Introduction
This essay provides a critical review of the article “Taking Measure of the UN’s Legacy at Seventy-Five” by David M. Malone and Adam Day, published in 2020, from the perspective of Security Studies. As an undergraduate student in this field, the review aims to identify the article’s details, summarise its main arguments, and critically discuss its key issues, including strengths, limitations, and connections to broader scholarly literature. This analysis highlights the United Nations’ (UN) role in global security, particularly through the Security Council, while evaluating the authors’ assessment of its legacy amid geopolitical challenges. The discussion draws on evidence from the text and related sources to offer a balanced critique.
Identification of the Article
The article under review is authored by David M. Malone and Adam Day, titled “Taking Measure of the UN’s Legacy at Seventy-Five.” It was published in the journal Ethics & International Affairs, volume 34, issue 3, pages 285–95, in 2020. Malone is a noted diplomat and scholar in international relations, while Day contributes expertise in UN peacekeeping and conflict prevention. The piece appears in a peer-reviewed journal affiliated with the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, focusing on ethical dimensions of global affairs. No additional details, such as original language (it is in English), are noteworthy beyond its publication in a U.S.-based outlet during the UN’s 75th anniversary year.
Summary of the Article
Malone and Day (2020) evaluate the UN’s achievements and shortcomings over 75 years, emphasising its impact on international security. They highlight remarkable successes, such as stimulating multilateral treaties, promoting human rights, and preventing armed conflicts, notably averting nuclear confrontation during the Cold War. However, the authors argue that post-1990s, the UN has struggled due to geopolitical divisions, internal ossification, institutional sprawl, and internecine dysfunction. They identify the UN’s greatest influence in addressing conflict risks via the Security Council, shaping ideas on development and human rights, and generating humanitarian action.
The article discusses the post-Cold War era, where improved P-5 relations enabled bold actions like responding to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and launching 15 new peacekeeping operations. This “new activism” aligned with Huntington’s “third wave of democracy,” supporting democratic governments and limited liberal institutions. Yet, cohesion waned by the mid-1990s, with events like France’s defection on Iraq policy, the 2003 U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq, and failures in Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, and Venezuela exposing the Council’s impotence. The authors note the UN’s effectiveness in nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and African conflicts, often in partnership with the African Union, but criticise its silence on emerging threats like cyber technologies and AI. They also puzzle over the passivity of non-permanent Council members, who rarely band together for reform despite election efforts.
Critical Discussion
Malone and Day’s central argument—that the UN remains impactful in conflict prevention, idea-shaping, and humanitarian response despite systemic failures—resonates in Security Studies, where the organisation is viewed as a cornerstone of collective security (Weiss et al., 2017). Positively, the authors provide a nuanced historical overview, effectively illustrating the UN’s role in averting major conflicts, such as through sanctions on North Korea and oversight of Syria’s chemical weapons destruction in 2013. This aligns with broader literature emphasising the Security Council’s preventive diplomacy (Thakur, 2016). For instance, their reference to the 1990s “golden age” echoes Huntington’s (1991) democratisation thesis, showing how UN actions supported global stability amid democratic transitions.
However, the article’s analysis has limitations. The authors arguably overemphasise geopolitical divisions as the primary cause of UN stagnation, underplaying structural reforms needed for emerging threats like cyber warfare. While they note the Council’s “mute” stance on AI and cyber risks (Malone and Day, 2020, p. 287), this critique lacks depth, failing to explore how these fit into evolving security paradigms, such as hybrid threats discussed in contemporary studies (Hoffman, 2007). In the context of Security Studies, this gap is significant; the UN’s legitimacy crisis, as the authors describe, could be better linked to failures in adapting to non-traditional security issues, evident in the Council’s inaction on Russian cyber interference in Ukraine.
Furthermore, the discussion of non-permanent members’ passivity is insightful but underexplored. The authors question why these members, despite substantial election campaigns, rarely collaborate for change (Malone and Day, 2020, p. 287). This could be supported by evidence from von Freiesleben (2013), who argues that power asymmetries within the Council discourage such alliances, perpetuating P-5 dominance. Critically, Malone and Day do not address potential reforms, such as expanding permanent membership, which some scholars propose to enhance legitimacy (Weiss et al., 2017). This omission, while not central to their intent, leaves the analysis somewhat descriptive rather than prescriptive, limiting its contribution to debates on UN reform.
Overall, the article fits well into Security Studies literature by highlighting the tension between the UN’s idealistic founding vision and realpolitik constraints. It complements works like Thakur (2016), which praise UN peacekeeping in Africa, but invites criticism for not fully engaging with the UN General Assembly’s compensatory role in crises like Libya, where non-binding resolutions have occasionally filled Security Council voids.
Conclusion
In summary, Malone and Day (2020) offer a balanced yet critical assessment of the UN’s legacy, praising its security contributions while exposing institutional flaws. From a Security Studies viewpoint, the article effectively underscores the organisation’s enduring relevance in conflict prevention, though it could deepen analysis of emerging threats and reforms. This review highlights the need for ongoing scholarly engagement with UN evolution, implying that without addressing legitimacy crises, the risk of major power conflicts may indeed rise, as the authors warn. Ultimately, the piece provides a solid foundation for understanding global security dynamics.
References
- Hoffman, F. G. (2007) Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
- Huntington, S. P. (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press.
- Malone, D. M. and Day, A. (2020) “Taking Measure of the UN’s Legacy at Seventy-Five.” Ethics & International Affairs, 34(3): 285–95.
- Thakur, R. (2016) The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge University Press.
- von Freiesleben, J. (2013) Reform of the Security Council. In Governing the World? Addressing “Problems without Passports.” Centre for International Governance Innovation.
- Weiss, T. G., Forsythe, D. P., Coate, R. A. and Pease, K. K. (2017) The United Nations and Changing World Politics. 8th edn. Westview Press.
