Bruce Cronin’s article presents an evocative, complex and insightful framework to examine the dual
nature of UN. Despite the compelling narrative that stimulates intellectual curiosity, the article is not
without weaknesses. In this segment, I would argue how the author bias, disregard of neo-colonial
history that shapes UN humanitarian efforts (in the name of transnationalism), viewing the role of
Secretary General as a leading figure to bridge the gap between transnationalism and
intergovernmentalism, overall theoretical and empirical gaps leave much to hope for in terms of
clarity.
Cronin is a western academic who finished his Ph.D. from Columbia University and conducted his
post-doctoral research from Harvard University. It is clear from his background that his views about
international politics is deeply influenced by liberal institutionalism; a bias towards western liberal
school of thought is reflected in this article. He analyses the nature of UN through the theoretical
lenses of realist and liberal tradition, also suggests the pre-eminence of Waltz’s Systems Theory
(states operate in an anarchical system to ensure their interests) to describe dominant
intergovernmental aspect of UN, but he completely glosses over other important theoretical
frameworks such as Wendt’s constructivism that challenges the hierarchy within the UN itself (for
example: Who defines what is common good? Whose values are institutionalised?) and neo-
colonialism. Moral considerations of universal community were discussed extensively in this article
but the detriment of North-South divide and neo-colonial undertones of UN development programmes
were nowhere to be found. For instance, UNSC framed the Libyan intervention of 2011 as protection
of human rights but many scholars argued that it had clear neo-colonial dynamics guised by the cloak
of humanitarianism (Sabaratnam, 2013). Similar UN missions in Rwanda, Sudan, Kosovo etc; and
development programmes of IMF and WB undermines local agency while imparting undemocratic
tutelage over indigenous populations. Thus, Cronin’s view that transnationalism is morally superior to
intergovernmentalism has analytical discrepancy.
Cronin specified in the introduction about the conceptual nature of his essay, that it is but a
‘framework through which to undertake future empirical studies.’ (Cronin, 2002) The lack of real-
world examples and sufficient theoretical backing renders the claims Cronin makes weak. Cronin
specifies that when transnational considerations and governmental interests diverge, UN experiences
deadlock. But his pessimistic claims, without any data are not demonstratively proven. In fact, real
world examples provide more complex dynamics. For example: in Bosnian crisis intergovernmental
considerations delayed UNSC’s scope to pass a resolution but the advocacy of Human rights watch,
criticism by media and pressure from social elites prompted the UN to act timely. In the real world,
more often than not the state and non-state actors operate in a hybrid zone where state and
transnational interest diverge. For example, SDG blends both state interests and transnational
considerations together. Cronin’s binary approach could be countered with Anne-Marie Slaughter’s
theory of "trans-governmental networks". Slaughter argues that in global governance, national and
global actors interact and reinforce each other rather than operating in a zero-sum game where
transnationalism and intergovernmentalism is pitted against one another.
Cronin idealises the role of Secretary General as he is an individual who ‘speaks for the greater
international interest. In reality Secretary general is a "norm entrepreneur with limits"—bound tightly
by state consent and geopolitical considerations. (Luck, 2006). For example: Ban Ki Moon did not
raise his voice during Israel’s campaigns against Gaza in 2015 until he was criticised for his passivity.
In my view, transnational and intergovernmental considerations often converge and there was a gap in
this article to address this. Cronin’s article would have been more impactful if he added empirical
evidence to support his claims.
Cronin, B. ( 2002). The Two Faces of the United Nations: The Tension Between
Intergovernmentalism and. Global Governance, 53-71.
Luck, E. (2006). UN Security Council Practice and Promises. Routledge.
Sabaratnam, M. (2013). Avatars of Eurocentrism in the critique of the liberal peace. Security
Dialogue, 259-278.
Bibliography
Cronin, B. ( 2002). The Two Faces of the United Nations: The Tension Between
Intergovernmentalism and. Global Governance, 53-71.
Luck, E. (2006). UN Security Council Practice and Promises. Routledge.
Sabaratnam, M. (2013). Avatars of Eurocentrism in the critique of the liberal peace. Security
Dialogue, 259-278.