BRICS and the Human Rights Conundrum

The research paper examines the gap between constitutional human rights declarations and actual implementation within BRICS nations. It argues that the organisation, now expanded to include several non-democratic states, may function as a shield for autocratic regimes to avoid Western-led human rights sanctions while pursuing economic and geopolitical influence. The author highlights systemic violations across member states, including democratic backsliding in Brazil and India, war crimes in Russia, state-sponsored forced labour in China, and systemic corruption and xenophobia in South Africa, concluding that BRICS members often instrumentalise human rights rhetoric to assert regional dominance.

• The expansion of BRICS to include Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia increases the proportion of members with autocratic governments and strengthens the group's collective economic power, with eleven nations representing 37 per cent of global GDP.
• There is a significant discrepancy between the human rights protections enshrined in the constitutions of original BRICS members and their practical implementation. Brazil faces a 'democratic and human rights deficit' despite its social agenda; Russia's constitutional framework is contradicted by its invasion of Ukraine and imprisonment of political opponents; and India's democratic standards are reportedly declining despite its 'sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic' status.
• China's internal human rights record is characterised by the denial of freedom of speech and the persecution of minorities through 'mass arbitrary detention, Orwellian surveillance, political indoctrination, torture, forced abortions and sterilization, and state-sponsored forced labour'.
• China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is viewed by some as a tool for increasing soft power and bending 'authoritarian-leaning countries toward Chinese interests', while also creating 'debt traps', as seen in the 99-year lease of Sri Lanka's Hambantota port.
• South Africa's commitment to human rights is undermined by systemic corruption, economic inequality, xenophobia, and its role as the 'fourth biggest coal exporter', which contributes to the global climate crisis.
• The new BRICS members exhibit very low human rights indices, with Saudi Arabia at 0.17, Iran at 0.22, Egypt at 0.25, UAE at 0.35, and Ethiopia at 0.38, accompanied by reports of unlawful killings, torture, and suppression of women's rights.
• The paper concludes that BRICS members may use human rights declarations as a tool for regional dominance and as a way to bypass Western monetary domination and boycotts associated with human rights violations.

APA

Bawa, T., & Kourbeles, A. J. (2024). BRICS and the Human Rights Conundrum. Africa Policy Research Institute. https://afripoli.org/brics-and-the-human-rights-conundrum

Chicago

Bawa, Tejvir, and Apostle J. Kourbeles. BRICS and the Human Rights Conundrum. Africa Policy Research Institute, 2024. https://afripoli.org/brics-and-the-human-rights-conundrum.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Bawa |first1=Tejvir |last2=Kourbeles |first2=Apostle J. |title=BRICS and the Human Rights Conundrum |publisher=Africa Policy Research Institute |date=3 December 2024 |url=https://afripoli.org/brics-and-the-human-rights-conundrum |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{bawa2024brics, author = {Bawa, Tejvir and Kourbeles, Apostle J.}, title = {{BRICS and the Human Rights Conundrum}}, institution = {Africa Policy Research Institute}, year = {2024}, month = dec, url = {https://afripoli.org/brics-and-the-human-rights-conundrum}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }