Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

1-27

The BRICS countries and the

international gender equality agenda

Os países do BRICS e a agenda

internacional da igualdade de gênero

Los países del BRICS y la agenda

internacional de igualdad de género

DOI: 10.21530/ci.v19n3.2024.1421

Laerte Apolinário Júnior

Letícia Fructuoso

Abstract

This article

analyzes the BRICS’ stance on the issue of gender

equality (SDG 5) within the 2030 Agenda, focusing on their

positions in annual summits and the UN Human Rights Council

between 2015 and 2022. Despite their criticism of the liberal

economic order, the BRICS generally support the gender equality

agenda, with an emphasis on issues such as violence prevention

and human trafficking. However, China and Russia oppose topics

like gender identity and sexuality, highlighting resistance to Western

liberal views and a diversity of perspectives within the group

regarding the promotion of Human Rights.

Keywords: BRICS, Gender Equality, Sustainable Development,

SDG 5, Human Rights Council.

1 Doutor em Ciência Política pela Universidade de São Paulo (DCP-USP). Professor

de Relações Internacionais da PUC-SP. (lapolinario@pucsp.br). ORCID: https://

orcid.org/0000-0002-8326-4428.

2 Bacharel em Relações Internacionais pela PUC-SP. Pós-Graduanda em Marketing

pela USP ESALQ. (leticiafruc5@gmail.com). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-

0003-1928-4023.

3 We thank the Research Incentive Plan of the Pontifical Catholic University of São

Paulo (PIPEQ/PUCSP) for funding this research. Grant/Award Number: 29259.

Artigo submetido em 26/03/2024 e aprovado em 07/10/2024.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE

RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS

• This is an open-access

article distributed under

the terms of a Creative

Commons Attribution

License, which permits

unrestricted use,

distribution, and

reproduction in any

medium, provided that

the original author and

source are credited.

• Este é um artigo

publicado em acesso aberto

e distribuído sob os termos

da Licença de Atribuição

Creative Commons,

que permite uso irrestrito,

distribuição e reprodução

em qualquer meio, desde

que o autor e a fonte

originais sejam creditados.

ISSN 2526-9038

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

2-27

Resumo

Este artigo analisa o posicionamento dos BRICS sobre a temática da igualdade de gênero

(ODS 5) da Agenda 2030, focando em suas posturas em cúpulas anuais e no Conselho

de Direitos Humanos da ONU, entre 2015 e 2022. Apesar das críticas à ordem econômica

liberal, os BRICS, em geral, apoiam a agenda da igualdade de gênero, destacando temas

como prevenção da violência e tráfico de pessoas. No entanto, China e Rússia se opõem a

temas como identidade de gênero e sexualidade, evidenciando uma resistência às visões

liberais ocidentais e uma diversidade de perspectivas dentro do grupo sobre a promoção

dos Direitos Humanos.

Palavras-chave: BRICS, Igualdade de Gênero, Desenvolvimento Sustentável, ODS 5, Conselho

de Direitos Humanos.

Resumen

Este artículo analiza la postura de los BRICS sobre el tema de la igualdad de género (ODS 5)

de la Agenda 2030, centrándose en sus posiciones en las cumbres anuales y en el Consejo

de Derechos Humanos de la ONU, entre 2015 y 2022. A pesar de las críticas al orden

económico liberal, los BRICS, en general, apoyan la agenda de igualdad de género, con

énfasis en temas como la prevención de la violencia y el tráfico de personas. Sin embargo,

China y Rusia se oponen a temas como la identidad de género y la sexualidad, lo que

pone de manifiesto una resistencia a las visiones liberales occidentales y una diversidad de

perspectivas dentro del grupo en lo que respecta a la promoción de los Derechos Humanos.

Palabras clave: BRICS, Igualdad de Género, Desarrollo Sostenible, ODS 5, Consejo de

Derechos Humanos.

Introduction

Gender equality has gained increasing prominence on the international agenda

over recent decades, particularly within the United Nations (UN) framework.

The UN plays a key role in this area by drafting international documents and

developing commissions and conventions to address the issue. One example is

the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), established in 1946, which

is responsible for organizing the international agenda on this topic (Guarnieri

2010). The institutionalization of this debate gained ground with the adoption

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

3-27

of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which was established during

the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in 2015, mainly through

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5, which aims to address structural gender

inequality (United Nations 2024b).

By adopting the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda, countries committed themselves

to implementing internal legal, political, economic, and social measures to achieve

the goals of this agenda by 2030. However, in the current context, many nations

face challenges in meeting the targets set by the UN, particularly regarding gender

equality (Sachs, Lafortune, and Fuller 2024). Among these countries are the BRICS

members Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, which have advocated

for reforms in the International System, especially in the international financial

architecture (Stuenkel 2017). Furthermore, these countries have shown interest

in bringing social issues to the global agenda, such as the fight against hunger

and poverty. However, they also face significant domestic challenges, particularly

regarding women’s protection and reducing gender inequality (Lobato 2018).

Recently, the group has returned to the spotlight due to its expansion initiatives

(The Economist 2023).

Uncertainties remain about the extent of convergence among BRICS members,

particularly outside the economic sphere (Rinaldi and Apolinário Júnior 2020;

Apolinário Júnior and Branco 2022). Human rights issues have been testing this

convergence, given the need for positioning within International Organizations

and the political and institutional heterogeneity of the member countries (Beeson

and Zeng 2018).

A prominent debate in the literature on this topic is whether the BRICS’

critique of the liberal economic order also extends to the international human

rights regime. In the West, the prevailing view is that the BRICS challenge the

economic, political, and cultural structures emanating from the U.S.-led West.

Thus, the rise of the BRICS, in general, and China, in particular, is perceived as

a challenge to Western liberal positions not only in economic and geopolitical

terms but also in promoting democracy and human rights (Lipton 2017).

However, some scholars argue that human rights are not inherently a Western

construct, as they have become fundamental global values shaped by contributions

from various civilizations. Moreover, there is no clear evidence that China and the

other BRICS countries oppose this agenda, suggesting that the rise of the BRICS

does not necessarily hinder the global expansion of the human rights agenda,

although it may undermine the West’s leadership role in this area (Subedi 2015).

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

4-27

This article contributes to this debate by analyzing the BRICS’ international

stance on the international gender equity agenda by examining their official

statements at the group’s summits and their voting behavior on UNHRC resolutions

between 2015 – the year the 2030 Agenda was institutionalized – and 2022. The

central question is: How do the BRICS countries position themselves internationally

regarding the gender equality agenda? The study has the following objectives:

i) to analyze the evolution of the gender equality agenda at the global level, with

a focus on the formulation of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs; ii) to investigate

the BRICS’ positions on human rights and gender equality based on their official

statements at the group’s summits; and iii) to examine how the BRICS countries

voted on UNHRC resolutions related to this issue.

Analyzing countries’ voting patterns on UNHRC resolutions provides a unique

opportunity to understand their stance on key human rights issues, including

gender equality. These votes reveal states’ formal commitments and the political

dynamics, regional alliances, and strategic interests that shape their positions.

In the case of gender equality, such examination allows for identifying trends

in support or resistance to policies related to this issue while highlighting how

certain countries reconcile their domestic agendas both with their international

responsibilities as well as perceptions.

The study’s conclusions indicate that while the BRICS countries, in the

economic sphere, seek to challenge Western hegemony and promote a multipolar

system, their approaches in the realm of human rights vary between formal

support and selective resistance. Although there is overall support for gender

equality, countries such as China and Russia show resistance to specific issues,

such as gender identity and sexual orientation, indicating tensions between

internal cultural norms and the liberal views emanating from the West.

The article is organized as follows: The next section addresses the evolution

of the gender equality agenda in the multilateral landscape, emphasizing the

formulation of SDG 5 within the context of the 2030 Agenda. Subsequently, it

examines how the BRICS have addressed the human rights agenda and gender

issues at their summits over the past decades. Then, it portrays an empirical

analysis comparing the positions of these countries in discussions related to this

topic at the UNHRC. Finally, the last section presents the main conclusions of

the study.

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

5-27

International Agenda on Gender Equality, the 2030 Agenda,

and SDG 5

Although the first international conferences on women’s rights date back to

the 1970s4, with the establishment of the Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979, gender issues gained

greater prominence on the international agenda in the 1990s. This period was

marked by significant declarations and conferences, such as Vienna

(1993), Cairo

(1994), and Beijing (1995), which focused on reproductive rights, demographics,

and women’s rights (Lindgren-Alves, 2018; Milani, 2014). In 1996, the UN

Secretary-General expressed concern over the discrimination faced by women

in Afghanistan, indicating a shift in international policy toward women’s rights

(Reanda, 1999). In the same year, the UN Commission on the Status of Women

established a working group that, in 1999, presented the Optional Protocol to

CEDAW, which was adopted by the General Assembly and came into effect in

2000 (OHCHR 2024b).

The transformations of this decade laid the groundwork for the formulation of

the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), agreed upon following the Millennium

Declaration in 2000. The third goal was to “Promote gender equality and empower

women” (United Nations 2024a). In 2010, the UN General Assembly approved

the establishment of UN Women, an entity focused on gender equality and

women’s empowerment, and in 2015, adopted the 17 Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030 Agenda, continuing the efforts of the MDGs.

Although SDG 5 (Table 1) focuses on achieving gender equality and empowering

all women and girls, nearly all SDGs include targets related to this theme. The

UN declaration emphasizes that justice, inclusion, and sustainable development

can only be achieved by ensuring the rights of women and girls (United

Nations 2024b).

4 The First World Conference on Women in 1975 led to the establishment of the United Nations Voluntary

Fund for the Decade for Women, which was later converted into the United Nations Development Fund for

Women (UNIFEM) in 1985, following the decision of the Third World Conference on Women. The Second

World Conference on Women took place in 1980, and the Third World Conference on Women was held in

1985 (UN Women, 2024).

5 Vienna Conference on Human Rights (1993); International Conference on Population and Development (1994);

World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen (1995); World Conference on Women (1995).

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

6-27

Table 1. Goals and Targets of SDG 5 – Achieve gender equality

and empower all women and girls

5.1 End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere

5.2 Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres,

including trafﬁcking and sexual and other types of exploitation

5.3 Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital

mutilation

5.4 Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services,

infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within

the household and the family as nationally appropriate

5.5 Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all

levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life

5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed

in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population

and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their

review conferences

5.a Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to

ownership and control over land and other forms of property, ﬁnancial services, inheritance

and natural resources, in accordance with national laws

5.b Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications

technology, to promote the empowerment of women

5.c Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender

equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels

Source: United Nations (2024b).

SDG 5 and its indicators represent a significant advancement by addressing

various gender-related issues, such as discrimination, violence against women,

and harmful practices (such as genital mutilation and child marriage), as

well as promoting political representation and access to economic resources.

However, despite these advancements, significant challenges remain, such as

the absence of targets focused on the sexual rights of the LGBTQIA+ population

(Giannini 2019).

Despite the institutional progress in gender equality globally, it is essential to

recognize the limitations of the UN’s efforts in this field. This study acknowledges

the constraints of the liberal framing of the international gender equality agenda.

Organizations such as the UN often perpetuate unequal power structures by

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

7-27

neglecting historical and cultural specificities, reinforcing neocolonial dynamics

(Souza and Selis 2023). It is also crucial to question the universality of human

rights, which often ignores the diverse experiences of gender and sexuality

(Peterson 1990). In particular, the critique of the dichotomy between universalism

and culturalism is essential to avoid simplifications (Freedman 2007). Thus,

this study argues that the evolution of the gender equality agenda should be

analyzed through critical approaches that challenge global power structures and

the epistemologies of International Political Economy (Murta 2023).

BRICS and the International Human Rights Agenda

A reorganization of forces in the international system, resulting from the

rise of the so-called emerging powers, marked the beginning of the 21st century

(Ikenberry 2018). The BRICS gained prominence in the global economy among

these countries as they presented consistent growth rates throughout this decade.

These countries sought closer diplomatic ties through the formalization of the

BRICS coalition and began demanding reforms in contemporary global governance

institutions (Rinaldi 2021; Stuenkel 2017).

BRICS emerged as an informal multilateral group formed by countries outside

the Global North. Institutionalized in 2009, following the first meeting of heads

of state, the bloc included South Africa in 2011. Since then, the group has held

annual meetings to deepen cooperation in various areas (Ramos et al 2018). The

BRICS’ international activities are characterized by a focus on reforms in the

global order, particularly in economic governance. BRICS members emphasize

the need for reforming Bretton Woods institutions and creating new sources of

development financing (Carmo 2011; Liu and Papa 2022).

These countries actively engage in the international human rights agenda,

having all ratified the establishment of the Human Rights Council (HRC) and

served as members of this organization at various times, elected through regional

candidacies. To become members of the HRC, countries must demonstrate their

dedication to promoting and protecting human rights while obtaining support

from their respective regions. The allocation of seats on the Council is based

on regional divisions: Africa (13 members), Asia-Pacific (13 members), Eastern

Europe (6 members), Latin America and the Caribbean (8 members), and Western

Europe and other States (7 members).

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

8-27

However, the initial summit declarations of the BRICS countries neglected

human rights and gender equality issues. The official declaration from the

summit in Yekaterinburg → in 2009 did not mention these topics (BRICS 2009).

Over the years, subsequent declarations began to address these issues. The first

instance in which human rights were discussed unrelated to conflicts occurred

at the fifth summit in Durban, South Africa, in 2013. During this summit, the

group expressed interest in cooperating in this area and commemorated the 20th

anniversary of the World Conference on Human Rights and its Vienna Declaration

(BRICS 2013). Since then, the declarations mention this subject, attaching it to

the right to development in a fair and equitable manner: “We agree to continue

to address all human rights, including the right to development, in a fair and

equitable manner, on an equal footing, and with the same emphasis” (BRICS

2014, 6). Additionally, in response to criticisms regarding human rights violations,

the group advocates for “the need to promote, protect, and fulfill human rights

in a non-selective, non-politicized, constructive manner, and without double

standards” (BRICS 2023, 2), emphasizing the role of the UN and the Human Rights

Council as central bodies in this regard. The most recent summit declaration,

held in 2023 in Johannesburg, South Africa, highlights:

(…) the central role of the UN in an international system in which sovereign

states cooperate to maintain peace and security, advance sustainable

development, ensure the promotion and protection of democracy, human

rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and promoting cooperation based

on the spirit of solidarity, mutual respect, justice and equality (BRICS

2023, 2).

Furthermore, BRICS members reiterate:

(…) the need for all countries to cooperate in promoting and protecting

human rights and fundamental freedoms under the principles of equality

and mutual respect. We agree to continue to treat all human rights including

the right to development in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing

and with the same emphasis. We agree to strengthen cooperation on issues

of common interests both within BRICS and in multilateral fora including

the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council, taking

into account the necessity to promote, protect and fulfill human rights in a

non-selective, non-politicised and constructive manner and without double

standards. We call for the respect of democracy and human rights. In this

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

9-27

regard, we underline that they should be implemented on the level of global

governance as well as at national level. We reaffirm our commitment to

ensuring the promotion and protection of democracy, human rights and

fundamental freedoms for all with the aim to build a brighter shared future

for the international community based on mutually beneficial cooperation

(BRICS 2023, 2).

Therefore, it is evident that human rights protection has become an integral

part of the BRICS agenda in recent years. Not only are these countries signatories

to the main international conventions aimed at safeguarding human rights, but

they have also articulated consistent positions in the official documents released

after their annual summits, advocating for the defense of human rights, albeit

with differing conceptions and understandings compared to Western nations.

Lipton (2017) argues that BRICS has played a significant role in advocating

for reforms within the global order dominated by the West, posing a challenge

to U.S.-led Western hegemony. Furthermore, BRICS’s ascension would represent

a challenge to liberal Western views regarding the promotion of democracy and

human rights. In this perspective, BRICS represents a threat to this agenda due

to its opposition to intervention doctrines originating from the West, such as

the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) (Oliveira, Uziel, and Rocha 2017; Rinaldi

and Pecequilo 2021), as well as to the policies exported from the West, often

marketed as “best practices”, mainly through the conditionalities attached to

external aid packages (Esteves et al. 2011; Rinaldi and Apolinário Júnior 2020).

Ferdinand (2014) demonstrates that within the United Nations General

Assembly (UNGA), the BRICS countries—in particular, Russia after Putin’s rise

to power, as well as China and India—express reluctance to support critiques of

other nation’s human rights records, emphasizing non-interference in internal

affairs. These countries consistently refrain from voting in favor of motions

that criticize the human rights records of foreign nations. In contrast, Brazil

has frequently voted in favor of resolutions that condemn the human rights

violations of other countries, particularly since its return to democracy in 1985.

Similarly, South Africa, following its post-apartheid transition in 1994, has also

been critical of human rights abuses in other regimes, although it tends to be

more cautious regarding its former allies in the anti-apartheid struggle.

A general perception is that the UN’s human rights agenda originates from

the West, with Western countries leveraging their intellectual capital and financial

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

10-27

power to promote human rights globally. There is a particular concern in the Global

North that the West’s geopolitical decline will adversely affect the international

human rights agenda (Subedi 2015; Lipton 2017).

Notwithstanding, this position faces several counterarguments. First, all

states, including the BRICS, have accepted the UN’s human rights agenda and

voluntarily submitted themselves to scrutiny by the Human Rights Council.

Second, while democracy and human rights protection have roots in Western

political thought, they represent a global concept enriched by similar notions

in various civilizations and regions, being dynamic and non-consensual. Third,

except for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, the most

prominent international human rights treaties were adopted after developing

countries achieved a majority in the UN General Assembly, including the 1966

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, developing

countries have adopted many of the subsequent instruments of hard and soft

law addressing self-determination, minority rights, equality, and the right to

development (Subedi 2015).

The BRICS nations, particularly China and Russia, often criticize the Western

conception of human rights, arguing that it reflects a hegemonic perspective that

overlooks the Global South’s cultural, political, and historical specificities (Foot

2024). According to this critique, the human rights promoted by Western powers

are used as tools for selective political and economic intervention, frequently

ignoring global structural inequalities (Mutua 2002). For BRICS members, this

instrumentalization serves NATO’s geopolitical interests, allowing human rights to

be invoked as a justification for military interventions or unilateral sanctions, as

seen in the recent cases of Libya and Syria (Rinaldi and Pecequilo 2021). Moreover,

the emphasis on a liberal interpretation of human rights, focused on civil and

political rights while neglecting economic and social rights, further reinforces

the BRICS’ criticisms, which advocate for a more balanced and contextually

aware approach (Rivers 2015).

Thus, neither the UN nor human rights are intrinsically Western or non-

Western. Human rights have evolved as fundamental global values within the

international community, with no evidence suggesting that China or other BRICS

countries oppose the universalization of this agenda. None of the BRICS resolutions

or documents indicate an intention to rewrite the principles of International

Law or alter the UN’s human rights agenda. In practice, these countries have

reaffirmed the foundational principles of the UN Charter, including the universality,

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

11-27

indivisibility, and interrelation of human rights. Therefore, while the rise of

BRICS countries, particularly China, may undermine the West’s role, it does not

necessarily compromise the essence of the ethos underlying the UN’s human

rights agenda (Subedi 2015).

BRICS and the Gender Equality agenda

Numerous instruments, treaties, declarations, and resolutions intersect to

promote gender equality on the international stage. One of the most prominent

is the 1979 “Universal Charter” for Women’s Rights, known as CEDAW, which,

along with SDG 5, establishes significant commitments to this cause. By

ratifying CEDAW, countries agree to eliminate discrimination against women

in all areas—legal, political, economic, social, and cultural—and to regularly

report to the United Nations on the steps they are taking to implement these

measures.

The five BRICS countries ratified CEDAW at different times: China was

the first, in 1980, followed by Russia (then the USSR) in 1981, Brazil in 1984,

India in 1993, and South Africa in 1995, after the end of apartheid. All BRICS

members signed the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995 during

the Fourth World Conference on Women. However, China and India have not

signed the Optional Protocol to CEDAW. Another key milestone in the international

gender agenda is the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking

in Persons, Especially Women and Children, known as the Palermo Protocol,

adopted in 2000. This document aims to strengthen international cooperation and

establish measures to prevent and combat trafficking while protecting victims.

All BRICS countries ratified the Protocol at different times (UN Treaty Body

Database 2024). Table 2 below provides the dates of BRICS’ adherence to each

agreement.

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

12-27

Table 2. BRICS and International Commitments to Gender Equality

Country

Convention on

the Elimination

of All Forms of

Discrimination

Against Women

(CEDAW)

Beijing

Declaration

and Platform

for Action

Optional Protocol

to the Convention

on the Elimination

of All Forms of

Discrimination

Against Women

(CEDAW)

Protocol to Prevent,

Suppress and Punish

Trafﬁcking in

Persons, Especially

Women and Children

Brazil Signature (1981) and

Ratiﬁcation (1984)

Signature

(1995)

Signature (2001) and

Ratiﬁcation (2002)

Signature (2000) and

Ratiﬁcation (2004)

Russia Signature (1980) and

Ratiﬁcation (1981)

Signature

(1995)

Signature (2001) and

Ratiﬁcation (2004)

Signature (2000) and

Ratiﬁcation (2004)

India Signature (1980) and

Ratiﬁcation (1993)

Signature

(1995) -Signature (2002) and

Ratiﬁcation (2011)

China Signature and

Ratiﬁcation (1980)

Signature

(1995) - Ratiﬁcation (2010)

South

Africa

Signature (1993) and

Ratiﬁcation (1995)

Signature

(1995)

Signature (2000) and

Ratiﬁcation (2005)

Signature (2000) and

Ratiﬁcation (2004)

Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on UN Treaty Body Database (2024).

The 3rd BRICS Summit, held in Sanya, China, in 2011, marked the first time

gender issues were explicitly mentioned in the group’s official declarations. At

this meeting, BRICS reaffirmed the commitment to dialogue and cooperation

within social protection, decent work, gender equity, public health, and the fight

against HIV/AIDS (BRICS 2011). Since then, the group’s official statements have

increasingly addressed gender-related issues. At the 6th Summit in Fortaleza,

Brazil, in 2014, the declaration highlighted BRICS’ commitment to tackling

social issues such as gender inequality, women’s rights, and youth, focusing

on ensuring sexual and reproductive health for all. These discussions led to the

creation of the BRICS Agenda for Cooperation on Population Issues, covering

topics like gender equality and violence against women, youth, and the elderly

(BRICS 2014). By the 8th Summit in Goa, India, in 2016, the BRICS Declaration

emphasized the group’s dedication to gender equity and the empowerment of

women and girls, aligning with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

(BRICS 2016). A significant initiative during this period was the establishment of

the BRICS Women Parliamentarians Forum in 2016, which developed strategies

to implement the 2030 Agenda (Lobato 2018).

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

13-27

The inclusion of these issues in BRICS summits complements the SDGs

and CEDAW by focusing on areas that are significant to the bloc, such as social

protection and populational issues. At the same time, it critiques the Western

model, which often prioritizes civil and political rights over economic and social

ones. This approach balances promoting women’s rights with the specific needs

of member countries, adapting global norms to local realities. In doing so, BRICS

not only supplements global efforts toward gender equality but also provides an

alternative to the universal application of human rights, promoting an approach

tailored to the contexts of developing countries (Lobato 2018).

As BRICS cooperation continues to evolve, there is a noticeable increase

in the emphasis on social issues within the group’s actions and initiatives,

particularly those related to gender. Consequently, the focus on social commitments

within BRICS has shifted from generic affirmations supporting social inclusion

to encompassing a wide array of contemporary social themes, such as poverty

alleviation, universal access to healthcare and education, food security, full

employment, decent work, human rights, and particularly, gender equality.

Beginning with the second cycle of summits, which started with the 6th Summit

in Fortaleza, working groups and collaborations in these strategic areas began

to take shape. However, the practical impact of these measures still needs to be

assessed (Lobato 2018).

Gender equality has gained prominence across all spheres of civil society. With

the introduction of Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG 5), the significance of

this topic has been amplified, particularly in the international arena, where it has

become a subject of more detailed discussion in voting sessions of international

bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The following section

analyzes how the BRICS countries have positioned themselves in these discussions,

examining their voting patterns concerning resolutions related to gender equality.

The BRICS countries and the gender equality agenda within

the UN Human Rights Council (HRC)

This study examined the BRICS countries’ votes on Human Rights Council

(HRC) resolutions related to the gender equality agenda from 2015 to 2022, using

the Universal Rights Group (URG) database, which compiles all resolutions since

2006. The HRC is a crucial forum for the debate and implementation of human

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

14-27

rights norms, reflecting the tensions between Western views and the positions

of developing countries, such as the BRICS (Universal Rights Group, 2024).

The elected members of the Human Rights Council (HRC) serve three-year

terms, with no immediate re-election allowed after two consecutive terms.

Between 2015 and 2022, Brazil was absent in 2016, Russia was absent in 2017,

2018, 2019, and 2020, and was suspended in April 2022. India was absent in

2018, China in 2020, and South Africa in 2020, 2021, and 2022 (OHCHR 2024a).

The research on the platform has identified 30 gender equality and women’s

rights resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council between 2015 and 2022,

following the establishment of the 2030 Agenda in 2015. Mid-year resolutions

have addressed the topic more frequently (Table 3 ). Additionally, the number

of resolutions on these issues has increased over the years. Since 2017, there

has been a pattern of approximately three annual resolutions related to gender.

Table 3. Resolutions from 2015 to 2022 on Gender Equality Issues

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total

Geral

MAR 1 1 2

HRC-40 1 1

HRC-49 1 1

JUN 2 6 3 2 3 2 2 5 25

HRC-29 2 2

HRC-32 6 6

HRC-35 3 3

HRC-38 2 2

HRC-41 3 3

HRC-44 2 2

HRC-47 2 2

HRC-50 5 5

SEP 1 2 3

HRC-36 1 1

HRC-45 2 2

Total 2 6 4 2 4 4 2 6 30

Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on Universal Rights Group (2024).

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

15-27

A significant portion of the analyzed resolutions addresses broad themes

such as: “Elimination of discrimination against women”, “Accelerating efforts to

eliminate violence against women and girls”, “Trafficking in persons, especially

women, and children: protection of victims of trafficking and those at risk of

trafficking”, and “Promotion, protection, and full guarantee of the human rights

of women and girls in humanitarian situations”.

This broad scope has led countries to vote in “consensus” on most of these

resolutions, as the commitment to gender equality and women’s rights is a

relevant criterion for election to the Human Rights Council. Table 4 presents the

votes of the five countries on the 30 analyzed resolutions.

Table 4. BRICS Votes on the 30 Analyzed Resolutions

 Brazil Russia India China South Africa

Consensus 21 924 22 16

In favor 3 1  1

Abstention  1 3 1 1

Against  1  3 

N/A*6 19 2 4 12

Total 30 30 30 30 30

Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on Universal Rights Group (2024).

Note: *Absence of vote due to non-membership in the Human Rights Council.

Additionally, of the 30 resolutions, eight focus on the “Elimination of

Discrimination Against Women”, highlighting the growing importance of this

issue in international discussions. The countries voted unanimously on these

resolutions, demonstrating a consensus on this matter (Table 5).

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

16-27

Table 5. Analysis of Votes on the Themes of Elimination of Violence Against Women

and Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

Year Resolution Theme Brazil Russia India China South

Africa

2015 HRC-29

Elimination of

discrimination

against women

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

2016 HRC-32

Elimination of

discrimination

against women

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

2017 HRC-35

Elimination of

discrimination

against women

and girls

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

2018 HRC-38

Elimination

of all forms of

discrimination

against women

and girls

Consensus Consensus Consensus

2019 HRC-40

Elimination of

discrimination

against women

and girls in sport

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

2019 HRC-41

Elimination

of all forms of

discrimination

against women

and girls

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

2020 HRC-44

Elimination

of all forms of

discrimination

against women

and girls

Consensus Consensus

2022 HRC-50

Elimination

of all forms of

discrimination

against women

and girls

Consensus Consensus Consensus

Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on Universal Rights Group (2024).

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

17-27

As gender issues have increasingly become a significant topic on the

international agenda, resolutions have begun to intersect gender with other

critical topics. In Resolution 32/17, adopted in July 2016, efforts concentrated

on the intersection between race and gender equality. The resolution proposed

to “address the impact of multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and

violence in the context of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related

intolerance on the full enjoyment of all human rights by women and girls.” It

recommended that States “develop and strengthen gender-sensitive multisectoral

policies and programs, involving sectors such as justice, health, social services,

education, and child protection, as well as relevant non-state actors, aimed at

promoting the human rights of women and girls affected by multiple forms

of racial discrimination, xenophobia, and intolerance”. Brazil was one of the

sponsors of this resolution, while Russia, India, China, and South Africa voted

in consensus (Universal Rights Group, 2024).

In the same Resolution 32, proposed by Canada, item 19 emphasizes efforts

to eliminate violence against women, with a specific focus on “preventing and

responding to violence against women and girls, including Indigenous women

and girls”. The voting and sponsorship patterns followed the trend previously

mentioned, involving various countries but without Brazil’s participation (Universal

Rights Group, 2024).

In Resolution 47, also proposed by Canada, item 15 reinforces efforts to

eliminate violence against women, highlighting the need to “prevent and respond

to violence against women and girls, including women and girls with disabilities”

(Universal Rights Group, 2024). In this case, the voting pattern shifts, with Brazil’s

participation instead of South Africa. This resolution indicates a growing effort

to eliminate inequalities affecting all women without discrimination based on

other forms of prejudice (Table 6).

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

18-27

Table 6. Resolutions that intersect gender issues with other subjects

Year Resolution Theme Brazil Russia India China South

Africa

2016 HRC-32

Addressing

the impact of

multiple and

intersecting forms

of discrimination

and violence in

the context of

racism, racial

discrimination,

xenophobia, and

related intolerance

on the full enjoyment

of all human rights

by women and girls

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

2016 HRC-32

Accelerating efforts

to eliminate violence

against women:

Preventing and

responding to

violence against

women and girls,

including indigenous

women and girls

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

2021 HRC-47

Accelerating efforts

to eliminate all

forms of violence

against women and

girls: preventing

and responding to

all forms of violence

against women and

girls with disabilities

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on Universal Rights Group (2024).

The issue of women frequently appears in resolutions related to combating

human trafficking. Between 2015 and 2022, three resolutions addressed this

subject. In each of these votes, one of the BRICS member countries was absent

due to not having been part of the Council at the time, while the other four

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

19-27

voted in consensus, as shown in Table 7. Combating human trafficking also

involves addressing sexual violence against women, especially considering that

the majority of victims are vulnerable women in Global South countries, including

the BRICS themselves. These resolutions also extend to the protection of children,

in addition to women.

Table 7. Votes on the issue of women trafficking

Year Resolution Theme Brazil Russia India China South

Africa

2016 HRC-32

Trafﬁcking in

persons, especially

women and children:

protecting victims

of trafﬁcking and

people at risk of

trafﬁcking, especially

women and children

in conﬂict and post-

conﬂict situations

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

2017 HRC-35

Mandate of the

Special Rapporteur

on trafﬁcking in

persons, especially

women and children

Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus

2020 HRC-44

Trafﬁcking in

persons, especially

women and children:

strengthening

human rights

through enhanced

protection, support,

and empowerment of

victims of trafﬁcking,

especially women

and children

Consensus Consensus

Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on Universal Rights Group (2024).

New issues have emerged in the documents, such as Resolution 38,

“Accelerating efforts to eliminate violence against women and girls: preventing

and responding to violence against women and girls in digital contexts”. This

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

20-27

resolution addresses the safety of women and girls in digital environments, ensuring

they can freely exercise their right to expression and participate in political,

economic, cultural, and social debates. Additionally, terms like ‘empowerment’

and ‘leadership’ are appearing more frequently, expanding beyond fundamental

rights such as health, education, and nationality to include property rights and the

promotion of political participation, among others (Universal Rights Group, 2024).

Another significant shift was the recognition of gender inequality as a

structural issue with historical origins, as mentioned in paragraph 35/10 of the

resolution entitled “Accelerating efforts to eliminate violence against women:

engaging men and boys in preventing and responding to violence against all

women and girls.” This resolution also highlights the role of men and boys in

fighting discrimination and violence, emphasizing the importance of education

and engagement in social struggles (Universal Rights Group, 2024).

According to the collected data, Brazil voted in consensus 70% of the time,

Russia 30%, India 80%, China 73%, and South Africa 53%. India had the highest

abstention rate, while Brazil was the country most frequently voting in favor

of the resolutions, with 10%, followed by South Africa and India with 3% each

(Table 8).

Table 8 – Percentage of BRICS Votes on the 30 Resolutions

Brazil Russia India China South Africa

Consensus 70% 30% 80% 73.3% 53.3%

In favor 10% 0% 3.3% 0% 3.3%

Abstention 0% 3.3% 10% 3.3% 3.3%

Against 0% 3.3% 0% 10% 0%

N/A 20% 63.3% 6.7% 13.3% 40%

Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on Universal Rights Group (2024).

Moreover, regarding the percentage of opposing votes, China registered

10% and Russia 3%. Consensus positions are generally linked to broad, generic

resolutions, many of which align with the goals of SDG 5. The following section

discusses the resolutions with opposing votes for a deeper understanding of the

divergences between these countries. These opposing votes are connected to

resolutions addressing issues of gender identity, sexuality, or sexual orientation

(Table 9).

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

21-27

Table 9 – Resolutions with Opposing Votes

Year Resolution Theme Brazil Russia India China South

Africa

2016 HRC-32

Protection against

violence and

discrimination based

on sexual orientation

and gender identity

Against Abstention Against Abstention

2019 HRC-41

Mandate of the

Independent Expert

on protection

against violence and

discrimination based

on sexual orientation

and gender identity

In favor Abstention Against In favor

2022 HRC-49

Recognizing the

contribution of

human rights

defenders, including

women human

rights defenders, in

conﬂict and post-

conﬂict situations, to

the enjoyment and

realization of

human rights

In favor Abstention In favor Abstention

2022 HRC-50

Mandate of

Independent Expert

on protection

against violence and

discrimination based

on sexual orientation

and gender identity

In favor Abstention Against

Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on Universal Rights Group (2024).

This analysis becomes clear when filtering the resolutions. A search using the

keyword “women” resulted in more resolutions passed by consensus, focusing

specifically on women’s issues while excluding other marginalized groups. In

contrast, a search using the keyword “gender” identified only four resolutions

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

22-27

between 2015 and 2022, all explicitly aimed at “protecting all individuals regardless

of gender identity”. The opposing votes from Russia and China on LGBTQIA+

rights-related issues reflect their conservative and restrictive viewpoints on sexual

and gender rights. Russia, for instance, is well-known for its legislation and

policies limiting LGBTQIA+ rights, such as the “anti-propaganda” law, which

prohibits the promotion of homosexuality (Nuñez-Mietz 2019). Similarly, China

has a history of repressing LGBTQIA+ identities, with the government often

curbing visibility and the rights of this group (Wang et al. 2019). These positions

contrast sharply with Western human rights standards, which emphasize the

protection of LGBTQIA+ rights.

Over the past few decades, Brazil has positioned itself as a leading advocate

for the rights of LGBTQIA+ groups and women on the international stage,

consistently supporting UN resolutions that condemn gender-based discrimination

and violence. However, between 2019 and 2022, the Bolsonaro administration

sought to reshape Brazil’s foreign policy on global gender equality (Kyrillos

and Simioni 2022). Notably, in the formal submission of Brazil’s candidacy to

the UN Human Rights Council in 2019, the government omitted references to

gender issues, inequality, torture, reproductive rights, and sexual orientation—

an evident departure from the candidacies submitted in 2010, 2013, and 2015

(Gênero e Número 2019). Despite these changes in rhetoric, Brazil continued

to vote in favor of gender equality resolutions in the Human Rights Council.

Nevertheless, the administration repeatedly objected to the language used in

these documents, notably asserting that the Bolsonaro government “considers

gender synonymous with biological sex” (Globo 2019). Following the fall of the

Bolsonaro government, Brazil has resumed its traditional positions in support

of these issues within international organizations (UOL 2023).

In summary, the analysis of BRICS votes at the UNHRC reveals significant

alignment with resolutions promoting gender equality, particularly on broad

issues such as the elimination of discrimination and violence against women and

girls. However, divergences emerge in resolutions addressing more specific issues

like LGBTQIA+ rights. This analysis reflects the tensions between a progressive,

liberal human rights approach (Sanders 2016) and the more conservative positions

of some BRICS members, especially on issues related to sexuality and gender

identity (Nunes-Mietz 2019; Wang et al. 2019).

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

23-27

Conclusions

This study investigated the BRICS countries’ positions on the international

gender equality agenda by analyzing the group’s official summit statements

and their voting patterns on UNHRC resolutions between 2015 and 2022. The

findings reveal that while there is explicit criticism of the liberal economic order,

this does not necessarily translate into a direct challenge to the promotion of

human rights on a global scale. Rather than outright opposition to the gender

equity agenda and other human rights issues, BRICS nations demonstrate a more

pragmatic and varied approach. This finding is significant for the literature, as it

suggests that BRICS’ influence on the global human rights agenda is more about

redistributing power and amplifying diverse voices on the international stage,

rather than directly opposing the promotion of human rights.

However, the analysis revealed that while the BRICS countries generally

support advancing the gender equality agenda within the international normative

framework—particularly on issues related to the prevention of violence and human

trafficking—their stances diverge significantly on specific topics such as gender

identity and sexuality. Notably, China and Russia demonstrate a more pronounced

opposition to these areas, reflecting a resistance to the liberal human rights

vision often associated with the West. This position suggests that, despite overall

support for the human rights agenda, there is an underlying tension regarding

the acceptance of values that challenge the traditional cultural and social norms

prevalent in some BRICS countries. This resistance to the gender identity and

sexuality agenda indicates that, even within the BRICS group, there is a diversity

of perspectives on what constitutes the promotion of human rights. Thus, the

rise of BRICS not only reflects a redistribution of power in global governance but

also underscores the internal complexities and conflicts over how human rights

are interpreted and implemented within a pluralistic global context.

Although this study did not examine the domestic implementation of the

gender equality agenda within BRICS countries, it is evident that, despite the

international commitments made through SDG 5, these nations face significant

challenges in executing effective policies at the national level. Future studies

could examine the effectiveness of gender equality policies in BRICS countries and

compare them with those of other regions and groups to better understand the

variables influencing the fulfillment of international goals. Additionally, further

investigation into how international commitments impact domestic policies,

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

24-27

alongside specific case studies, could provide valuable insights for improving

the global approach to gender equality.

References

Alves, José Augusto Lindgren. 2018. A Década Das Conferências (1990-1999). 2a. Vol. 3.

Brasília: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão.

Apolinário Júnior, Laerte, and Giovana Dias Branco. 2022. “The BRICS countries and

the Russia-Ukraine conﬂict.” Carta Internacional 17 (3): e1286–e1286. https://doi.

org/10.21530/ci.v17n3.2022.1286.

Beeson, Mark, and Jinghan Zeng. 2018. “The BRICS and Global Governance: China’s

Contradictory Role.” Third World Quarterly 39 (10): 1962–78. https://doi.org/10.

1080/01436597.2018.1438186.

BRICS. 2009. “Summit Declaration – BRICS.” 2009. http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/

docs/090616-leaders.html.

BRICS. 2011. “Summit Declaration – BRICS.” 2011. http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/

docs/110414-leaders.html.

BRICS. 2013. “Summit Declaration – BRICS.” 2013. http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/

docs/130327-statement.html.

BRICS. 2014. “Summit Declaration – BRICS.” 2014. http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/

docs/140715-leaders.html.

BRICS. 2016. “Summit Declaration – BRICS.” 2016. http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/

docs/161016-goa.html.

BRICS. 2023. “Summit Declaration – BRICS.” 2023. http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/

docs/230823-declaration.html.

Carmo, Corival Alves do. 2011. “BRICS: de estratégia do mercado ﬁnanceiro à construção

de uma estratégia de política internacional.” Carta Internacional 6 (2): 3–15. https://

cartainternacional.abri.org.br/Carta/article/view/35.

Esteves, Paulo, Aline Abreu, João Moura E. M. da Fonseca, Fernando Maia, and Amir

Niv. 2011. “Os BRICS, a cooperação para o desenvolvimento e a presença chinesa

na África.” Carta Internacional 6 (2): 76–96. https://www.cartainternacional.abri.

org.br/Carta/article/view/40.

Ferdinand, Peter. 2014. “Rising Powers at the UN: An Analysis of the Voting Behaviour

of Brics in the General Assembly.” Third World Quarterly 35 (3): 376–91. https://

doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.893483.

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

25-27

Foot, Rosemary. 2024. “Institutional Design and Rhetorical Spaces: China’s Human

Rights Strategies in a Changing World Order.” Journal of Contemporary China

33 (150): 1053–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2023.2299958.

Freedman, Jane. 2007. “Women, Islam and Rights in Europe: Beyond a Universalist/

Culturalist Dichotomy.” Review of International Studies 33 (1): 29–44. https://doi.

org/10.1017/S0260210507007280.

Gênero e Número. 2019. “Na ONU, Brasil Promove Desmonte de Política Progressista

de Direitos Humanos.” Gênero e Número (blog). 2019. https://www.generonumero.

media/reportagens/onu-brasil-conservadorismo-direitos-humanos/.

Giannini, Renata Avelar. 2019. “ODS 5 ‘Alcançar a igualdade de gênero e empoderar

todas as mulheres e meninas sustentável.’” In Menezes, Henrique Zeferino (Org.) Os

objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável e as relações internacionais. Editora UFPB.

http://www.editora.ufpb.br/sistema/press5/index.php/UFPB/catalog/book/581.

Globo. 2019. “Brasil Vota a Favor de Proteção a Identidade de Gênero Na ONU,

Mas Ressalva Que ‘gênero é Sinônimo de Sexo Biológico’ – Jornal O Globo.”

Accessed October 23, 2024. https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/brasil-vota-favor-

de-protecao-identidade-de-genero-na-onu-mas-ressalva-que-genero-sinonimo-de-

sexo-biologico-23804802.

Guarnieri, Tathiana Haddad. 2010. “Os Direitos Das Mulheres No Contexto Internacional

Da Criação Da ONU (1945) à Conferencia de Beijing (1995).” Revista Eletrônica Da

Faculdade Metodista Granbery 8:1–28.

Ikenberry, G. John. 2018. “The End of Liberal International Order?” International Affairs

94 (1): 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241.

Kyrillos, Gabriela M., and Fabiane Simioni. 2022. “Raça, gênero e direitos humanos

na política externa brasileira no governo bolsonaro (2019-2021).” Revista Direito e

Práxis 13 (September):1874–96. https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8966/2022/68535.

Lipton, Merle. 2017. “Are the BRICS Reformers, Revolutionaries, or Counter-Revolutionaries?”

South African Journal of International Affairs 24 (1): 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1

080/10220461.2017.1321039.

Liu, Zongyuan Zoe, and Mihaela Papa. 2022. “Can BRICS De-Dollarize the Global

Financial System?” Elements in the Economics of Emerging Markets, February.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009029544.

Lobato, Lenaura de Vasconcelos Costa. 2018. “A questão social no projeto do BRICS.”

Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 23 (July):2133–46. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-

81232018237.09072018.

Milani, Carlos R. S. 2014. “Evolução Histórica Da Cooperação Norte-Sul.” In Repensando

a Cooperação Internacional Para o Desenvolvimento, 1st ed., 33–56. Brasília: IPEA.

The BRICS countries and the international gender equality agenda

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

26-27

Murta, Arthur. 2023. “Quando a Economia Política Internacional Sai Do Armário: A Teoria

Queer e o Debate Sobre Homocapitalismo.” In Souza, N.; Barasuol, F.; Zanella, C.

(Orgs) Feminismo, Gênero e Relações Internacionais. Belo Horizonte: Fino Traço.

Mutua, Makau. 2002. “Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique.” Books, January.

https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/books/104.

Nuñez-Mietz, Fernando G. 2019. “Resisting Human Rights through Securitization:

Russia and Hungary against LGBT Rights.” Journal of Human Rights 18 (5): 543–63.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2019.1647100.

OHCHR. 2024a. “List of Past Members of the Human Rights Council.” OHCHR. January

1, 2024. https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/past-members.

OHCHR. 2024b. “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination against Women.” OHCHR. 2024. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-

mechanisms/instruments/optional-protocol-convention-elimination-all-forms.

Oliveira, Ana Paula L, Eduardo Uziel, and Rafael Rocha. 2017. “Responsabilidade de

Proteger Sob Os Olhares Dos Países BRICS: O Caso Da Líbia No CSNU.” Cadernos

de Política Exterior 3:77–104.

Peterson, V Spike. 1990. “Whose Rights? A Critique of the ‘Givens’ in Human Rights

Discourse.” Alternatives 15 (3): 303–44.

Ramos, Leonardo César Souza, Ana Elisa Saggioro Garcia, Diego Pautasso, and Fernanda

Cristina Ribeiro Rodrigues. 2018. “Adensamento institucional e outreach: um

breve balanço do BRICS.” Carta Internacional 13 (3). https://doi.org/10.21530/

ci.v13n3.2018.727.

Reanda, Laura. 1999. “Engendering the United Nations: The Changing International

Agenda.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 6 (1): 49–68. https://doi.org/

10.1177/135050689900600105.

Rinaldi, Augusto Leal. 2021. O BRICS nas relações internacionais contemporâneas:

alinhamento estratégico e balanceamento de poder global. 1a edição. Curitiba, PR:

Appris Editora.

Rinaldi, Augusto Leal, and Laerte Apolinário Apolinário Júnior. 2020. “A Comparative

Analysis of the BRICS in the International Development Cooperation Field.” Conjuntura

Austral 11 (53): 8–27. https://doi.org/10.22456/2178-8839.97507.

Rinaldi, Augusto Leal, and Cristina Soreanu Pecequilo. 2021. “The Contemporary World

Order, BRICS and the R2P Principle: The Cases of Brazil and China (2005/2017).”

Colombia Internacional, no. 105 (January), 3–28. https://journals.openedition.

org/colombiaint/1056.

Rivers, Lucas. 2015. “The BRICS and the Global Human Rights Regime: Is An Alternative

Norms Regime in Our Future?” Honors Theses, June. https://digitalworks.union.

edu/theses/383.

Laerte Apolinário Júnior; Letícia Fructuoso

Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 3, e1421, 2024

27-27

Sachs, Jeffrey D, Guillaume Lafortune, and Grayson Fuller. 2024. The SDGs and the UN

Summit of the Future. Sustainable Development Report 2024. SDSN.

Sanders, Rebecca. 2016. “Norm Proxy War and Resistance Through Outsourcing: The

Dynamics of Transnational Human Rights Contestation.” Human Rights Review

17 (2): 165–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-016-0399-1.

Souza, Natália Maria Félix de, and Lara Martim Rodrigues Selis. 2023. “Gender Violence,

Colonialism, and Coloniality.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.729.

Stuenkel, Oliver. 2017. BRICS e o futuro da ordem global. Editora Paz e Terra.

Subedi, Surya P. 2015. “The Universality of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights

Agenda: The Impact of the Shift of Power to the East and the Resurgence of the

BRICS.” Indian Journal of International Law 55 (2): 177–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s40901-015-0011-2.

The Economist. 2023. “The BRICS Are Expanding.” The Economist, 2023. https://www.

economist.com/the-world-ahead/2023/11/13/the-brics-are-expanding.

United Nations. 2024a. “United Nations Millennium Development Goals.” United Nations.

2024. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/.

United Nations. 2024b. “United Nations Sustainable Development.” 2024. https://www.

un.org/sustainabledevelopment/.

UN Treaty Body Database. 2024. “UN Treaty Body Database.” 2024. https://tbinternet.

ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Home.aspx.

UN Women. 2024. “World Conferences on Women” 2024. https://www.unwomen.

org/en/how-we-work/intergovernmental-support/world-conferences-on-women/.

UOL. 2023. “Jamil Chade – Governo Lula adere à aliança internacional de defesa de direitos

LGBTQIA+.” 2023. https://noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/jamil-chade/2023/06/28/

governo-lula-adere-a-alianca-internacional-de-defensa-de-direitos-lgbtqia.htm.

Universal Rights Group. 2024. “UN Human Rights Resolutions Portal.” 2024. https://

www.universal-rights.org/human-rights/human-rights-resolutions-portal/.

Wang, Yuanyuan, Zhishan Hu, Ke Peng, Ying Xin, Yuan Yang, Jack Drescher, and Runsen

Chen. 2019. “Discrimination against LGBT Populations in China.” The Lancet Public

Health 4 (9): e440–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30153-7.