Preview

BRICS Law Journal

Advanced search

IS THE BRICS NEW DEVELOPMENT BANK A FLEDGLING ALTERNATIVE TO THE WORLD BANK?

https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-3-6-34

Full Text:

Abstract

In 2001, the world began talking about BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India and China – as a potential powerhouse in the world economy. After the 2008 international financial crisis, BRIC gained prominent momentum and the world saw them as a serious actor to be watched. Today, BRICS (South Africa became a member of the bloc in 2010) are being closely watched because there is no certainty as to their future.

The Shanghai-based New Development Bank was launched in this context and in answer to the institutional crisis that the world observed with concern when US-guided international economic institutions could not lead the way out of the 2008 crisis and into recovery.

While each country around the globe lives its own domestic reality, the Trump phenomenon in the United States has erupted on the international stage and is proving to lead the still largest economy in the world onto the opposite path of the one set by the United Nations in its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

These events as well as the roles played by the UN and the G20 are the subject of this article. They are analyzed in order to provide a framework from which to answer the following questions: Is the Shanghai-based New Development Bank a fledgling alternative to the World Bank, and are the BRICS a possible alternative to a more cooperative future? 

About the Author

A. Vazquez
University of Buenos Aires
Argentina

Professor of International Law,

1712 Belgrano Av., Buenos Aires, C1093AAS



References

1. Barry F. et al. Policy Coherence for Development: Five Challenges, 21 Irish Studies in International Affairs 207 (2010).

2. Beausang F. Globalization and the BRICs: Why the BRICs Will Not Rule the World For Long (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

3. Gladun E. BRICS Global Perspectives, 4(1) BRICS Law Journal 100 (2017).

4. Haque I., Burdescu R. Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development: ResponseSought from International Economic Law, 27(2) Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 219 (2004).

5. Marino R. The Future BRICS: A Synergistic Economic Alliance or Business as Usual? (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).

6. Munslow B. & Fitzgerald P. South Africa: The Sustainable Development Challenge, 15(2) Third World Quarterly 227 (1994).

7. Pauwelyn J. et al. When Structures Become Shackles: Stagnation and Dynamics in International Lawmaking, 25(3) European Journal of International Law 733 (2014).

8. Shihata I.F.I. The World Bank’s Protection and Promotion of Children’s Rights, 4 International Journal of Children’s Rights 383 (1996).

9. Steinbach A. The Trend towards Non-Consensualism in Public International Law: A(Behavioural) Law and Economics Perspective, 27(3) European Journal of International Law 643 (2016).

10. Thakur R. How Representative are BRICS?, 35(10) Third World Quarterly 1791 (2014).

11. Winchester B. Emerging Global Environmental Governance, 16(1) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 7 (2009).


For citation:


Vazquez A. IS THE BRICS NEW DEVELOPMENT BANK A FLEDGLING ALTERNATIVE TO THE WORLD BANK?. BRICS Law Journal. 2017;4(3):6-34. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-3-6-34

Views: 541


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2409-9058 (Print)
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)