BRICS+ and Alternative Global Sovereignty

Abstract: The enlargement of BRICS+ including Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and newly affiliated partner states has sparked renewed debates over the global order. This study’s central argument is that, in contrast with Western-dominated institutions, BRICS+ prioritises sovereignty, non-intervention, economic multipolarity, and alternative interpretations of human rights, thereby actively challenging international legal structures and reshaping the contours of an emerging “new global order.” The paper uses legal theory, political philosophy, and case studies to show that BRICS+ signals a shift to pluralistic governance models, with important implications for enforcing human rights, organising global economic governance, and legitimising multilateral institutions.

1. Introduction: Contestation in the Contemporary Global Order

Throughout much of the post–Cold War era, the structure of global governance has been profoundly shaped by liberal internationalist norms associated with Western powers, most notably the United States and the European Union. These norms have informed the development of international institutions, legal regimes, and broader discourses of legitimacy in global politics. Central tenets of this order include advancing liberal democracy, protecting universal human rights, and relying on multilateral institutions to uphold global rules.

However, the geopolitical dynamics of the twenty-first century now show the rise of alternative centres of influence. A key change in this shift is the formation and growth of BRICS, first comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Its development into BRICS+, with more states from the Global South, means more than just adding members. It launches a broader effort to reform global governance by promoting principles distinct from those of Western institutions.

BRICS+ is important not only for economic collaboration but also for challenging the dominant liberal framework. The coalition advocates an international order based on state sovereignty, non-interference, and developmental autonomy. Unlike Western approaches that link legitimacy to universal human rights norms, BRICS+ states favour a pluralist model in which each country determines its political system and development path domestically.

This divergence reflects deeper philosophical disagreements over sovereignty and rights. Western liberal internationalism views sovereignty as conditional, requiring states to meet global standards, particularly in human rights. Violations may justify external intervention—diplomatic, economic, or military—under doctrines such as Responsibility to Protect. In contrast, many BRICS+ countries stress “sovereign pluralism.” They argue the international system should accommodate diverse models. From this view, external interventions grounded in norms threaten sovereign equality and can serve as geopolitical tools rather than humanitarian aims.

The expansion of BRICS+ thus generates critical questions concerning the trajectory of global governance. Will the international system remain predominantly guided by liberal norms rooted in Western institutions, or will it transition toward a multipolar configuration in which competing conceptions of sovereignty and human rights coexist? This study seeks to interrogate this tension by analysing how the expansion of BRICS+ reshapes debates over sovereignty, human rights, and legitimacy within international law and global governance. Specifically, it examines whether BRICS+ constitutes merely a geopolitical alliance for economic cooperation or represents a broader normative project capable of redefining the foundational principles of international order.

Understanding how BRICS+ expansion matters requires a framework that considers two connected aspects: what state control means and how human rights are understood. These are central to current debates about whether international systems are fair.

2.1 Conceptions of Sovereignty: Since the seventeenth century and the Peace of Westphalia, the idea of sovereignty has changed greatly. In its classic sense, sovereignty meant a state’s absolute authority over its territory and internal affairs, free from outside interference. Over time, though, international law, global institutions, and human rights regimes have transformed this idea.

In contemporary international relations, two principal models of sovereignty can be distinguished: the liberal-Western conception and the sovereignty-centred framework emphasised by many BRICS+ states.

1. Liberal-Western Sovereignty: The liberal-Western model of sovereignty is embedded in the post–Second World War international legal order, especially within the system established under the United Nations. While formally recognising sovereign equality, this framework increasingly treats sovereignty as contingent upon compliance with international norms.

Normative Foundations

This model rests upon several foundational assumptions:

1. Human dignity is a universal value: International law progressively acknowledges individuals—not solely states—as subjects of legal protection.
2. International accountability: States may be subject to international scrutiny or sanctions for breaching human rights obligations.
3. Collective responsibility: The international community has a role in addressing extreme violations, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

These principles have been institutionalised through treaties and organisations such as the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court.

Conditional Sovereignty: In this framework, sovereignty is not eliminated but reinterpreted. States keep authority over domestic governance. However, their legitimacy depends partly on following international legal standards. This shift has produced doctrines allowing external intervention in specific cases.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine shows this shift. R2P says that if a state fails to protect its population from mass atrocities, the international community can intervene. Measures may include diplomacy, humanitarian aid, or, as a last resort, military means.

Critiques of the Liberal Model

Despite its normative aspirations, the liberal model has faced several criticisms:

• Unfair use: Powerful countries may use human rights rules inconsistently.
• Instrumentalisation of intervention: Humanitarian justifications are sometimes perceived as a means of disguising geopolitical interests.
• Erosion of sovereignty: Many developing states see conditional sovereignty as a threat to their autonomy.

These critiques have contributed to the emergence of alternative conceptions of sovereignty.

2. BRICS+ Sovereignty: The sovereignty paradigm commonly associated with BRICS+ underscores the classical principle of non-interference in domestic affairs. While not rejecting international law, this perspective prioritises the autonomy of states in determining their political, economic, and social systems.

Core Principles

Key Ideas in the BRICS+ Understanding of Sovereignty: Within the BRICS+ framework, sovereignty reflects a distinct interpretation of international relations that emphasises state autonomy, territorial authority, and resistance to external pressure. The BRICS grouping—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has increasingly advanced a vision of global order centred on sovereignty and non-interference. With its expansion into BRICS+ and the incorporation of additional Global South partners, this approach continues to influence debates on international law and governance.

Several foundational principles underpin this perspective.

1. Absolute Territorial Integrity: A central feature of the BRICS+ interpretation of sovereignty is the strict adherence to territorial integrity. According to this view, the borders and political authority of states must be respected by the international community and should not be challenged by external actors. This principle aligns with traditional norms derived from the United Nations Charter, which affirms sovereign equality and prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Within the BRICS+ framework, this principle is often interpreted rigorously, emphasising diplomatic resolution of disputes rather than external intervention.

For many countries in the Global South, this emphasis is closely linked to historical experiences of colonialism and foreign interference. Consequently, safeguarding territorial integrity is considered essential to political stability and national independence.

2. Non-Intervention in Domestic Politics

Another defining element of the BRICS+ conception of sovereignty is the principle of non-intervention in internal political affairs. Under this approach, states should refrain from interfering in the governance structures, political systems, or policy choices of other nations. This principle extends beyond military action to include political pressure, economic sanctions, and external criticism of domestic policies, particularly in areas such as governance or human rights. From the BRICS+ perspective, such actions may undermine national autonomy and violate the principle of sovereign equality.

States within this framework often argue that political systems and governance models should evolve in line with each country’s historical, cultural, and social context. Accordingly, international actors should avoid imposing uniform institutional models on sovereign states. This stance frequently contrasts with Western approaches that emphasise international monitoring of governance and human rights through bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council.

3. Development Sovereignty: A third core principle is development sovereignty, referring to the right of states to pursue economic strategies aligned with their national priorities.

Advocates of this concept maintain that countries should retain policy space to implement economic measures—such as industrial strategies, trade regulations, or infrastructure investments—without external constraints imposed by international financial institutions or dominant states. Within the BRICS+ framework, this principle is closely linked to calls for reforming global economic governance, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Many emerging economies contend that these institutions have historically reflected the interests of advanced economies while failing to adequately address the needs of the Global South.

Accordingly, BRICS states have promoted alternative development initiatives, including institutions such as the New Development Bank, designed to finance infrastructure while granting greater policy flexibility to member states.

Collectively, these principles—territorial integrity, non-intervention, and development sovereignty—constitute the foundation of the BRICS+ vision of international order. This perspective emphasises the centrality of the sovereign state in global governance and seeks to preserve national autonomy in both political and economic decision-making. While this model resonates with many countries in the Global South, it also generates ongoing debates over balancing sovereignty with international cooperation, human rights protection, and global governance obligations. As BRICS+ continues to expand its influence, its interpretation of sovereignty is likely to play an increasingly significant role in shaping international relations. These principles are deeply rooted in the historical experiences of BRICS+ states, particularly those shaped by colonialism or external intervention.

Sovereignty and Development: A distinctive feature of the BRICS+ perspective is the linkage between sovereignty and economic development. Many member states argue that political stability and state-led development strategies are essential for poverty alleviation and economic growth. From this viewpoint, external pressures for rapid political liberalisation may disrupt development processes or weaken fragile institutions.

Institutional Expression: This sovereignty-centred approach is reflected in institutional initiatives associated with BRICS, such as the New Development Bank, which provides development financing without imposing the political conditionalities often linked to Western-dominated institutions like the International Monetary Fund. The BRICS+ framework thus represents an effort to establish alternative mechanisms of cooperation that respect national policy autonomy.

2.2 Human Rights: Universalism vs Contextualism

Debates over sovereignty are closely intertwined with differing interpretations of human rights. Two dominant approaches shape international discourse: universalism and contextualism.

Universalist Model of Human Rights: The universalist perspective holds that human rights are inherent to all individuals by virtue of their humanity, independent of cultural, political, or economic contexts. This approach is institutionalised in foundational documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms fundamental rights including freedom of expression, equality before the law, and protection from arbitrary detention.

Key Characteristics of Human Rights

1. Universality: Universality constitutes a core principle of human rights, signifying that such rights apply to all individuals worldwide, irrespective of nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political affiliation, or cultural background. This concept is grounded in the recognition of inherent human dignity.

The modern articulation of universality was firmly established with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948, affirming that fundamental rights and freedoms belong to all individuals without discrimination.

Universality entails several key dimensions:

• Equality before the law: ensuring that no individual is deprived of rights due to identity or status.
• Global applicability: indicates that human rights standards transcend national boundaries.
• Shared international responsibility: requiring states and international institutions to uphold and protect these rights.

Although broadly accepted, the principle of universality continues to generate debate, particularly in relation to cultural relativism—namely, whether rights should be interpreted differently across societies. Nonetheless, the prevailing international consensus maintains that fundamental human rights standards are universal and cannot be negated on cultural or political grounds.

2. Legal Enforceability: A central characteristic of human rights is that they function not only as moral claims but also as binding legal obligations. Over time, many human rights norms have been codified in international treaties and conventions, creating enforceable commitments for states that ratify them. These legal structures enable international institutions and judicial bodies to supervise compliance and adjudicate violations. For instance, both regional and global mechanisms may investigate allegations of human rights abuses or issue decisions against states that fail to safeguard fundamental rights.

Institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court play a pivotal role in enforcing international human rights standards. They establish avenues for victims to pursue justice and accountability, particularly when domestic legal systems are unable to provide effective remedies.

Legal enforceability further encompasses monitoring mechanisms such as:

• treaty monitoring committees,
• periodic state reporting,
• independent investigations conducted by international organisations.

Although enforcement mechanisms differ in their strength and effectiveness, the existence of such procedures underscores that human rights are recognised as enforceable legal standards rather than merely aspirational ideals.

3. Individual-Centred Protection: A defining feature of contemporary human rights law is its emphasis on the individual as the primary bearer of rights. Historically, international law primarily governed relations among states, treating governments as the principal actors in global governance.

However, the evolution of international human rights law has fundamentally altered this orientation by recognising individuals as subjects of international law. This transformation signifies that individuals possess rights that states are legally obligated to respect and protect.

Within this framework:

• Governments are required to refrain from violating individual rights.
• States must safeguard individuals from abuses perpetrated by other actors.
• Individuals may, under certain conditions, bring claims before international legal institutions.

This individual-centred approach reflects the broader principle that the legitimacy of political authority ultimately derives from its respect for human dignity and fundamental freedoms.

By prioritising the protection of individuals rather than the absolute sovereignty of states, modern human rights law has reshaped international legal norms and reinforced the global commitment to safeguarding human dignity.

Implications for Global Governance: Within the universalist framework, international institutions possess a legitimate mandate to evaluate state conduct. Governments that systematically violate human rights may face international criticism, sanctions, or intervention. Consequently, this model reinforces the notion that sovereignty is constrained by overarching global moral and legal obligations.

Contextualist or Sovereignty-Respecting Model: In contrast, many BRICS+ states advocate a contextual interpretation of human rights. This perspective does not necessarily reject the concept of human rights but contends that their implementation should align with national histories, cultural traditions, and developmental priorities.

Core Arguments

1. Cultural diversity: Societies may interpret rights and freedoms differently.
2. Development priorities: Economic and social rights, including poverty reduction and access to education, may take precedence over civil and political rights in developing contexts.
3. State sovereignty: External actors should refrain from imposing normative standards that disregard domestic political realities.

From this standpoint, international human rights discourse is sometimes perceived as reflecting Western cultural assumptions rather than universally shared values.

Human Rights as Development: Another significant aspect of the contextualist perspective is its emphasis on collective development as a core objective of human rights. Economic growth, infrastructural advancement, and poverty alleviation are regarded as essential components of human dignity. This contrasts with the Western emphasis on civil and political liberties as the primary indicators of human rights compliance.

The theoretical tension between these approaches generates a fundamental normative divide within global governance. The liberal-Western framework conceptualises sovereignty as conditional and human rights as universally enforceable, whereas the BRICS+ perspective emphasises sovereign equality, non-interference, and context-sensitive implementation of rights. As BRICS+ expands and strengthens institutional cooperation among Global South states, this divergence is likely to influence the future architecture of international law. The evolving international system may increasingly reflect a pluralistic order in which competing conceptions of sovereignty and human rights coexist rather than converge.

3. BRICS+ Expansion and Normative Implications

The transformation of BRICS into the broader BRICS+ configuration represents a significant development in global governance. While the grouping initially emerged as an economic coalition of major emerging economies, its expansion carries wider political, economic, and normative consequences. These implications are particularly evident across three interconnected domains: economic multipolarity, political coordination, and legal contestation within international law.

3.1 Economic Multipolarity: One of the most visible outcomes of BRICS+ expansion is the consolidation of economic multipolarity within the international system. Since the end of the Cold War, global financial governance has largely been shaped by Western-dominated institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These institutions have historically played central roles in development financing, macroeconomic stabilisation, and crisis management.

However, numerous emerging economies have expressed dissatisfaction with the governance structures of these organisations. Critics argue that voting power and decision-making authority remain disproportionately concentrated among developed Western states, thereby limiting the influence of developing countries. The BRICS framework has sought to address this imbalance by establishing alternative financial institutions designed to reflect the priorities of emerging economies. Among the most significant of these is the New Development Bank, which provides infrastructure and development financing to member states and other developing economies. Unlike traditional lenders, the New Development Bank seeks to reduce political conditionalities while emphasising nationally determined development strategies.

Another important initiative is the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, a financial safety mechanism designed to provide liquidity support to member states during periods of economic instability. This arrangement serves as a complementary alternative to the International Monetary Fund’s stabilisation programmes. Through these institutional innovations, BRICS+ aims to diversify the sources of development financing available to countries in the Global South. The expansion of the grouping increases its collective economic capacity, thereby enhancing its influence over international economic governance.

Beyond institutional developments, BRICS+ promotes trade and investment cooperation among its members. Greater economic integration among emerging economies contributes to a more decentralised global economic structure, reducing dependence on traditional Western financial centres. Consequently, the expansion of BRICS+ reinforces the broader trend toward economic multipolarity, characterised by the coexistence of multiple economic blocs and institutions competing for influence.

3.2 Political Coordination: In addition to economic collaboration, BRICS+ expansion has significant implications for political coordination among member states. Unlike many Western-led alliances, which typically operate through formal treaty obligations and enforcement mechanisms, BRICS+ emphasises flexible cooperation grounded in consensus. A central principle guiding this coordination is sovereign equality. Each member state retains full authority over its domestic political system, and decisions are generally reached through consultation rather than hierarchical leadership or majority voting.

This consensus-based approach reflects the diversity of political systems within the grouping. BRICS+ includes democratic states, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian governments, making the establishment of uniform governance standards particularly challenging. Instead, cooperation is structured around shared interests such as economic development, technological collaboration, and geopolitical stability. A key dimension of this political coordination is the rejection of external conditionalities linked to governance or human rights performance.

Western institutions and development programs often condition financial assistance on reforms related to democracy, anti-corruption, or human rights protections. While such conditions are intended to promote accountability and transparency, many developing countries perceive them as intrusive or politically motivated. BRICS+ states, therefore, advocate a model of international cooperation in which economic assistance and development partnerships are not contingent upon domestic political reforms. This approach reinforces the principle that each state should determine its own political trajectory independently. Consequently, the emphasis on non-conditional cooperation has enhanced the appeal of BRICS+ among Global South countries seeking alternatives to traditional Western development frameworks.

3.3 Legal and Normative Contestation: Beyond economic and political dimensions, BRICS+ expansion has important implications for the normative structure of international law. Its emphasis on sovereignty and non-interference challenges several doctrines that have emerged within the liberal international order. One prominent example is the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which asserts that the international community has an obligation to intervene when states fail to protect their populations from mass atrocities such as genocide or ethnic cleansing.

While many Western governments support this doctrine as a safeguard against humanitarian crises, several BRICS states have expressed reservations regarding its potential misuse. Critics contend that R2P may be interpreted to justify intervention for strategic or political purposes rather than strictly humanitarian objectives. The NATO intervention in Libya is frequently cited in this context, with some BRICS states arguing that it exceeded the mandate authorised by the United Nations Security Council and effectively facilitated regime change.

As BRICS+ expands, scepticism toward interventionist doctrines is gaining broader support among developing countries. Many states share concerns regarding the potential erosion of sovereignty under expansive interpretations of humanitarian intervention. Consequently, the growing influence of BRICS+ contributes to the emergence of a more pluralistic international legal environment, in which multiple normative frameworks coexist rather than a single dominant model.

Within such a pluralistic system, states retain greater flexibility in implementing international norms domestically. This shift has the potential to significantly reshape debates concerning the legitimacy of international interventions and the enforcement of global human rights standards.

4. Comparative Case Studies: To assess how these normative principles operate in practice, it is useful to examine the approaches of major BRICS states to sovereignty and human rights. The cases of China, Russia, India, and Brazil illustrate both the diversity and the shared characteristics within the BRICS framework.

4.1 China: China’s approach to sovereignty and human rights reflects a development-oriented model of governance. Chinese policymakers frequently emphasise economic growth, poverty reduction, and social stability as foundational components of human rights. From this perspective, economic and social rights—such as access to food, housing, healthcare, and employment—are regarded as prerequisites for the realisation of political freedoms. The country’s rapid economic development over recent decades is often presented as evidence of the effectiveness of this approach in enhancing human welfare.

China also strongly endorses the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states, a position closely linked to its historical experiences of foreign intervention during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a result, Chinese foreign policy generally opposes external involvement in domestic political conflicts unless explicitly authorised by the concerned state. In international forums, China typically advocates dialogue and development assistance as alternatives to sanctions or coercive intervention.

4.2 Russia: Russia’s perspective emphasises the protection of national sovereignty and security interests within the international system. Russian policymakers frequently argue that the liberal international order has been applied selectively by Western states to justify political or military interventions.

Accordingly, Russia has demonstrated scepticism toward international initiatives that frame domestic conflicts primarily in terms of human rights violations. Within the United Nations Security Council, Russia has often opposed resolutions that it perceives as facilitating external intervention in sovereign states. This stance reflects a broader commitment to maintaining a balance of power in international relations. From the Russian viewpoint, strong adherence to sovereignty helps prevent the dominance of any single geopolitical bloc.

At the same time, Russia’s position is shaped by concerns regarding internal stability and the potential influence of external actors on domestic political processes.

4.3 India and Brazil: The positions of India and Brazil illustrate a more nuanced engagement with the international human rights framework. Both countries are democratic states that formally support many aspects of the liberal international order, including multilateralism and adherence to international law. However, they also advocate greater representation for developing countries within global governance institutions and emphasise the importance of economic development in achieving human rights objectives.

India, for example, frequently advances the concept of “developmental rights,” emphasising that poverty alleviation and economic opportunity are essential components of human dignity. Similarly, Brazil has historically promoted the integration of social and economic rights into the broader human rights framework.

Both countries support the emergence of a multipolar international system in which emerging economies assume a more prominent role in global decision-making. At the same time, they seek to balance this orientation with constructive engagement in international institutions and human rights mechanisms. This dual approach underscores that BRICS states do not constitute a unified ideological bloc; rather, they share certain concerns regarding sovereignty and global governance while maintaining distinct political and normative priorities.

5. Implications for the “New Global Order”

The enlargement of BRICS into the expanded BRICS+ framework carries implications that extend well beyond economic collaboration or geopolitical alignment. It contributes to a gradual reconfiguration of the normative foundations underpinning global governance. The emerging international system increasingly reflects competing interpretations of legitimacy, sovereignty, and human rights. This transformation may be analysed through three principal dimensions: normative shifts, institutional consequences, and evolving approaches to the enforcement of human rights.

5.1 Normative Shift: One of the most significant outcomes of BRICS+ expansion is the rise of a more pluralistic normative environment within international relations. For decades, global governance has been predominantly shaped by liberal principles emphasising democratic governance, universal human rights, and multilateral legal enforcement. These principles are embedded in institutions such as the United Nations and reinforced through legal instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

However, BRICS+ advances an alternative conception of international legitimacy that emphasises sovereignty, non-interference, and developmental autonomy. Rather than rejecting human rights outright, this perspective reinterprets them within national political and cultural contexts. Governments retain the authority to determine how rights are implemented in accordance with domestic priorities, social conditions, and stages of development. This orientation creates a normative tension with the liberal international order. Western states generally maintain that human rights obligations are universal and should be enforced through international mechanisms where necessary. In contrast, many BRICS+ members argue that imposing external standards may undermine political stability and long-term development strategies.

The consequence is an increasingly contested normative landscape within multilateral diplomacy. International negotiations concerning humanitarian intervention, sanctions, and governance standards frequently reveal deep disagreements over the balance between sovereignty and international accountability. As BRICS+ continues to expand its influence, the global order may evolve toward a system defined by normative pluralism rather than ideological convergence. Within such a system, multiple governance models coexist, each asserting legitimacy within the broader international framework.

5.2 Institutional Impacts: The normative transformation associated with BRICS+ expansion is accompanied by corresponding institutional changes. Established global governance institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, were created in the mid-twentieth century and have historically reflected the priorities of Western economies. Many emerging economies contend that these institutions do not sufficiently represent the economic weight and political interests of the Global South. Concerns regarding governance structures, voting distribution, and policy conditionalities have therefore encouraged the development of alternative institutional arrangements.

One such initiative is the New Development Bank, which finances infrastructure and development projects in member states and other developing economies. The institution is structured to operate with fewer political conditions than traditional lenders, emphasising national ownership of development strategies. Another important mechanism, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, provides financial assistance to member states experiencing short-term liquidity challenges. By establishing alternative channels of financial support, BRICS+ reduces dependence on Western-led institutions.

These institutional developments contribute to the emergence of a more decentralised system of global governance. Rather than a single dominant institutional architecture, multiple financial and political frameworks coexist. While such diversification may enhance flexibility and representation, it also introduces the potential for competing standards and fragmented regulatory processes. Consequently, multilateral forums may increasingly struggle to establish universally accepted norms. Distinct coalitions of states may endorse different institutional frameworks and regulatory approaches, resulting in overlapping systems of governance.

5.3 Human Rights Enforcement: Perhaps the most sensitive dimension of normative divergence concerns the enforcement of human rights. Western-led frameworks tend to emphasise monitoring mechanisms, legal accountability, and, in extreme cases, international intervention to address serious violations.

This approach is supported by doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect, which asserts that the international community has an obligation to act when states fail to safeguard their populations from mass atrocities.

BRICS+ states, however, have generally adopted a more cautious stance. While many formally endorse international human rights principles, they emphasise voluntary compliance and state-led implementation. From this perspective, external enforcement mechanisms may risk undermining national sovereignty and could be applied selectively for political purposes. The BRICS+ framework, therefore, prioritises dialogue, capacity-building initiatives, and economic development as primary tools for improving human rights conditions. Rather than coercive enforcement, this model favours cooperative engagement among states.

This approach raises several critical questions regarding the future trajectory of global governance. If enforcement mechanisms become weaker or more decentralised, maintaining the universality of human rights norms may prove increasingly challenging. At the same time, proponents argue that a sovereignty-respecting framework may reduce geopolitical tensions and encourage cooperation across diverse political systems. Another implication concerns the role of non-state actors. Civil society organisations, international advocacy networks, and transnational movements have historically played a significant role in promoting human rights norms. Within a more sovereignty-centred global order, the influence of such actors may become increasingly contested.

6. Discussion: The expansion of BRICS+ reflects a broader transformation in the architecture of international politics. Rather than converging toward a single universal model of governance, the global system appears to be evolving into a multipolar environment characterised by competing normative frameworks. One major implication is the fragmentation of normative authority in international law and diplomacy. Although institutions such as the United Nations continue to provide platforms for global cooperation, achieving consensus on fundamental issues such as sovereignty, intervention, and human rights enforcement has become progressively more difficult. This fragmentation underscores the growing pluralism of global legal and moral norms.

Different regions and political traditions contribute distinct historical experiences and priorities to global governance. For many countries in the Global South, sovereignty remains a crucial safeguard against external domination, reflecting historical experiences of colonialism and geopolitical intervention.

At the same time, the liberal international order continues to prioritise the protection of universal human rights as a cornerstone of global legitimacy. From this perspective, weakening enforcement mechanisms may undermine protections for vulnerable populations and reduce accountability for state misconduct. The interaction between these perspectives generates an ongoing debate concerning the legitimacy of alternative governance models within the international system. Rather than a simple dichotomy between Western and non-Western approaches, the emerging order is likely to involve a complex process of negotiation, adaptation, and coexistence.

Comparative analysis of BRICS member states illustrates this complexity. Countries such as China and Russia emphasise strong sovereignty and non-interference, whereas India and Brazil combine support for multipolarity with engagement in existing human rights frameworks. These varied approaches demonstrate that the BRICS coalition is not ideologically uniform but is instead united by a shared interest in restructuring global governance institutions. Ultimately, the future international order may depend on the capacity of these competing normative frameworks to coexist within a flexible institutional structure. Achieving such coexistence will require sustained dialogue, institutional reform, and a willingness to accommodate diverse political and developmental models. The expansion of BRICS+, therefore, represents not only a geopolitical shift but also a profound debate over the foundational principles that should guide the international system in the twenty-first century.

7. Policy and Normative Recommendations: The expansion of BRICS into the broader BRICS+ configuration presents both challenges and opportunities for global governance. As the international system becomes increasingly multipolar, policymakers must develop strategies that acknowledge normative diversity while preserving mechanisms for cooperation and accountability. The following recommendations outline potential approaches for managing tensions between sovereignty-centred and universalist governance models.

1. Engagement Over Confrontation: A primary policy priority should be constructive engagement between Western institutions and BRICS+ states rather than ideological confrontation. Attempts to isolate or delegitimise alternative governance models are unlikely to yield stable outcomes and may exacerbate geopolitical divisions.

Institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank should actively engage with BRICS+ governments to negotiate shared minimum standards in areas such as development finance, trade governance, and humanitarian protection. Such engagement does not necessitate abandoning universal norms but rather recognising the importance of sovereignty and domestic policy autonomy from the perspectives of many Global South states. Dialogue-oriented cooperation can help bridge normative differences while sustaining a shared commitment to stability and international law.

1. Development of Pluralist Governance Frameworks: The evolving global order increasingly reflects normative pluralism. As diverse political systems and development models coexist, governance frameworks must accommodate varying interpretations of rights and responsibilities. A pluralist approach would permit diverse institutional arrangements while preserving core principles of international cooperation. For instance, states could retain flexibility in implementing human rights policies while agreeing on fundamental prohibitions against mass atrocities or systemic discrimination. This approach acknowledges that rigid adherence to a single normative model may be impractical in a heterogeneous international environment. By allowing contextual flexibility, pluralist frameworks may reduce tensions between competing ideological blocs and encourage broader participation in global governance institutions.
2. Strengthening Dialogue Mechanisms: Another important recommendation is to expand institutional platforms for dialogue that enable states to address normative differences constructively. Multilateral forums should function not only as decision-making bodies but also as arenas for sustained normative negotiation. The United Nations remains a central venue for such engagement, particularly through bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council. However, dialogue should also extend to emerging BRICS+-associated platforms, where many Global South states perceive greater representation. Regular policy discussions on development finance, digital governance, human rights standards, and international security could help identify areas of convergence while managing divergence. Additionally, track-two diplomacy involving academic institutions, civil society organisations, and policy research centres can foster deeper mutual understanding among different normative communities.
3. Human Rights Incentivization: Conventional approaches to human rights enforcement often rely on sanctions, political pressure, or conditional aid. While such mechanisms may achieve short-term compliance, they can also generate resistance or weaken domestic legitimacy. An alternative strategy involves employing positive incentives that link improvements in human rights to development benefits. For example, international institutions could incorporate human rights indicators into development programs funded by organisations such as the New Development Bank.

This approach emphasises capacity building, institutional reform, and economic development as pathways to enhancing human rights conditions. Rather than imposing external standards, it encourages states to adopt rights-enhancing policies aligned with domestic development strategies. Such a model may be particularly effective in contexts where poverty reduction, education, and social welfare improvements directly contribute to broader human rights outcomes.

8. Conclusion: The expansion of BRICS+ represents a significant milestone in the evolution of the international system. While initially conceived as an economic coalition, its development reflects broader shifts in the distribution of global power and the normative foundations of governance. BRICS+ states emphasise principles such as sovereign equality, non-interference, economic self-determination, and context-sensitive interpretations of human rights. These priorities challenge elements of the liberal international order that emphasise universal standards, conditional sovereignty, and external enforcement mechanisms.

The analysis presented in this study indicates that the international system is increasingly moving toward a multipolar and normatively pluralist structure. Within such a system, multiple governance models coexist, each shaped by distinct historical experiences, institutional arrangements, and developmental priorities.

Several key conclusions emerge.

First, global governance is becoming more decentralised as emerging powers expand their influence through institutions and alliances beyond traditional Western-led frameworks. This shift is evident in the creation of alternative financial institutions and new platforms for political coordination.

Second, debates surrounding sovereignty and human rights are likely to remain central to international diplomacy. While universal human rights norms continue to play a significant role, their interpretation and enforcement are becoming increasingly contested.

Third, the long-term stability of the international system will depend on the capacity of competing normative frameworks to coexist within adaptable institutional structures. Constructive dialogue, institutional reform, and pluralist governance approaches may help bridge differences between sovereignty-centred and universalist perspectives.

Finally, understanding the perspectives of BRICS+ states is essential for scholars and policymakers seeking to develop equitable and legitimate global institutions within a changing geopolitical context. As international order evolves beyond traditional Western dominance, inclusive governance structures that reflect the diversity of global political experiences will be essential for sustaining cooperation and stability. Future research should therefore focus on identifying practical mechanisms for constructive interaction among diverse normative traditions without undermining the core principles of international law. Such efforts will be crucial for ensuring that global governance remains both effective and legitimate in an increasingly multipolar world.

References:

1. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). Migration, Refugee Law & Border Governance in Europe and the United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18809879
2. Jubaer, Shah. (2024). SECULARISM, ATHEISM, AND THEISM IN BANGLADESH: HISTORICAL EVOLUTION, SOCIAL DYNAMICS, AND CONTEMPORARY DEBATES. 10.5281/zenodo.16790798.
3. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Future Bangladesh: 31-Point Agenda for Change (বিএনপির ৩১ দফা) Vol-I.
4. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Future Bangladesh: 31-Point Agenda for Change (বিএনপির ৩১ দফা) Vol-II.
5. Shah, J. (2026). Shah’s Note: Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau in Modern Politics. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19463418
6. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Big Tech and Constitutional Counter-Power. CONSTITUO Journal of State and Political Law Research. IV. 10.5281/zenodo.19423715.
7. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Access to Education and Social Justice Law: A Legal and Policy Analysis. Education Landscapes. 6. 10.5281/zenodo.19156011.
8. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Constitutional Interpretation: A Comparative Study of Originalism and Living Constitution Theories. CONSTITUO Journal of State and Political Law Research. 10.5281/zenodo.17498100.
9. Shah, J. (2026). Analyzing the Political Legitimacy of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) as Sovereign Entities. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19301761
10. Shah, J. (2026). A Jurisprudential Analysis of Court-Made Law and National Legal Authority. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19121615
11. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Algorithmic Power and the Reconfiguration of Global Political Economy in Post- Human Administrative Systems.
12. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Islamic Personal and Political Philosophy. Journal on Islamic Studies. II. 10.5281/zenodo.19103843.
13. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). Removing Constitutional Crisis: Legitimate Institutional Solutions for Democratic Stability. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19058166
14. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Electoral Integrity and Democratic Legitimacy: Safeguarding Free and Fair Elections in the Modern Era. Election Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy. 8.
15. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). What is Law?. Law Journal. 10.5281/zenodo.18778395.
16. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Long-Term Justice Implications of Intergenerational Algorithmic Forecasting. International Review of Law Computers & Technology. 3.
17. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). The Century-Scale Ethics of Autonomous Decision Systems: Toward Deep-Time Models of AI Governance. Global Journal of Law AI & Ethics.
18. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). When Giants Fuck the Rules: Power, Impunity, and the Crisis of International Law. Public international and private international law. 2.
19. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Philosophy for Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha: A New Conceptual Framework. Philosophy of Education. 10.5281/zenodo.18820162.
20. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Migration, Refugee Law & Border Governance in Europe and the United Kingdom. Journal of Migration and Political Studies. 10.5281/zenodo.18809879.
21. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Democratic Backsliding & Constitutional Erosion in Bangladesh. Journal of Law and Corruption Review. 10.5281/zenodo.18795233.
22. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Anti-Corruption & Transparency in Southeast Asia. MATAKAO Corruption Law Review.
23. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). The Sovereignty Paradox: Reconciling Popular Sovereignty with Constitutional Constraint. Revista de Ciência Política Direito e Politicas Públicas – POLITI(K)CON. 10.5281/zenodo.18764533.
24. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Shah Jubaer’s Theory on Human Rights-Based Environmental Law. 10.5281/zenodo.18511651.
25. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Academic Freedom and Institutional Law: Legal Foundations, Challenges, and Governance in Higher Education. Special education. III. 10.5281/zenodo.19141135.
26. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Learning from Failure: A Study on Why Certain National Policies Do Not Achieve Their Objectives. POLICY RESEARCH. 10.5281/zenodo.18444368.
27. Shah Jubaer. (2026). Human Rights Protection in Crisis Situations in Developing Countries. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18809820
28. Shah Jubaer. (2026). Judicial Independence and Court Reform in the Modern Era. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18795323
29. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Public Trust Doctrine and the Legal System: Protecting Public Resources Through Law. 10.5281/ZENODO.17353820.
30. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Reimagining Democracy in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Participatory Governance and Institutional Accountability. 10.5281/zenodo.17363785.
31. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Shah Jubaer’s Adaptive Governance Theory. 10.5281/zenodo.17388215.
32.  
33. Shah Jubaer. (2026). Democratic Backsliding & Constitutional Erosion in Bangladesh. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18795233
34. Shah Jubaer. (2026). What is Law?. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18778395
35. Jubaer, Shah. (2024). From Bismarck to Beveridge: Tracing the Foundations of the Welfare State. 10.5281/zenodo.16730455.
36. Jubaer, Shah. (2023). Islam and Democracy: Compatibility, Contestation, and the Future of Participatory Governance in Muslim-Majority States. Politik Islam. 10.5281/zenodo.17330013.
37. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). The Legal Dimensions of Migration and Refugee Protection in the 21st Century. Journal of Refugee Studies. 10.5281/zenodo.17118059.
38. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Contemporary Socialistic Politics: Pathways to Equality and State Welfare in a Globalized Economy. Marxism & Sciences. 10.5281/zenodo.17298726.
39. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Analyzing the Political Legitimacy of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) as Sovereign Entities. L Humanité. 10.5281/zenodo.19301761.
40. Jubaer, Shah. (2024). CRIMINAL LAW AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF JUSTICE: STRUCTURAL ANALYSES AND PATHWAYS TO REFORM. 10.5281/zenodo.16945334.
41. Jubaer, Shah. (2024). LEGAL HARMONY AND TRANQUIL POLICY. 10.5281/zenodo.16657906.
42. Jubaer, Shah. (2024). POLITICS AS A PROFESSION OF CORRUPTION VS. SOCIAL WORK AS ACADEMIC PURSUIT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF BANGLADESH’S GOVERNANCE AND CIVIC CULTURE. 10.5281/zenodo.16860495.
43. Jubaer, Shah. (2024). ISLAMIC ECONOMICS AND CONVENTIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEMS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR SUSTAINABLE STATE DEVELOPMENT. 10.5281/zenodo.16945317.
44.  
45. Jubaer, Shah. (2024). BUILDING A SMART CITY IN BANGLADESH: POLICY, GOVERNANCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION. 10.5281/zenodo.16786033.
46. Jubaer, Shah. (2024). The Role of Citizen Journalism: Empowerment and Credibility Challenges. South Asian Journal of Management. 10.5281/zenodo.16860884.
47. Jubaer, Shah. (2024). Shah’s note on the Policies for Energy and Climate Resilience: Building Clean Energy Infrastructure and Incentive Systems in Southeast Asia. 10.5281/zenodo.16547202.
48.  
49. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). WELFARE AT A CROSSROADS: CHALLENGES, REFORMS, AND THE ROAD AHEAD. 10.5281/zenodo.17027857.
50. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Beyond Earth: A Scientific and Strategic Examination of Space Exploration and the Mars Mission. Sci-Tech Journal. 10.5281/zenodo.16465137.
51.  
52. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). The Dynamics of Genius. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18736653
53. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). Bangladesh Nationalist Party: 15th Reform Agenda. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18718329
54. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). Bangladesh Nationalist Party: 14th Reform Agenda. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18718260
55. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). Shah Jubaer’s Principle of Ethical-Algorithmic Governance (SJ-PEAG) (Patent). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18676422
56. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). Bangladesh Nationalist Party: 11th Reform Agenda. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18560812
57. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). Bangladesh Nationationalist Party: 13th Reform Agenda. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18475442
58. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). Bangladesh Nationalist Party: 10th Reform Agenda. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18475403
59. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). Rationality vs. Politics in National Policy Design: Analyzing the Decision-Making Process. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18436778
60. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). The Dynamics of Policy Formulation: How Ideas, Interests, and Institutions Shape State Policies. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18407161
61. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). BNP’s Policy Reform Agenda (9th) on the Transparent Governance in Bangladesh. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18208967
62. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). BNP’s policy reform agenda (8th) on the Commission and Electoral System in Bangladesh. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18208895
63. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2026). BNP’s Policy Reform agenda (3rd) on Reintroduction of a Neutral Caretaker Government System. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18162798
64. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). The Role of Bureaucracy and Expertise in Shaping National Policy Agendas. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17677427
65. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). BNP’s Policy Reform Agenda (31st) on Modern Housing and Urbanization in Bangladesh. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17655008
66. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). BNP’s Policy Reform Agenda (30th) on Bangladesh’s Tech and Energy Future. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17654960
67. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). BNP’s Policy Reform Agenda (29th) on Waterway Governance and Climate Adaptation in Bangladesh. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17654929
68. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). BNP’S Policy Reform Agenda (28th) on Modernization of Transport and Multimodal Connectivity in Bangladesh. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17654881
69. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). BNP’s Policy Reform Agenda ( 27th) on Ensuring Fair Prices Through Farmer Protection in Bangladesh. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17654832
70. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Constitutionalism as a Moral Project: Between Legal Authority and Political Obligation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17585169
71. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Constitutionalism and the Nature of the Rule of Law: From Formal Legality to Moral Legitimacy. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17585111
72. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Tarique Rahman’s Agricultural Development Theory: Empowering Farmers through the Farmer’s Card. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17518189
73. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). A Policy Study of Tarique Rahman’s Curriculum Vision for Bangladesh. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17509243
74. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). ‘Bangladesh First Principle’: Tarique Rahman’s Political Governance Philosophy (Patent). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17509219
75. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Constitutional Interpretation: A Comparative Study of Originalism and Living Constitution Theories. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17498100
76. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Constitutional Identity and the Limits of Constitutional Change. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17451483
77. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Atthobhud. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17308713
78. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Democracy Under Stress: Populism, Constitutionalism, and the Rule of Law. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17317064
79. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Islam and Democracy: Compatibility, Contestation, and the Future of Participatory Governance in Muslim-Majority States. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17330013
80. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Nationalism and Globalization: Reconciling Sovereignty with Transnational Norms. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17330079
81. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Participatory Democracy in the Digital Age: Opportunities and Risks for Political Engagement. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17345288
82. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Public Trust Doctrine and the Legal System: Protecting Public Resources Through Law. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17353820
83. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Reimagining Democracy in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Participatory Governance and Institutional Accountability. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17363785
84. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Shah Jubaer’s Theory of Anticipatory Risk Governance. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17373254
85. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Shah Jubaer’s Adaptive Governance Theory (Patent). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17388215
86. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Contemporary Socialistic Politics: Pathways to Equality and State Welfare in a Globalized Economy. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17298726
87. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Digital Transformation in the Justice System: E-Courts, Case Management, and Legal Accessibility. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17127616
88. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). The Legal Dimensions of Migration and Refugee Protection in the 21st Century. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17118059
89. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Constitutionalism in Crisis: Analyzing the Erosion of Democratic Norms in Comparative Perspective. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17118031
90. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Balancing National Security and Individual Rights: A Comparative Study of Data Privacy Laws. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17102885
91. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). The Evolution of Cybersecurity Law: Global Approaches to Combating Cybercrime. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17095926
92. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Artificial Intelligence and the Law: Regulating Autonomous Systems in the Age of Digital Governance. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17095910
93. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). ECONOMY FOR ALL: BUILDING FISCAL FOUNDATIONS FOR A WELFARE STATE. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17074276
94. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Proportional Representation an electoral Fragility in Bangladesh and Asia. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17058925
95. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). WELFARE AT A CROSSROADS: CHALLENGES, REFORMS, AND THE ROAD AHEAD. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17027857
96. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Corruption, Accountability, and Legal Enforcement: Evaluating Anti-Corruption Mechanisms. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16956144
97. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). CRIMINAL LAW AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF JUSTICE: STRUCTURAL ANALYSES AND PATHWAYS TO REFORM. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16945334
98. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Islamic Economics and Conventional Economic Systems: A Comparative Analysis for Sustainable State Development. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16945317
99. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2024). The Strength of BNP’s Unity under Tarique Rahman’s Leadership and the Seeds of the July Revolution. Intellectica Revue De L Association Pour La Recherche Cognitive, 2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16899135
100. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Diversity and Representation in Newsrooms: A Critical Pillar for Fair Reporting. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16891484
101. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). The Future of Journalism in the AI Era. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16891431
102. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Shaping Perception: The Role of Algorithms in News Consumption and Information Dissemination. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16891266
103. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). The Role of Citizen Journalism: Empowerment and Credibility Challenges. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16860884
104. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). POLITICS AS A PROFESSION OF CORRUPTION VS. SOCIAL WORK AS ACADEMIC PURSUIT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF BANGLADESH’S GOVERNANCE AND CIVIC CULTURE. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16860495
105. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2024). SECULARISM, ATHEISM, AND THEISM IN BANGLADESH: HISTORICAL EVOLUTION, SOCIAL DYNAMICS, AND CONTEMPORARY DEBATES. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16790798
106. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Shah’s Note on Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Society: Ethical, Economic, and Social Dimensions of a Technological Transformation. In Intellectism Publisher (Vol. 1, Number 05). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16464851
107. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Beyond Earth: A Scientific and Strategic Examination of Space Exploration and the Mars Mission. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16465137
108. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). Shah’s Note on “Southeast Asia’s Development Dilemma: Democratic Aspirations and Modernization Realities”. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16465300
109. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2024). Shah’s note on the Policies for Energy and Climate Resilience: Building Clean Energy Infrastructure and Incentive Systems in Southeast Asia. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16547202
110. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2024). Shah’s Note on “Bridging the Gaps: A Policy Framework for Integrated Behavioral Health, Substance Abuse Intervention, and Maternal Healthcare Access in Rural Communities”. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16622518
111. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2024). LEGAL HARMONY AND TRANQUIL POLICY. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16657906
112. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). From Bismarck to Beveridge: Tracing the Foundations of the Welfare State. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16730455
113. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2025). BUILDING A SMART CITY IN BANGLADESH: POLICY, GOVERNANCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16786033
114. Jubaer, S. The Sovereignty Paradox: Reconciling Popular Sovereignty with Constitutional Constraint.
115. Shah Mohammad Omer Faruqe, J. (2026). Future Bangladesh: 31-Point Agenda for Change (বিএনপির ৩১ দফা) Vol-II. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19172834
116. Jubaer, S. (2026). SHAH JUBAER’S THEORY ON HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LAW. Eureka Journal of Humanities and Social Research, 2(1), 128-150.
117. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Access to Justice and Legal Inclusion. Legal Concept. 10.5281/zenodo.19173132.
118. Jubaer, S. The Sovereignty Paradox: Reconciling Popular Sovereignty with Constitutional Constraint.
119. Jubaer, S. (2025). Beyond Earth: A Scientific and Strategic Examination of Space Exploration and the Mars Mission. Sci-Tech Journal, 10.
120. Jubaer, S. The Future of Journalism in the AI Era.
121. Jubaer, S. (2017). An Indispensable Analogy of Specific Performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1877 of Bangladesh. Shah Jubaer. pdf. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences.
122. Jubaer, S. (2021). THE CRIME, CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, AND EXTENDED CRIMINOLOGY: A CRITICAL SCRUTINY. International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research, 8(213221), 10-17605.
123. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. BASIC GUIDELINES TO COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: AN IDEOLOGICAL AND METHODICAL DISCUSSION.
124. Jubaer, S. Anti-Corruption & Transparency in Southeast Asia.
125. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. Research Project on:” An Effective association between the Constitution and Constitutionalism to set up a Constitutional Government.
126. Jubaer, S., & Hoque, L. (2019). The Democracy or a system of elected representation: Analytical affinities and trivialities.
127. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. Notes on the Conflict and choice of Laws.
128. Jubaer, S. Shaping Perception: The Role of Algorithms in News Consumption and Information Dissemination.
129. Jubaer, S. Digital Governance & Regulation of AI in the Gen-Z Era.
130. Jubaer, S. M. O. F., & Hoque, L. (2021). Right Realism and the Realist Criminology: the American Criminologist’s Approach. JournalNX, 7(06), 199-212.
131. Jubaer, S. Evidence-Based Policymaking: Assessing Its Relevance and Application in National Governance Systems.
132. Jubaer, S. Philosophy for Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha: A New Conceptual Framework.
133. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. WELFARE AT A CROSSROADS: CHALLENGES, REFORMS, AND THE ROAD AHEAD.
134. Jubaer, S. M. O. F., & Ahmed, J. Deficiency in Evidence Law Concerning Technological and Expert Support. JournalNX, 7(05), 1-10.
135. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. 21ST CENTURY IS AN ERA OF ISRAELI VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM UNDER LEGAL OBSERVATIONS AND OBLIGATIONS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY.
136. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. The Criminal Justice and Forensic Criminology: A Basic Rule.
137. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. The of Artificial intelligence and Isaac Asimov’s three laws of advanced mechanics in the United State of America.
138. Jubaer, S. (2026). Confucianism, Hindu Nationalism, and Islamism: Comparative Political Ideologies in Contemporary Asian States. Chinese Studies in History, 10.
139. Jubaer, S. (2025). The Evolution of Cybersecurity Law: Global Approaches to Combating Cybercrime. Artium Quaestiones, 10.
140. Jubaer, S. (2025). Nationalism and Globalization: Reconciling Sovereignty with Transnational Norms. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 10.
141. Jubaer, S. (2025). Constitutionalism as a Moral Project: Between Legal Authority and Political Obligation. Journal du Conseil-Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 10.
142. Jubaer, S. (2025). Constitutionalism in Crisis: Analyzing the Erosion of Democratic Norms in Comparative Perspective. CONSTITUO Journal of State and Political Law Research, 10.
143. Jubaer, S. (2015). Argument to Legal decisions in terms of establishing criminal justice under the criminal court system of Bangladesh. Criminal law bulletin.
144. Jubaer, S. (2025). Corruption, Accountability, and Legal Enforcement: Evaluating Anti-Corruption Mechanisms. Asian Migrant, 10.
145. Jubaer, S. (2025). Shah Jubaer’s ideological views and his contributions to legal and social‑justice reform in Bangladesh.
146. Hoque, L., Jubaer, S., & Jubaer, S. (2019). Human Rights and the worldwide policy framework: An analytical approach. The International Journal of Human Rights.
147. Jubaer, S. (2025). Bangladesh First Principle’: Tarique Rahman’s Political Governance Philosophy. Intellect XXІ.
148. Jubaer, S. (2026). Bangladesh Nationalist Party: 16th Reform Agenda. Zenodo.
149. Jubaer, S. (2026). Bangladesh Nationationalist Party: 13th Reform Agenda.
150. Jubaer, S. (2026). The Sovereignty Paradox: Reconciling Popular Sovereignty with Constitutional Constraint. Zenodo.
151. Jubaer, S. (2018). A Plain and sample narration of the Criminology. Criminal Justice Review, 10.
152. Jubaer, S. (2026). The Dynamics of Policy Formulation: How Ideas. Interests, and Institutions Shape State Policies, 10.
153. Jubaer, S. (2025). The Role of Bureaucracy and Expertise in Shaping National Policy Agendas. POLICY RESEARCH, 10.
154. Jubaer, S. (2021). BASIC GUIDELINES TO COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: AN IDEOLOGICAL AND METHODICAL DISCUSSION. 10.17605/OSF. IO/X42KC.
155. Jubaer, S. (2018). Public Interest Litigation and availability of justice in Bangladesh: A legal overview.
156. Jubaer, S. (2017). Legal decisions in terms of the criminal court system. Criminal law bulletin, 10.
157. Jubaer, S. (2016). The ideological Elements and methodical Structure of the constitution of Bangladesh.
158. Jubaer, S. (2020). An Effective association between the Constitution and Constitutionalism to set up a Constitutional Government.
159. Jubaer, S. (2019). The method of findings the Criminal Intention and the consequential outcome of a crime: A basic Guideline towards criminal law practitioners.
160. Jubaer, S. (2018). The rationalization theme, action and Bureaucracy in Socialism.
161. Jubaer, S. (2018). Natural Justice and duty to act fairly under Administrative Law: A comparative discussion.
162. Jubaer, S. (2016). Principles of International Labour Laws adopted in Labour Law of Bangladesh.
163. Jubaer, S. (2018). The specific performance and specific Relief Act.
164. Jubaer, S. (2019). Ideological manifestation of Socialism: Andrew Heywood observation.
165. Jubaer, S. (2018). A basic guidelines to apply Human Rights: comparative approach under comparative constitutional law.
166. Jubaer, S. (2019). The pragmatic morality and principle of Natural Justice: A negative legal construction.
167. Jubaer, S. (2020). Comparative Constitutional Law.
168. Jubaer, S. (2026). Judicial Independence and Court Reform in the Modern Era. Zenodo.
169. Jubaer, S. (2026). Anti-Corruption & Transparency in Southeast Asia. Zenodo.
170. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Ethics Beyond Consensus: Designing AI Normative Frameworks for Pluralistic and Conflict-Prone Societies. The International journal of artificial organs. 3.
171. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). From Data Sovereignty to Algorithmic Sovereignty: Reimagining Global Governance under Intelligent Infrastructure. Trends in Artificial Intelligence.
172. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Silent Compliance: Challenges of Law-Abiding Developing States under Superpower Hegemony. Law & Border. 2.
173. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). The Structural and Institutional Failures of Politics and Politicians in Bangladesh. Journal of Politics and Democracy. 10.5281/zenodo.18809875.
174. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Human Rights Protection in Crisis Situations in Developing Countries. Journal of Law Human Rights Immigration and Corrections. 10.5281/zenodo.18809820.
175. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). The Role of Forensic Evidence in Securing Convictions.
176. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). The Dynamics of Genius.
177. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). The Idea of a Constitution: Ontology and Normativity in Constitutional Philosophy. Constitution Journal. 10.5281/zenodo.18736459.
178. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Constitutionalism and the Nature of the Rule of Law: From Formal Legality to Moral Legitimacy. 10.5281/zenodo.17585111.
179. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Constitutional Identity and the Limits of Constitutional Change. 10.5281/zenodo.17451483.
180. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Rationality vs. Politics in National Policy Design: Analyzing the Decision-Making Process. POLICY RESEARCH. 10.5281/zenodo.18436778.
181. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). The Dynamics of Policy Formulation: How Ideas, Interests, and Institutions Shape State Policies. 10.5281/zenodo.18407161.
182. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). The Role of Bureaucracy and Expertise in Shaping National Policy Agendas. POLICY RESEARCH. 10.5281/zenodo.17677427.
183. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Constitutionalism as a Moral Project: Between Legal Authority and Political Obligation. Journal du Conseil – Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer. 10.5281/zenodo.17585169.
184. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Blue Economy and Maritime Governance Laws. 2. 10.5281/zenodo.19433283.
185. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Tarique Rahman’s Agricultural Development Theory: Empowering Farmers through the Farmer’s Card. 10.5281/zenodo.17518189.
186. Jubaer, Shah. (2026). Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence in Legal Systems. 7. 10.5281/zenodo.19377359.
187. Jubaer, Shah. (2025). Constitutional Interpretation: A Comparative Study of Originalism and Living Constitution Theories. CONSTITUO Journal of State and Political Law Research. 10.5281/zenodo.17498100.

Shah, J. (2026, April 3). Artificial Intelligence, Regulation, and Separation of Powers. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19393305