'Double standards in international law' is a recurring theme in Global South diplomacy. Analyse how different BRICS members interpret this phrase to serve divergent national interests.

"Double standards" denotes the selective application of international rules by powerful states. At the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi (September 2026) [2], nearly every member invoked the phrase — yet each poured a different grievance into it, exposing BRICS as a bloc of convergent rhetoric but divergent interests.

China — contesting rule-making authority

• Xi urged the Global South to ensure international law is "applied to all, free from double standards", insisting the "logic of might makes right does not hold" and that rules "must be written by all countries" [1].
• The framing targets US primacy without naming it, and is paired with five initiatives on open-source AI, digital industry, intelligent manufacturing, trade facilitation and S&T talent [1] — a parallel technological order under Chinese leadership, before China takes the chair.

India — a narrow, counter-terrorism reading

• India confines the phrase mainly to terrorism: "no place for double standards" on terror financing and state sponsors, with a push for the pending Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism [3].
• Its chairship theme, "Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability" [5], signals reform from within — a UNSC seat and greater voice — not an anti-Western front, consistent with strategic autonomy.

Russia and Iran — sanctions as selective law

• For sanctioned economies the grievance is unilateral coercive measures outside the UN framework; the Kazan Declaration (2024) rejects unlawful unilateral sanctions [4], legitimising de-dollarisation and alternative payment channels.

Brazil, South Africa and African members — climate and trade justice

• Here it is developmental: unilateral green trade barriers such as carbon border adjustment mechanisms, contrary to equity and CBDR principles [4], alongside Africa's exclusion from the Security Council.

One slogan thus performs four functions — Chinese counter-hegemony, Indian institutional reform, Russian sanctions relief, and Afro-Latin developmental justice. This elasticity sustains consensus across an expanded membership, but a shared vocabulary of grievance is not a shared agenda. BRICS' credibility now rests on converting the phrase into concrete reform — UNSC restructuring, equitable climate finance and fair AI governance — while applying consistent standards to itself.