Abstract
The new Industrial Revolution, triggered by the widespread adoption of digital technologies and solutions, has fundamentally changed the global agenda. Emerging challenges require multilateral solutions. At this point, a key challenge for international cooperation is the creation of a comprehensive regime to address key issues related to digital growth, including building trust and stakeholder competencies. The future configuration of the global digital governance system remains a matter of debate as it is being developed simultaneously on multiple platforms, including international organizations—the United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and others—and international forums such as the G20 and BRICS. This chapter examines the potential of the BRICS grouping to shape the global digital governance regime. At the time of its creation, BRICS was a simple association of fast-growing economies. A decade later, it emerged as an effective cooperation mechanism with an established identity and a high level of internal consolidation, capable of both coordinating and implementing decisions in various areas, not limited to macroeconomic policy issues, despite the crises. In this study, we set out to describe BRICS’s role in the changing global digital environment, considering its record as a cooperative mechanism, its established identity and the impact of external factors. We will start with the need for a global digital economy governance regime, the role of informal institutions in this process and analyse the state of research on BRICS’s role in digital governance. Then we will look at the performance of BRICS and draw conclusions about its role in shaping the digital economy governance regime. We rely on an original methodology for identifying, monitoring and assessing the level of implementation of BRICS’s multilateral, politically binding decisions adopted over the course of a decade-plus of cooperation. In this chapter, we will analyse the declared priorities of the BRICS countries on global digital governance, especially cybersecurity, e-commerce, etc., applying discourse analysis to identify existing contradictions. Finally, we will draw conclusions about the current challenges and prospects for BRICS’s involvement in shaping the global digital economy governance regime.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Among the existing levers, we can identify internet standards policy regulation mechanisms developed by organizations under the auspices of the Internet Society; the emerging World Trade Organization trade regime for digital goods and services; the European Union digital user data regulation regime; the telecommunications network management regime based on the recommendations of the International Telecommunication Union; and the intellectual property protection regime of the World Intellectual Property Organization. A regime to regulate the responsible behaviour of states in cyberspace is currently in development, the principles of which have been elaborated by the United Nations through the Group of Governmental Experts and the Open-Ended Working Group. This list is not exhaustive, covering only the largest problem areas that have been studied in the academic literature.
- 2.
See recent reports on the implementation of the BRICS collective commitments made in 2020–2021, i.e. in the context of the global economic downturn associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (BRICS Research Group, CIIR, 2020, 2021). The average estimated compliance rates in key areas were 80% and 77%, respectively.
- 3.
With some reservations due to the broad subject area of the concepts considered, the author of this chapter understands the concepts of “cyberspace” and “digital economy” as interchangeable.
- 4.
This aspect of the problem is highlighted in publications on the position of developing countries regarding data localization and the topic of the “new digital colonialism.” See, for example Mukhopadhyay (2020).
- 5.
A conditional temporal boundary between the “classical” theory of regimes and the theory of complex regimes can be drawn in the mid-1990s. The new concept emerged as a response to the difficulties encountered by the theory of regimes in explaining the behaviour of international actors in dealing with climate policy and the emerging problems associated with the development of digital technology and the internet. The theory of complex international regimes differs from the “classical” version in that it pays more attention to the study of the mechanisms that form the basic units of any international regime—norms, rules, principles and procedures. According to Matthew Hoffmann (2006), the integrated approach better explains the complex nature of the relationships that arise between different specialized regimes. The comprehensive approach also assumes that actors and regime rules continuously influence each other and, therefore, are constantly changing through mutual influences and self-organizing actions.
- 6.
As of 2014, referred to as the “Group of Seven.”
- 7.
The Global Governance Group is an association of 30 states led by Singapore. See, for example Cooper and Momani (2014).
- 8.
The key distinguishing feature of these formats is the absence of the basic attributes of international organizations: a charter and a permanent secretariat.
- 9.
A similar trend is also observed in studies on outside issues, such as the economic cooperation of the BRICS countries (Cooper, 2022: 31).
- 10.
The BRICS does not make legally binding decisions and does not create special mechanisms to monitor the implementation of decisions that are fixed in high-level documents—leaders’ declarations, strategies and joint action plans, etc. The methodology of expert assessment of the level at which decisions are implemented is based on the fact that politically binding statements of intent (hereinafter referred to as commitments) can be found in the texts of the final documents of informal governance institution. During the monitoring period between the summits, the BRICS countries should take steps that are consistent with the content of the agreed statement of intent. As a result of the monitoring, a verdict is given on the full or partial implementation of the obligation, or on the lack of steps recorded by the member state to comply with it. The final scores are converted into a percentage format for ease of comprehension and comparison. For more detail, see Global Governance Program (2020).
- 11.
Of course, a more in-depth analysis of the level of compliance should take the nature of the commitments selected for monitoring into account. It is quite telling that decisions of a more general nature, such as the development of an open, safe, stable, accessible and peaceful digital environment (2021), are better implemented than commitments related to the development of the capacity of the BRICS’s cooperation institutions, in particular the BRICS Working Group on Digital Economy (2019).
- 12.
An updated version for 2021–2024 was presented in 2021 during India’s presidency (BRICS, 2021b).
- 13.
The concept of weak and strong digital sovereignty was discussed in a review paper by Stéphane Couture and Sophie Toupin (2020). In analysing approaches to the definition of digital sovereignty, Couture and Toupin refer to the concept of “data sovereignty,” defining weak sovereignty as attempts by private companies to protect data with a particular focus on digital rights, and strong sovereignty as public policies designed to protect national security. In their review, Couture and Toupin refer to the work of Polatin-Reuben and Wright (2014).
- 14.
A commitment was made in Xiamen in 2017 to encourage collaborative research in these areas: “We will enhance joint BRICS research, development and innovation in ICT including the Internet of Things, Cloud computing, Big Data, Data Analytics, Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and 5G” (BRICS, 2017). This commitment has been fully met by the BRICS countries (BRICS Research Group, CIIR, 2018).
- 15.
The decision by Brazil and Russia to “swap places” in the line of presidencies breaks the established five-year cycle (TASS, 2020).
- 16.
A Roadmap for Brazil's Membership has now been agreed upon (OECD, 2022).
References
Arts, B. (2000). Regimes, Non-State Actors and the State System. European Journal of International Relations, 6(4), 513–542.
Axelrod, R., & Keohane, R. (1985). Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. World Politics, 38(1), 226–254.
Belli, L. (Ed.). (2021). CyberBRICS. Cybersecurity Regulations in the BRICS Countries. Springer.
BRICS. (2017). BRICS Leaders Xiamen Declaration. http://english.scio.gov.cn/m/topnews/2017-09/05/content_41531768.htm. Accessed 09 Dec 2022.
BRICS. (2020a). BRICS Counter Terrorism Strategy. https://eng.brics-russia2020.ru/images/114/81/1148168.pdf. Accessed 09 Dec 2022.
BRICS. (2020b). XII BRICS Summit Moscow Declaration. https://eng.brics-russia2020.ru/images/114/81/1148126.pdf. Accessed 09 Dec 2022.
BRICS. (2021a). BRICS Counter Terrorism Action Plan. https://brics2021.gov.in/brics/public/uploads/docpdf/getdocu-52.pdf. Accessed 09 Dec 2022.
BRICS. (2021b). BRICS Working Group on Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Partnership (STIEP WG). https://www.ranepa.ru/ciir/briks/predsedatelstva/briks-indiyskoe-predsedatelstvo-2021-g/BRICS%20Action%20Plan%20on%20Science,%20Technology,%20Innovation%20and%20Entrepreneurship%20Partnership.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2022.
BRICS Research Group, CIIR. (2016). BRICS Ufa Summit Compliance Report. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/media/brics/analytics/2015-ufa-compliance.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2022.
BRICS Research Group, CIIR. (2017). BRICS Goa Summit Compliance Report. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/media/brics/2017/2016-goa-compliance%20(1).pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2022.
BRICS Research Group, CIIR. (2018). BRICS Xiamen Summit Compliance Report. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/media/brics/2017_xiamen_%D1%81ompliance.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2022.
BRICS Research Group, CIIR. (2020). BRICS Brasilia Summit Compliance Report. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/media/brics/2019-brasilia-final-compliance.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2022.
BRICS Research Group, CIIR. (2021). 2020 BRICS Moscow Summit Final Compliance Report. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/media/brics/2020-moscow-final-compliance.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2022.
BRICS Research Group, CIIR. (2022). 2021 BRICS New Delhi Summit Compliance Report. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/media/brics/2021/%D0%91%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%9A%D0%A1.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2022.
Bukht, R., & Heeks, R. (2018). Defining, Conceptualising and Measuring the Digital Economy (Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy). International Organisations Research Journal, 13(2), 143–172 (in Russian and English). https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2018-02-07
Bulatnikova, A. (2015). E-Commerce in the WTO: Prospects for Harmonizing the Negotiating Mandate. https://tradepol.hse.ru/news/168044506.html. Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Cooper, A. F. (2022). Reframing the Debate over BRICS Beyond Its Conceptual Origins. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy, 17(2), 31–49 (in Russian and English). https://iorj.hse.ru/data/2022/10/21/1673514784/2%20Cooper.pdf
Cooper, A. F., & Momani, B. (2014). Re-balancing the G-20 from Efficiency to Legitimacy: The 3G Coalition and the Practice of Global Governance. Global Governance, 20(2), 213–232.
Couture, S., & Toupin, S. (2020). What Does the Notion of “Sovereignty” Mean When Referring to the Digital? Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy, 15(4), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2020-04-03
Efinger, M., & Zürn, M. (1990). Explaining Conflict Management in East-West Relations: A Quantitative Test of Problem-Structural Typologies. In V. Rittberger (Ed.), International Regimes in East-West Politics. Pinter.
Fay, R. (2019). Digital Platforms Require a Global Governance Framework. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/digital-platforms-require-global-governance-framework/
G20. (2019a). G20 AI Principles. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/News_ciir/Project/G20_new_downloadings/G20_AI_Principles.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2022.
G20. (2019b). Osaka Declaration on Digital Economy. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2019/osaka_declaration_on_digital_economy_e.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2022.
G20. (2019c). Osaka Leaders’ Statement on Preventing Exploitation of the Internet for Terrorism and Violent Extremism Conducive to Terrorism and Terrorist Activities. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/News_ciir/Project/G20_new_downloadings/G20_OSAKA_LEADERS_STATEMENT_ON_PREVENTING_EXPLOITATION_OF_THE_INTERNET_FOR_TERRORISM.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2022.
G20. (2021a). G20 Policy Options to Enhance Regulatory Frameworks for Remote Working Arrangements and Work Through Digital Platforms. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/media/g20/italyanskoe-predsedatelstvo-2021/G20-2021-LEM-Annex3_PolicyOprionsRemoteWork.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2022.
G20. (2021b). G20 Policy Examples on How to Enhance the Adoption of AI by MSMEs and Start-Ups. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/media/g20/italyanskoe-predsedatelstvo-2021/Annex1_DECLARATION-OF-G20-DIGITAL-MINISTERS-2021_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2022.
G20. (2021c). G20 Guidelines for Financing and Fostering High-Quality Broadband Connectivity for a Digital World. https://www.ranepa.ru/images/media/g20/italyanskoe-predsedatelstvo-2021/G20-Guidelines-for-Financing-and-Fostering-High-Quality-Broadband-Connectivity-for-a-Digital-World.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2022.
Global Governance Program. (2020). Compliance Coding Manual for International Institutional Commitments. University of Toronto. http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/compliance/Compliance_Coding_Manual_2020.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2022.
Grieco, J. (1988). Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507.
Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., & Rittberger, V. (1996). Interests, Power, Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes. Mershon International Studies Review, 40(2), 177–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/222775
Henriksen, A. (2019). The End of the Road for the UN GGE Process: The Future Regulation of Cyberspace. Journal of Cybersecurity, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyy009
Hoffmann, J. M. (2006). Beyond Regime Theory Complex Adaptation and the Ozone Depletion Regime. In N. E. Harrison (Ed.), Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm (pp. 95–120). State University of New York Press.
Ignatov, A. A. (2020). The Digital Economy of BRICS: Prospects for Multilateral Cooperation. Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsiy, 15(1), 31–62. (in Russian and English).
Ignatov, A. A. (2022). The BRICS Agenda on Internet Governance. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy, 17(2), 86–109 (in Russian and English). https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-04.
Inshakova, E. I., & Mitrofanova, I. V. (2020). BRICS Digital Economy Development: Status and Priorities. Ekonomika: vchera, segodnya, zavtra (The Economy: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow), 10(2A), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.34670/AR.2020.50.73.034
Keohane, R. (1982). The Demand for International Regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 325–355.
Keohane, R. (1998). International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work? Foreign Policy, 110, 82–96.
Keohane, R., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23.
Kimmelman, G. (2019). The Right Way to Regulate Digital Platforms. https://shorensteincenter.org/the-right-way-to-regulate-digital-platforms/. Accessed 27 Nov 2022.
Krasner, S. (1982). Regimes and the Limits of Realism: Regimes as Autonomous Variables. International Organization, 36(2), 49–510.
Krasner, S. (1991). Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier. World Politics, 43(3), 336–366.
Kuzmin, V. A., & Portansky, A. P. (2022). The Impact of the Global Technology Divide on Leadership in the World Economy Using Examples from a Number of Developed and Developing Countries. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy, 17(4) (in Russian and English). https://doi.org/10.17323/19967845-2022-04-06
Larionova, M. V., Ignatov, A. A., Popova, I. M., Sakharov, A. G., & Shelepov, A. V. (2020). Ten Years of BRICS. What’s Next? Delo.
Larionova, M., & Shelepov, A. (2021). Emerging Regulation for the Digital Economy: Challenges and Opportunities for Multilateral Global Governance. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy, 16(1), 29–63 (in Russian and English). https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-01-02
Larionova, M., & Shelepov, A. (2022). BRICS, G20 and global economic governance reform. International Political Science Review, 43(4), 512–530.
Morozkina, A. (2020). Regional Perspective of Digitalization in BRICS. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy, 15(4), 70–90 (in Russian and English). https://iorj.hse.ru/data/2021/04/01/1386890262/Morozkina.pdf
Mueller, M. (2014). Detaching Internet Governance from the State: Globalizing the IANA. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. International Engagement on Cyber IV, 35–44.
Mueller, M., Mathiason, J., & Klein, H. (2007). The Internet and Global Governance: Principles and Norms for a New Regime. Global Governance, 13(2), 237–254.
Mukhopadhyay, A. (2020). E-commerce Trade and Data Localization: A Developing Country Perspective. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy, 15(3), 153–175 (in Russian and English). https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2020-03-06
Nye, J. S. (2014). The regime complex for managing global cyber activities. Global Commission on Internet Governance.
OECD. (2022). Roadmap for the OECD Accession Process of Brazil. https://www.oecd.org/latin-america/Roadmap-OECD-Accession-Process-brazil-EN.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Polatin-Reuben, D., & Wright J. (2014, August 18). An Internet with BRICS Characteristics: Data Sovereignty and the Balkanisation of the Internet. Presented at the 4th USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet. https://www.usenix.org/conference/foci14/workshopprogram/presentation/polatin-reuben. Accessed 28 Nov 2022.
Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–425.
Ruggie, J. G. (1992). Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution. International Organization, 46(3), 561–598.
Shelepov, A. (2022). The Influence of the G20’s Digitalization Leadership on Development Conditions and Governance of the Digital Economy. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy, 17(1), 96–113 (in Russian and English). https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-01-04
Snidal, D. (1985). Coordination Versus Prisoners’ Dilemma: Implications for International Cooperation and Regimes. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 923–942. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956241
Stein, A. (1983). Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World. International Regimes, 36(2), 115–140.
Strovel, A., & Vergote, W. (2016). Digital Platforms: To Regulate or Not to Regulate? https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2016-7/uclouvain_et_universit_saint_louis_14044.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2022.
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., & Lundgren, M. (2016). The Performance of International Organizations: A Policy Output Approach. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1162834
TASS. (2020). Russia’s Next BRICS Chairmanship Will Be in 2024. https://tass.ru/politika/10014671. Accessed 28 Nov 2022.
The Economic Times. (2011). Internet Creates 2.4 Jobs for Every Job It Destroys: McKinsey. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/internet-creates-2-4-jobs-for-every-job-it-destroys-mckinsey/articleshow/8586070.cms?from=mdr. Accessed 21 Nov 2022.
Wendt, A. (1994). Collective Identity Formation and the International State. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 384–396.
Wendt, A., & Duvall, R. (1989). Institutions and International Order. In E. O. Czempiel & Rosenau, J. N. (Eds.), Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s (pp. 51–73). Lexington Books.
WTO. (2019). The E-Commerce Moratorium and Implications for Developing Countries. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=254770,254764,254708,254719,254575,254574,254577,254349,254248,254192&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=2&FullTextHash=237161575&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True. Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Young, O. R. (1990). Global Environmental Change and International Governance. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19(3), 337–346.
Young, O. R. (2008). The Architecture of Global Environmental Governance: Bringing Science to Bear on Policy. Global Environmental Politics, 8(1), 14–32.
Young, O. R. (1986). International Regimes: Toward a New Theory of Institutions. World Politics, 39(1), 104–122.
Zinovyeva, E. S., & Ignatov, A. A. (2023). Cybersecurity in the BRICS. International Processes (forthcoming).
Zürn, M., Wolf, K. D., & Efinger, M. (1990). Problemfelder und Situationsstrukturen in der Analyse internationaler Politik: eine Brücke zwischen den Polen. Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen (pp. 151–174). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ignatov, A. (2023). Global Governance of Cyberspace: The BRICS Agenda. In: Baykov, A., Zinovieva, E. (eds) Digital International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3467-6_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3467-6_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-3466-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-3467-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)