Is the United Nations still relevant?

The UN's relevance is hotly debated — I'll survey the latest arguments for and against it.

Is the United Nations still relevant? The short answer from most world leaders, experts and global public opinion is: yes, but its relevance is increasingly contested and conditional - indispensable in some areas, paralyzed in others.

On its 80th anniversary in 2025, the question looms large. As one analysis put it:

> As the United Nations marks its 80th anniversary, the question of the body’s relevance looms large. Undercut by financial shortfalls, US retrenchment, and growing geopolitical divides, can the UN remain a vital stage for global diplomacy

Why Many Say It Remains Relevant

1. The only universal forum
World leaders have voiced support for the unifying function of the United Nations since the General Debate of the 80th UN General Assembly kicked off, and that the body is nearing its 80th anniversary. It is still described as the only universal forum where all 193 Member States can meet, negotiate and continue talking, even when they profoundly disagree.

In a fractured world, its universal character, institutional capacities, implementation muscle, and broad-based legitimacy as a venue for dialogue and diplomacy are irreplaceable.

Its sheer popularity with world leaders is seen as an indicator that it is widely viewed to be politically relevant and an important platform for shaping international discourse.

2. Humanitarian and development work - the "field" work

For all the attention on speeches at the dais, the most important work remains in the field, including:

3. Preventing great-power war

One argument is that the UN is still relevant if one keeps in mind the core purpose of its founding: to prevent another world war between the great powers. The fact that the world has not witnessed another war on the scale of either the First or Second World Wars in the 80 years since the UN's founding is a testament to its success. The original purpose of the Security Council was to prevent war between the great powers, not to prevent the great powers from waging war.

4. Global public support remains net-positive

Though the United Nations may not be a priority for Americans, the United Nations’ image around the world remains favorable. Most publics in the 25-nation 2025 Pew Global Attitudes Survey hold net-positive views, and a median of 61% of adults across the surveyed countries have a favorable view.

Gallup's 2025 report found a median of 50% of adults across 137 countries approve of the job the UN is doing, while a median of 26% disapprove. Several nations—such as South Africa, Nigeria, and Germany—have seen favorable views of the United Nations rise over the past year.

Why Its Relevance Is Questioned

1. Security Council paralysis and the veto

The most common criticism is that the Security Council still reflects the power relations of 1945. Its five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the UK and the US are the five permanent members of the 15-nation Security Council and enjoy veto powers.

Critics argue the veto — that anachronistic privilege of five post–World War II powers — is the grave digger of the United Nations. Vetoes can block action even during crises in which millions of people suffer.

In 2024, the Council saw eight vetoes cast — the highest since 1986, with only 44 resolutions adopted in 2025 — the fewest since 1991. The Organization is too often tarnished by the paralysis of its 15-member Security Council — the General Assembly heard, as delegates warned it is widely judged by that organ’s failure to end wars, prevent atrocity crimes.

Critics argue it has become a stage for speeches rather than decisive action.

2. Legitimacy and great-power hypocrisy

> The most fundamental challenge to the relevance of the United Nations is intimately linked to perceptions of its legitimacy. For many, this has been irretrievably compromised.

Analysts point to Russia having blatantly violated the sovereignty of Ukraine, China having refused to condemn this violation, and the United States being seen to have hit a high-water mark in its hypocrisy by providing seemingly unconditional support for Israel's actions in Gaza.

3. Funding and effectiveness crisis

The United Nations’ relevance has been radically diminished by the United States’ decision to delay critical budgetary support and put caps on its contributions to UN peacekeeping. The upshot is that the United Nations’ ability to tackle climate change, global health risks, humanitarian disasters is shrinking, and it is shrinking rapidly.

Americans specifically rate it poorly: A Gallup poll in Aug 1-20, 2025 found 32% say good job, 63% poor job, and on five key objectives Americans rate the UN more negatively than positively, most critical of its efforts to maintain international peace and security, with 73% rating its performance as poor.

4. Bureacracy and slowness

Even UN insiders acknowledge: The UN can be slow. Building agreement among 193 Member States takes time, urgent decisions often move at the pace of the most reluctant government, and processes designed to ensure accountability can also create delays and complexity.

The Reform Debate

The consensus among reformers is: If the United Nations is to remain relevant in this century, it must reflect today’s realities, not the postwar power arrangements of 1945.

Many governments believe the United Nations can only remain credible and effective if its institutions better reflect the realities of the 21st century.

Proposals include expanding the Security Council, limiting veto use, and initiatives like the Mexico-Norway led “UN80 Initiative” to support practical reforms. But any Charter amendment requires two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by all five permanent members, giving each an effective veto over reforms that could undermine its privilege.

As one veteran UN official summarized: Two ideas can be true at the same time: the UN is imperfect, and the UN continues to be indispensable. Abandoning multilateralism, however, would not solve the problems critics identify. It would leave us without the only universal forum we have.

In short, the UN is less relevant as a decisive enforcer of peace between great powers, but remains highly relevant as a humanitarian lifeline, norm-setter, and the one place where all nations must still show up and talk.