Authors

Discussion

The post-WW2 global governance system was a product of the vision and leadership of the United States, backed by its European and Asian allies. The institutions thus established gave the US a dominant place in the world order, and shaped it in its image. The preponderance of American power, the institutional structure, ideas, rules and policies over the years gave rise to the nomenclature of the liberal international order. 

The rise of emerging powers, looking for an equitable representation in global governance, has led to two kinds of multilateral contestations - one is the demand for reform of existing international institutions and the other is building of separate (but not always alternative) institutions in the non-western world with an aim of shaping the emerging regional/world order. This process is the focus of the study here, with the case study of BRICS and SCO forming the basis of the main argument.

This brings into focus the role of multilateral institutions in shaping the rules of the international system, and raises questions about how non-western institutions like BRICS and SCO can be expected to fare on this front. This involves both questions of internal organization and external direction of their collective efforts. Based on past experience, what does the pace and timing of BRICS and SCO widening their membership and deepening the organizational agenda tell us about their ability to manage the associated costs of generating consent for collective action? How do these non-western institutions set out rules for members to govern their behavior and also impact policy-making beyond their immediate membership? 

What kind of norms are the non-western institutions contesting and what do they seek to replace them with? Are the strategies being adopted by BRICS and SCO adequate for shaping the rules of a new world order? How does old and new multilateralism exist concurrently and what kind of order does their interaction produce? Does the construction of a new international order and addressing the increasingly complex transnational challenges require a dominant power to drive non-western multilateralism? Is it more beneficial to look to the experience of organizations like ASEAN in the study of other non-western institutions and their approach to multilateral cooperation; instead of western institutions led by the US that have hitherto shaped the post-1945 world order? 

The paper seeks to look at these questions in order to understand how non-western institutions like BRICS and SCO could shape the emerging world order, and what are the challenges inherent therein. This will provide a framework for better understanding both the future of multilateralism and whether the non-western institutions can be expected to be more successful in reforming existing international organizations or in building new ones.