The dramatic economic growth of China, India and Brazil in the early 2000s and their increasing geopolitical power have opened the debate on the need to redraw global governance and reform multilateral institutions. This debate, far from being confined to international commercial and financial institutions, has been extended to the field of climate negotiations: in this area too, the emergence of new powers that now have a significant voice has led to a reconfiguration of power games and international cooperation. This article proposes, through an inductive analysis, to observe the evolution of recent climate negotiations to determine the extent to which emerging countries contribute to a reconfiguration of global governance. The analysis focuses more specifically on the period between 2009 (COP 15 in Copenhagen) and 2015 (COP 21 in Paris). Since 2009, the official creation of the BASIC group has identified Brazil, South Africa, India and China as singular players in climate negotiations. This period was also marked by the need to negotiate a new climate agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol: more was at stake than the regular international cooperation, it was about establishing a new international governance of the climate change regime. By analyzing the official positions of the four States concerned during the successive COPs, the official (or reported) reactions of the other actors involved the negotiations and the results actually achieved at the end of the COPs, it appears that the emerging powers are now agreeing to play a leading role in the climate regime. This new role implies not only increased recognition from other States (particularly developed ones) but also, in return, increased responsibility towards other states (especially developing ones). In this view, climate negotiations are indicative of an effective redefinition of the role and international responsibility of emerging countries. Nevertheless, by taking an active part in climate negotiations, the BASICs have fully contributed to their growing complexity and indeterminacy. The 2009-2015 period was also characterized by a trampling – even a stalling – of these negotiations. Thus, the reconfiguration of the power relations resulting from the participation of the BASICs, is as much a factor of the recent evolution of the climate negotiations, as the main reason for their ongoing indetermination.