Introduction: Brazil’s Humanitarian Engagement and International Status

  • Benjamin de CarvalhoEmail author
  • Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert
  • Paulo Esteves


Over the past 15 years, the rise of new powers is changing the international agenda, as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and other emerging powers seek to influence the conduct of multilateralism. The quest for influence is bringing these powers into fields and policy arenas previously reserved for traditional great powers. As a consequence, fields such as trade negotiations, development aid, and international peace and security are undergoing significant changes. These changes raise questions about the role of Brazil in particular. Brazil has adopted a role of leader for the Global South in trade negotiations, made the case for less conditionality and interference in what it sees as sovereign affairs, and involved itself significantly in changing the international peace and security agenda. In all these fields, Brazil has brought new ideas and commitments to the table. Yet, the drivers of specific Brazilian foreign policy engagements remain unclear. Specifically, the new policy areas in which emerging powers are engaging and Brazil’s shift from domestic to international engagement, and in this, its relations to its domestic constituencies, as well as to other rising powers and the established great powers, require a more sustained engagement.


  1. Alden, C., D. Large, and R. Soares de Oliveira. 2008. China Returns to Africa: A Continent and a Rising Power Embrace, 2008. London/New York: Hurst Publishers and Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amar, P. 2012. Global South to the Rescue: Emerging Humanitarian Superpowers and Globalizing Rescue Industries. Globalizations 9 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barma, Naazneen, Giacomo Chiozza, Ely Ratner, and Steven Weber. 2009. A World Without the West? Empirical Patterns and Theoretical Implications. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 2 (4): 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burges, Sean W. 2017. Brazil in the World: The International Relations of a South American Giant. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver. 2004. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coordenação-Geral de Ações Internacionais de Combate à Fome- Minstério das Relações Internacionais. Cooperação Humanitária Internacional, 2011Google Scholar
  7. Dafoe, A., J. Renshon, and P. Huth. 2014. Reputation and Status as Motives for War. Annual Review of Political Science 17: 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Carvalho, Benjamin, and Jon Harald Sande Lie. 2015. A Great Power Performance: Norway, Status and the Policy of Involvement. In Small State Status Seeking, ed. Benjamin de Carvalho and Iver B. Neumann. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. de Carvalho, Benjamin, and Iver B. Neumann, eds. 2015. Small State Status Seeking: Norway’s Quest for International Standing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Esteves, P. 2011. “Ikke-likegyldighet” i brasiliansk utenrikspolitikk. Internasjonal Politikk 2: 282–292.Google Scholar
  11. Fraundorfer, M. 2015. Brazil’s Emerging Role in Global Governance: Health, Food Security and Bioenergy. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  12. Gardini, G., and M. Tavares de Almeida, eds. 2016. Foreign Policy Responses to the Rise of Brazil: Balancing Power in Emerging States. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  13. Herz, M. 2011. South America Regional Order: The Growth of Brazil as a Regional Power. In Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics, ed. T.J. Volgy, R. Corbetta, K.A. Gran, and R.G. Baird, 256. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Huang, Meibo and Peiqiang Ren. 2012. China’s Foreign Aid and Its Role in the International Architecture. International Development Policy Revue internationale de politique de développement [Online] 3.Google Scholar
  15. Hurrell, Andrew. 2006. Hegemony, Liberalism and Global Order: What Space for Would-be Great Powers? International Affairs 82 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IPEA. 2012. A década inclusive (2001–2011) Desigualdade, Pobreza, e Políticas de Renda. Comunicados do IPEA, No 155.Google Scholar
  17. Kenkel, K.M., and C.G. Stefan. 2016. Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting Initiative: Norms and Diplomatic Support. Global Governance 22 (1): 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Large, D. 2008. China and the Contradictions of ‘Non-Interference’ in Sudan. Review of African Political Economy 115 (35): 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Larson, D.W., and A. Shevchenko. 2010. Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to Us Primacy. International Security 34 (4): 63–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leira, Halvard. 2015. The Formative Years: Norway as an Obsessive Status-Seeker. In Small States Status Seeking, ed. Benjamin de Carvalho and Iver B. Neumann. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Malamud, A. 2011. Brasil: Fra Regionale nederlag til Global fremvekst. Internasjonal Politikk 2: 242–253.Google Scholar
  22. Mthembu, Philani. 2018. China and India’s Development Cooperation in Africa The Rise of Southern Powers, 199. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neumann, Iver B., and Benjamin de Carvalho. 2015. Introduction: Small States and Status. In Small States Status Seeking, ed. Benjamin de Carvalho and Iver B. Neumann. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Nieto, W.A.S. 2012. Brazil’s Grand Design for Combining Global South Solidarity and National Interests: A Discussion of Peacekeeping Operations in Haiti and Timor. Globalizations 9 (1): 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Norheim-Martinsen, P.M. 2012. Brazil: An Emerging Peacekeeping Actor. NOREF Report, November 2012.Google Scholar
  26. Paul, T.V., Deborah Larson, and William Wohlforth, eds. 2014. Status and World Order. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  27. Renshon, J. 2017. Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siqueira, Isabel Rocha de, and Paulo Esteves. 2018. O desenvolvimento que queremos: bolsa família como aprendizado para uma nova agenda. Editora PUC-Rio.Google Scholar
  29. Sotero, P., and L.E. Armjio. 2007. Brazil: To Be or Not to Be a BRIC? Asian Perspective 31 (4): 4370–4391.Google Scholar
  30. Spektor, M. 2012. Humanitarian Interventionism Brazilian Style? Americas Quarterly 2012 (Summer): 54–59.Google Scholar
  31. Stolte, Christina. 2015. Brazil’s Africa Strategy: Role Conception and the Drive for International Status. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stuenkel, Oliver, and Matthew M. Taylor, eds. 2015. Brazil on the Global Stage: Power, Ideas, and the Liberal International Order. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  33. Tank, P. 2011. Turkey as an International Mediator: Opportunities and Pitfalls. NOREF Report, July 2011.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2012. The Concept of ‘Rising Powers’, NOREF Policy Brief, June 2012.Google Scholar
  35. ———. forthcoming 2019. The Role of Humanitarian Assistance in Turkish Foreign Policy, Chapter 7. In Emerging Donors and Conflict Affected States: The New Politics of Reconstruction, ed. Agnieszka Paczynska. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  36. Volgy, Thomas J., Renato Corbetta, Keith A. Grant, and Ryan G. Baird, eds. 2011. Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Wohlforth, William C. 2009. Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War. World Politics 61 (1): 28–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wohlforth, William C., Benjamin de Carvalho, Halvard Leira, and Iver B. Neumann. 2018. Moral Authority and Status in International Relations: Good States and the Social Dimension of Status Seeking. Review of International Studies 44 (3): 536–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin de Carvalho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert
    • 2
  • Paulo Esteves
    • 3
  1. 1.Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI)OsloNorway
  2. 2.Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)OsloNorway
  3. 3.Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations