependence playing a decisive role in shaping this identity.
Role identity is thus contingent upon the structure of social relations in which
the agent is embedded.
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
10-24
Collective Identity
Finally, collective identity may be understood as a synthesis of the previous
forms, combining aspects of ego and alter in a relationship of shared belonging.
It encompasses both role and type identities and has the causal capacity to
induce actors to treat the well-being of others as integral to their own. Interests
are thus calculated based on the group or collective to which the actor belongs.
Although collective identity entails a high degree of identification between
“self” and “other”—a sense of “we”—it is important to acknowledge its limits.
First, collective identities depend on the nature of the relationship between
agents. Second, their behavioural implications vary depending on the purpose
for which the identity was formed. Third, even when collective identity applies
to a specific domain or issue area, tensions may still arise with egoistic identities,
as full identification is rare and there is often a continuous tension between
individual and collective dimensions.
It is precisely due to these limitations that Wendt (1999, 367) prefers the
metaphor of “concentric circles of identification”, emphasising a gradual variation
according to the context. Identification with others depends on who the other
is, what is at stake in the interaction, and whether one’s own needs are being
met. Wendt (1999) cautions, partially agreeing with realists, that there is a
tendency for states to be egoistic. However, this does not preclude the possibility
of accommodating collective interests. States may initially identify with others
based on self-interest, but over time, such identification may become internalised,
leading them to conceive of themselves as a “we” and to define themselves as
part of a group. The European Union is a prominent example of this dynamic.
To speak of an international society governed by norms and rules implies
that, as part of this society, states do not cooperate solely on the basis of cost–
benefit calculations but also because they have internalised and identified with
its values and norms (Wendt 1999). This is the essence of Wendt’s (1999) social
theory of international politics, which transfers established understandings of
the social nature of human beings to state behaviour.
On the basis of these insights, it is possible to apply the constructivist approach
and the concepts of identity and interest formation to the analysis of BRICS.
Following the premise of concentric circles of identification, it is first necessary
to distinguish within the group the notions of “self”, “others”, and “we”. From
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
11-24
this analysis, we seek to understand the process of identity construction within
the BRICS context.
The Construction of BRICS Identity
Based on Wendt’s (1999) typology of identities, this section seeks to identify
the existence of a collective identity within the BRICS—a sense of “we”—by
analysing the constitutive notions of “self” and “other”. To this end, Wendt’s four
types of identity—corporate (or personal), type, role-based, and collective—are
revisited.
Table 1 summarises the analysis of these four types of identity through
specific categories selected according to the data commonly used in studies on
BRICS and the central themes of its agenda, as discussed in the group’s annual
summits. For corporate identity, data on territory, population, and economy are
examined. For type identity, the nature of the political regime is assessed. Role
identity is explored through the countries’ positions in the IS, the IMF, and the
United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Finally, collective identity is assessed
according to the vision BRICS members promote for the organisation of the
IS, understood here as the catalytic element that underpins and drives their
collective action.
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
12-24
Table 1: The Four Types of Identity According to Wendt (1999)
Applied to BRICS Members
Types of Identity Brazil Russia India China South Africa
Corporate
(or
Personal)
Territory/
Region
8.510.000 km² /
South America
17.100.000 km²/
Europe; Asia
3.287.000 km²/
Asia
9.597.000 km²/
Asia
1.220.000 km²/
Africa
Population 215.3 million
(2022)
144.2 million
(2022)
1.417 billion
(2022)
1.412 billion
(2022)
59.89 million
(2022)
Economy
(Nominal
GDP/ USD)
559.98 bi (2001)
1.67 tri (2009)
2.17 tri (2023)
306.6 bi (2001)
1.22 tri (2009)
2.02 tri (2023)
485.44 bi (2001)
1.34 tri (2009)
3.55 tri (2023)
1.34 tri (2001)
5.1 tri (2009)
17.79 tri (2023)
134.43 bi (2001)
458.2 bi (2011)
377.78 bi (2023)
Type
Political
Regime Type
Democratic Authoritarian Democratic Authoritarian Democratic
Role
IS Emerging/
Regional Power
Military Power Emerging/
Regional/
Military Power
Emerging/
Regional/
Military/
Economic Power
Emerging/
Regional Power
IMF Quota
Share (%)
1,7% (2009)
2,3% (2025)
2,4% (2009)
2,7% (2025)
2.4% (2009)
2,7% (2025)
3,9% (2009)
6,4% (2025)
0,7% (2009)
0,6% (2025)
UNSC 11 non-permanent
member terms
Permanent
member
8 non-permanent
member terms
Permanent
member
3 non-permanent
member terms
Collective
Vision for
World Order
Multipolar/
Multilateral
Multipolar/
Multilateral
Multipolar/
Multilateral
Multipolar/
Multilateral
Multipolar/
Multilateral
Source: Compiled by the authors using WB (2024) and IMF (2025) data.
Regarding corporate identities, the elements serve to identify the personal
identity of each state in relation to the fundamental characteristics that constitute
its corporate entity and how it projects itself to others. These are unique and
determinative facts about each state’s capabilities, referring to the “self” in an
exogenous sense relative to the “other” (Wendt 1999). In terms of territory,
BRICS countries are all territorially extensive and regionally prominent—Russia,
China, and Brazil rank among the five largest countries globally4. India is the
world’s most populous country, followed by China (IBGE 2023), while South
Africa is the second-largest economy on the African continent5. Each of these
states occupies a strategic position within its region, a feature that forms part of
its corporate identity and shapes its international projection. The comparative
4 Ranked 1st, 4th, and 5th respectively (IBGE 2023).
5 In 2023, the three largest nominal GDPs in Africa were recorded by Egypt, South Africa, and Nigeria, according
to World Bank data (WB 2024).
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
13-24
analysis of BRICS members’ nominal GDP in 2001, 2009, and 2023 reveals
different growth trajectories but generally indicates positive trends and dynamic
economic transformation processes that reinforce their positions within the IS.
Differences in nominal GDP reflect the varying economic realities and strategies
adopted by each member. Nonetheless, the strong growth observed between
2001 and 2009–2011 justified optimism surrounding the group’s creation and
the expectation that it could exert significant influence in the global economic
order—as demonstrated by the group’s prominent role within the G20 in response
to the 2008 financial crisis. The crisis was a catalyst for the first BRIC Summit in
2009, where the group criticised the existing financial institutions and advocated
for the G20 as a more representative forum than the G7. Since then, BRICS
has consistently demanded greater participation for emerging economies in
institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, calling for reforms to make them
more inclusive and effective. Advocacy for financial governance reform, with a
particular focus on the IMF, is a recurring theme in BRICS Summit declarations
(Daldegan and Carvalho 2022). In light of the slow pace of such reforms, BRICS
established the NDB and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) in 2014.
Turning to type identities, significant asymmetries exist among BRICS
members regarding their political regimes. Regime type encompasses not only
the technical organisation of government but also material structures such as
institutions, agencies, hierarchies, and decision-making processes, as well as
the set of ideas and images people associate with these structures, as Duverger
(1968) notes. Hence, regime classification cannot be based solely on institutional
form. While Russia adopts a semi-presidential system, it is widely characterised
as authoritarian, as is China; in contrast, Brazil, India, and South Africa are
considered democracies. These differences are frequently cited as potential
obstacles to deeper cooperation within BRICS (Stuenkel 2023).
Politically and culturally, China and Russia share authoritarian features in
their current regimes, which has facilitated their bilateral alignment in the 21st
century (Ying 2018). Conversely, Brazil, India, and South Africa share democratic
and liberal values and have deepened their ties through the IBSA Dialogue Forum
since 2003, identifying themselves as “vibrant democracies” and emphasising
their “democratic credentials”, solidarity with the Global South, and commitment
to South–South cooperation (Sidiropoulos 2013, 286). This divergence in type
identity suggests that BRICS members promote distinct values and principles, which
can give rise to divergent or even conflicting interests during decision-making
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
14-24
processes. However, thus far, such differences have not prevented cooperation
within the group (Stuenkel 2023), although they may impose certain limitations.
This dynamic was evident in the case of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, in
which BRICS members adopted neutral positions rather than condemning Russia
(Júnior and Branco 2022). Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the BRICS
(2014, § 44) advocated for “comprehensive dialogue, de-escalation of the conflict
and restraint from all the actors involved [...] in full compliance with the UN
Charter and universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms”.
This stance reflects BRICS’s emphasis on peaceful and law-based approaches
to global conflicts. In 2022, the conflict was addressed at the Beijing Summit,
which expressed support for dialogue and reaffirmed the members’ “national
positions, as expressed in the appropriate fora, namely the UNSC and UNGA”
(BRICS 2022, § 22). The reference to “national positions” illustrates how each
country maintains its own stance. Overall, the group’s declarations aim to avoid
contentious issues—such as the Russia–Ukraine conflict or Sino-Indian tensions—
thus preserving internal cohesion while underscoring their individuality.
From this type identity, which is socially rooted but still exogenous to
interaction, emerges role identity, which depends on the existence of the “other”.
Three key sites of interaction are mobilised to analyse BRICS role identity: their
positions in the IS, IMF, and UNSC (see Table 1).
In the IS, BRICS members—excluding Russia—see themselves as “outsiders”
to the hegemonic power core. They are not part of the rule-making centre and
project themselves as emerging actors within global affairs. This applies to
Brazil, India, South Africa, and China. Russia, however, is widely considered an
established power (Carmo 2011; Acharya 2014). While no longer a superpower
like the Soviet Union, Russia retains a significant military arsenal that exerts
influence in regional and global conflicts.
There is no consensus, however, regarding the classification of “emerging
powers”, with varying interpretations and criteria in the literature (Acharya 2014;
Stuenkel 2012). China, in particular, occupies a controversial position. According
to Carmo (2011, 8), China is “undeniably a great power in both economic and
traditional political-military terms.” Singh (2012) similarly argues that China’s
established status in the nuclear regime precludes its classification as an emerging
power. A study by Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Chen (2021) analysing articles in
Asian economic journals found that 28% describe China as either an emerging
or transitional economy.
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
15-24
According to Li (2023), how China is perceived matters, but so does how it
positions itself. China strategically adopts or rejects the label of emerging power
depending on the context, as this classification can be contentious. Traditionally,
it presents itself as a developing country allied with the broader Global South.
Yet its rapid growth and assertive role in the IS lead other emerging and Western
powers to view it as an established actor evading global responsibilities. Its
identity must, therefore, align with national interests while adapting to external
perceptions. To the United States, China is an emerging power; to other emerging
states, a successful developing country. Thus, the term “emerging power” is
best understood as denoting a recognition of “the growing economic as well as
political and strategic status of a group of nations, most if not all of which were
once categorised (and in some accounts still are) as part of the ‘Third World’ or
‘Global South’” (Acharya 2014, 59). Recognising China as an emerging power does
not preclude its status as an economic and military power—being the world’s
second-largest economy, the second-largest military spender, and possessing the
largest navy (Li 2023; Shambaugh 2018).
Regarding the IMF, the 2015 implementation of reforms approved in 2010
increased BRICS influence. IMF voting power is based on quotas, which reflect
a country’s relative economic standing. The most significant change occurred
with China’s rise to third place among the largest quota holders, followed by
Brazil (9th), India (7th), and Russia (8th). South Africa, the only member to
experience a quota reduction, ranks 34th (IMF 2025). Despite these gains, voting
power remains concentrated in the United States, which holds over 16.5% of total
quotas. The limited impact of the IMF reforms reinforced BRICS’s aspirations and
contributed to the creation of the NDB and CRA as complementary mechanisms
to traditional financial institutions, aimed at supporting development financing
in the Global South (Daldegan and Borba 2023).
Regarding their role-based identity in the UNSC, China and Russia hold
permanent seats, with veto power over binding resolutions on peace and security
matters. Elections for non-permanent members take place via candidatures
and voting in the UNGA, which underscores the relevance of Brazil and India,
given their repeated membership in the Council. Advocating for multilateralism,
sovereignty, non-intervention and non-interference in domestic affairs, and respect
for international law, all BRICS Summit Declarations stress the centrality of the
UN in the multilateral system. From 2011 onwards, this position expanded to
include demands for UNSC reform—coinciding with the unprecedented scenario in
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
16-24
which all BRICS countries simultaneously held seats on the Council. Within this
context, Brazil, India, and South Africa have consistently expressed aspirations
to become permanent members. Consequently, reform of the UNSC and matters
of international peace and security have become recurrent items on the Summit
agenda. In 2023, amid the BRICS Plus enlargement negotiations, the tone of the
declaration shifted, clearly expressing the claim of Brazil, India, and South Africa
for permanent seats in the UNSC, alongside explicit support from China and
Russia: “We support a comprehensive reform of the UN [...] including Brazil,
India and South Africa, to play a greater role in international affairs, in particular
in the United Nations, including its Security Council” (BRICS 2023, § 7).
The collective identity of the BRICS arises from the synthesis of individual
identities, representing the moment at which the members perceive the “self”
as part of a collective functioning, grounded in the defence of strengthened
multilateralism and a fairer and more inclusive international order. Despite prior
divergences, all members share this common vision, enabling them to overcome
heterogeneity through a gradual process of identification. As a result, States tend
to internalise collective interests as extensions of their national interests. This
collective identity, centred on the promotion of a multipolar world order and a
reformed multilateralism, constitutes the principal explanatory factor behind the
BRICS’s evolution towards a broader and increasingly consensual agenda. It is
this shared vision that enabled consensus on responses to the Russia–Ukraine
conflict, the creation of the NDB and the CRA, and the preference for the G20
over the G7 as the central forum for global economic governance.
Thus, even though the BRICS countries may express divergent or even self-
interested identities and interests, it is through a process of collective identification
that their interactions shape and influence the individual identities and interests of
their members. The group has moved from initial scepticism about its relevance to
a current phase characterised by the expansion of membership, the consolidation
of its own institutions, and a deepening of its thematic agenda. BRICS Summit
Declarations constitute the primary source for examining the group’s discussions,
positions, and actions in the international arena, as they express the consensus
achieved and reflect the negotiation of interests among members since the group’s
inception (Daldegan and Carvalho 2022). Held under a rotating presidency, these
summits clearly illustrate the expansion of the BRICS agenda over the years,
incorporating an increasingly diverse set of themes aligned with both national
strategic priorities and the broader international context of each historical moment.
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
17-24
Table 2. Presidency, Themes and Frequently Used Terms in BRICS Summits, 2009–2024
Year Presidency Theme Frequently Used Terms #5
2009 Russia
-
International; Countries; Development;
Cooperation; Energy.
2010 Brazil
-
Countries; International; Cooperation; World;
Development.
2 011 China Broad Vision, Shared Prosperity Cooperation; International; Development;
BRICS; Support.
2012 India BRICS Partnership for Global Stability,
Security and Prosperity
Development; Global; BRICS; Countries;
International.
2013 South Africa BRICS and Africa: Partnership
for Development, Integration and
Industrialisation
Development; International; BRICS;
Countries; Africa.
2014 Brazil Inclusive Growth: Sustainable Solutions Development; BRICS; Cooperation;
International; UN.
2015 Russia BRICS Partnership – a Powerful Factor
of Global Development
BRICS; International; Cooperation; Countries;
Development.
2016 India Building Responsive, Inclusive and Collective
Solutions
BRICS; Cooperation; Development;
International; Countries.
2017 China BRICS: Stronger Partnership for a Brighter
Future
BRICS; Cooperation; Development;
International; Countries.
2018 South Africa BRICS in Africa: Collaboration for Inclusive
Growth and Shared Prosperity in the 4th
Industrial Revolution
BRICS; Cooperation; Development;
International; Security.
2019 Brazil BRICS: Economic Growth for an Innovative
Future
BRICS; Cooperation; Welcome; Including;
Countries.
2020 Russia BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Shared
Security and Innovative Growth
BRICS; Cooperation; International; Countries;
Including.
2021 India BRICS @ 15: Intra-BRICS Cooperation for
Continuity, Consolidation and Consensus
BRICS; Cooperation; International; Including;
Countries.
2022 China Foster High-quality BRICS Partnership, Usher
in a New Era for Global Development
BRICS; Cooperation; Development; Countries;
International.
2023 South Africa BRICS and Africa: Partnership for
Mutually Accelerated Growth, Sustainable
Development and Inclusive Multilateralism
BRICS; Countries; Cooperation; Development;
Support.
2024 Russia Strengthening Multilateralism for Fair Global
Development and Security
BRICS; Cooperation; Development; Countries;
Including.
Source: Compiled by the authors.
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
18-24
The semantic tone of BRICS declarations has varied according to the national
priorities of the country holding the rotating presidency (Barabanov 2025). This
presidency holds the prerogative to set the agenda and define the annual theme.
Table 2 demonstrates the influence of the rotating presidency in shaping the themes
and identifying the most frequently used terms in declarations. Notwithstanding
this variability, there is notable consistency in the annual recurrence of certain
key concepts—most prominently “cooperation” and “development”, which are
central to the BRICS’s identity and purpose.
The first two summits, under the Russian (2009) and Brazilian (2010)
presidencies, did not formally adopt annual themes—a practice established by
China in 2011 and followed in subsequent summits. Russia’s inaugural summit
signalled specific national interests; in 2009, “energy” appeared among the five
most frequent terms, reflecting its strategic priority. In later presidencies, Russia
consistently framed the “BRICS partnership” as a vehicle for global development
and security, particularly in 2015 and 2020.
In 2014, Brazil’s presidency reflected its foreign policy orientation, with
“United Nations” featuring prominently among the top five terms, coinciding
with the formal establishment of the NDB. However, its 2019 presidency shifted
the emphasis to “economic growth” and “cooperation”. The reduced mention
of “development” reflects changes in Brazilian foreign policy, particularly under
President Bolsonaro. During this period, both the president and his foreign
minister, Ernesto Araújo, adopted a critical stance towards multilateralism,
significantly limiting dialogue with developing countries (Daldegan and Sousa
2021). Nonetheless, Brazil remained engaged in the BRICS, both for the international
status it conferred and the importance of fellow members for its economy.
Since its first presidency in 2011, China has played a strategic role in
consolidating BRICS identity and agenda (Zeng 2017), having introduced the
practice of defining summit themes. In each of its presidencies, China has
emphasised strengthening the group, with “BRICS” consistently among the
most frequent terms and themes such as “shared prosperity”, “brighter future”,
and a “new era for global development”. Under its 2017 presidency, China also
launched the BRICS Plus initiative and introduced the first formal discussions
on enlargement.
In 2012, India brought attention to BRICS’s role in global stability, security,
and prosperity, which led to the inclusion of international conflicts—such as Syria,
Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East—in summit declarations. International
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
19-24
security, in its various dimensions, has since become a regular topic in BRICS
summits. Moreover, this theme has spurred institutional adaptation in response
to both internal tensions—such as Sino-Indian border conflicts—and external
pressures, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine (Kirton and Larionova
2022).
South Africa, which joined BRICS in 2011, has clearly articulated its priorities
by establishing a bridge between the group and the African continent. In 2013,
under its presidency, countries outside the BRICS were invited for the first time,
including African nations
6
, reflected in “Africa” ranking among the top five terms
that year. This practice has since been adopted by all subsequent host countries.
In general, the presidency enjoys considerable autonomy in setting the theme
and agenda of the summit. The rotational nature of the presidency guarantees
equal rights for all members to lead. However, while the final declarations may
reflect national specificities, they do not reveal systematic divergence. On the
contrary, there is notable thematic convergence, particularly from 2015 onwards,
when the most frequently used terms began to display a degree of standardisation.
According to Barabanov (2025), this is especially evident between 2022 and 2024,
with the consolidation of the so-called “BRICS spirit”. This phenomenon may be
interpreted as a reflection of the process of interaction and identity formation
within the BRICS.
Since the inaugural summit, shared values such as cooperation and
development—rooted in the earlier-identified collective identity based on
multilateralism and multipolarity—have been consistently reinforced. Table 2
illustrates how this collective identity has shaped shared values, ensuring
substantial coherence between summit themes and frequently recurring terms.
Thus, the collective identity of BRICS has gradually evolved through ongoing
interaction among its members, shaping and being shaped by national identities,
national interests, and the shared vision of the group. The individual identities
of the States, while preserved, have become components of a common group
identity, guiding the BRICS’s agenda, cooperation, and international positioning.
This trajectory confirms the constructivist view that interests and identities are
not objective givens but are socially constructed and continually reconfigured
through interaction—in this case, within the framework of BRICS.
6 Egypt, Guinea, Chad, Senegal, Angola, Côte d'Ivoire, Benin, the Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Uganda,
Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, and Algeria (SAIIA 2014).
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
20-24
Conclusions
The analysis conducted partially confirms the hypothesis that the construction
of a common identity enables BRICS to overcome significant differences among
its members. However, the constitution of a unified front on strategic issues of the
international agenda is not fully realised. The member states maintain autonomous
foreign policies and perceive BRICS as an effective forum for cooperation—one
grounded in consensus and devoid of constraints on independent action—even
though such actions influence, and are influenced by, the consolidation of a
collective identity.
The BRICS countries share a converging vision regarding the necessity
of a multipolar order sustained by a renewed, fairer, and more representative
multilateralism. This collective identity, as conceptualised within Wendt’s
constructivist framework, is not a given but emerges through ongoing interaction
between the “self” and the “other” within the international social space. Although
it may precede or transcend the formal creation of the BRICS, this identity
provides cohesion and a sense of purpose to the grouping.
The analysis of identity formation highlights the relevance of the concentric
circles of identification, following the typology proposed by Wendt. The group’s
collective identity functions as a mechanism for aligning interests and actions,
despite facing limitations arising from tensions between individual and collective
identities, the nature of relations among members, and the political purpose of
the group itself. Since the first Summit, shared values such as cooperation and
development have been observed, organised around a common vision anchored in
multilateralism and multipolarity—both recurring elements in Summit Declarations.
Overcoming the heterogeneity of BRICS depends on a gradual and dense
variation in identification among members, enabling collective interests to be
progressively internalised as part of national interests. This process demonstrates
that collective identity evolves through ongoing interaction, shaping and being
shaped by the identities and interests of the states involved. From 2015 onwards,
a relative consolidation of values has become evident, indicating that while
national identities remain preserved, they have been integrated into a collective
identity that guides the BRICS agenda, cooperation, and international positioning.
This collective identity provides a framework for understanding the evolution
of the grouping and its international role. BRICS represents not only a relevant
political and economic phenomenon but also a laboratory for understanding
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
21-24
international relations and the ways in which interactions, norms, values,
interest exchanges, and cooperation practices shape state behaviour within the
international system.
In this regard, rather than offering definitive conclusions, the article seeks to
stimulate further inquiry. The ongoing expansion process—marked by the inclusion
of new members as heterogeneous as the original five—tends to introduce new
dynamics into the performance, identity, and interests of BRICS, thus opening new
avenues for future research on the resilience and limits of its collective identity.
References
Acharya, Amitav. 2014. “The end of American world order”. Malden: Polity Press.
Adler, Emanuel. 1997. “Seizing the Middle ground: constructivism in world politics”.
European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3: 319-363.
Barabanov, Oleg. 2025. “Evolution of the BRICS Platform of Shared Values”. Valdai
Discussion Club. https://valdaiclub.com/a/reports/evolution-of-the-brics-platform-
of-shared-values/.
BRICS Docs. 2024. “BRICS Docs”. https://wp.ufpel.edu.br/bricsdocs/.
BRICS. 2014. “Fortaleza Declaration”. BRICSDocs. https://wp.ufpel.edu.br/bricsdocs/
documentos-do-brics/6-cupula-do-brics-2014/.
BRICS. 2022. “Beijing Declaration”. BRICSDocs. https://wp.ufpel.edu.br/bricsdocs/
documentos-do-brics/24-cupula-do-brics-2022/.
BRICS. 2023. “Johannesburg II Declaration”. BRICSDocs. https://wp.ufpel.edu.br/
bricsdocs/documentos-do-brics/15-cupula-do-brics-2023/.
Bruton, Garry; Ahlstrom, David; Chen, Juanyi. 2021. “China has emerged as an aspirant
economy”. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 38, no. 1: 1-15. DOI https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10490-018-9638-0.
Carmo, Corival. 2011. “BRICS: de estratégia do mercado financeiro à construção de uma
estratégia de política internacional”. Carta Internacional 6, no. 2: 3-15.
Cooper, Andrew; Farooq, Asif. 2015. “Testing the club dynamics of the BRICS: the new
development bank from conception to establishment”. International Organizations
Research Journal 10, no. 2: 39-58
Daldegan, William; Sousa, Ana Tereza L. M. 2021. “Soft Power Brasileiro: Uma
análise Da política Externa Em Tempos Pandêmicos”. Conjuntura Global 10, no. 1.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5380/cg.v10i1.79561.
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
22-24
Daldegan, William; Carvalho, Carlos Eduardo. 2022. “Brics as a Dynamic and in Process
Phenomenon of Global Planning: an analysis based on the 2009-2020 annual
summit declarations”. Estudos Internacionais 10, no. 1: 117-147. https://periodicos.
pucminas.br/estudosinternacionais/article/view/25807/19904.
Daldegan, William; Borba, Vitoria. 2023. “The Development Concept in BRICS: An
analysis of projects financed by the NDB”. International Organisations Research
Journal, 18, no. 4: 7-33. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2023-04-01.
Daldegan, William; Perachi, Amanda L.; Souza, Cassine L. S. 2023. “O BRICS na
Governança Global: Uma análise a partir da contestação e contra-institucionalização
em Michael Zürn”. Revista Sul-Americana de Ciência Política 8, no. 2. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.15210/rsulacp.v8i2.23372.
Duggan, Niall; Azalia, Juan Carlos Ladines. 2020. “From Yekaterinburg to Brasilia:
BRICS and the G20, road to nowhere?”. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional
63, no. 1: 1-18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329202000109.
Duverger, Maurice. 1968. Introdução a uma Sociologia dos regimes políticos. In: Gurvitch,
Georges (Ed.). “Tratado de Sociologia”. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Finnemore, Martha. 1994. “Defining National Interests in International Society”. Nova
Iorque: Cornell University Press.
Finnemore, Martha; Sikkink, Kathryn. 2001. “TAKING STOCK: The Constructivist
Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics”. Annual
Reviews Political Science 4: 391-416.
Glosny, Michael. 2010. “China and the BRICs: A real (but Limited) partnership in a
unipolar world”. Polity 42, no. 1: 100-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2009.14.
Han, Zhen; Papa, Mihaela. 2024. “Leadership and performance in informal institutions:
the internal dynamics of BRICS”. Contemporary Politics 30, no. 1: 87-107. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2264065.
Hooijmaaijers, Bas. 2021. “China, the BRICS, and the limitations of reshaping global
economic Governance”. The Pacific Review 34, no. 1: 29-55. DOI: https://doi.org
/10.1080/09512748.2019.1649298.
Hopf, Ted. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory”.
International Security 23: 171-200.
Hopf, Ted. 2009. “Identity Relations and the Sino-Soviet Split. In: Abdelal et al. Measuring
Identity: A Guide for Social Scientists”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IBGE. 2023. “Países”. https://paises.ibge.gov.br/#/mapa/ranking/india?indicador=7
7849&tema=5&ano=2023.
IMF. 2025. “Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors”. International Monetary
Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/About/executive-board/members-quotas#total.
Amanda Perachi; William Daldegan
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
23-24
Júnior, Laerte; Branco, Giovana. 2022. “The BRICS countries and the Russia-Ukraine
conflict”. Revista Carta Internacional 17, no. 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21530/
ci.v17n3.2022.1286.
Katzenstein, Peter. 1996. “The culture of national security: norms and identity in world
politics”. Nova Iorque: Columbia University Press.
Kirton, John, Larionova, Marina. 2022. “The First Fifteen Years of the BRICS”. International
Organisations Research Journal 17, no. 2: 7–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-
7845-2022-02-01.
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1989. “Rules, norms and decisions”. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Li, Jinyu. 2023. “China’s Identity Positioning and Diplomacy among Developing Countries”.
Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media 32: 177-81.
O’Neill, Jim. 2001.”Building better economic BRICs”. Global Economics Paper, no. 66: 1-15.
Park, Susan. 2023. Constructivism. In: Weiss, Thomas; Wilkinson, Rorden. “International
Organization and Global Governance”. 3ed, Nova Iorque: Routledge.
Rinaldi, Augusto Leal. 2021. “O Brics nas Relações Internacionais Contemporâneas:
Alinhamento Estratégico e Balanceamento de Poder Global”. 1ed, Curitiba: Appris.
Ruggie, John. 1992. “Multilateralism: the Anatomy of an Institution”. International
Organization 46, no. 3.
SAIIA. 2014.“BRICS Guide UPDATE: Summit 2013”. The South African Institute of
International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/news/brics-guide-update-summit-2013-2/.
Shambaugh, David. 2018. “China’s Future”. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sidiropoulos, Elizabeth. 2013. “IBSA: Avoiding Being BRICked Up”. Strategic Analysis
37, no. 3: 285-90. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2013.782628.
Singh, Swaran. 2012. Potências em ascensão e a não proliferação nuclear. Cadernos
Adenauer 13, no. 2: 59-73.
Snyder, Glenn. 1991. “Alliances, Balance, and stability”. International Organization 45:
121-42.
Stuenkel, Oliver. 2012. “Potências emergentes e desafios globais”. Cadernos Adenauer
13, no. 2: 7-12.
Stuenkel, Oliver. 2023. “BRICS e o futuro da ordem global”. 2 ed., Rio de Janeiro: Paz
e Terra.
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of
power politics”. International Organization 46, no. 2: 391-425.
Wendt, Alexander. 1996. Identity and Structural Change in International Politics”. In:
Lapid, Yosef; Kratochwil, Friederich (ed). “The Return of Culture and Identity in
IR Theory”. Londres: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Building a BRICS Identity: analysis from a constructivist perspective
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, e1562, 2025
24-24
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. “Social Theory of International Politics”. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
WB. 2024. “GDP (current US$)”. World Bank. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true.
Ying, Liu. 2018. “Strategic Partnership or Alliance? Sino-Russian Relations from a
Constructivist Perspective”. Asian Perspective 42, no. 3: 333-54. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1353/apr.2018.0015.
Zeng, Jinghan. 2017. “Chinese Perspectives on the BRICS: The Role of Identity and
Geoeconomics in Shaping Multilateralism”. The Pacific Review 30, no. 3: 265-81.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2016.1264454.
