Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll gather up-to-date assessments of its role and impact.

Yes — but its relevance is increasingly contested and uneven.

The United Nations celebrated its 80th anniversary on 24 October 2025, marking 80 years since its Charter entered into force in 1945, and that anniversary has prompted open debate about whether it is still fit for purpose.

Arguments That It Is Still Relevant

Leaders at the UN itself have argued the institution remains relevant. At the closing of the General Debate of the General Assembly on 29 September 2025, it was stated that “the United Nations is still relevant”.

Supporters point to functions that no other body replicates:

•Humanitarian and development work: The UN provides humanitarian assistance to millions affected by crises, including refugees and disasters.

In 2024, UNHCR assisted a record 129.9 million forcibly displaced people and the WFP fed approximately 343 million people across 78 countries.

•Peacekeeping: The UN has deployed peacekeeping missions in regions such as Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Mali. Globally 11 peacekeeping missions currently operate worldwide, deploying approximately 60,000 uniformed personnel across 11 active missions. According to the US Government Accountability Office, UN peacekeeping costs one-eighth of equivalent US military operations.

•Norms, legitimacy and convening power: Even critics note that even though the UN is not perfect, it is still very important for solving global problems. The UN possesses international legitimacy, convening power, humanitarian infrastructure and the ability to bring adversaries into an internationally recognised framework.

As one analysis put it, the more important issue is not whether the United Nations still matters — it clearly does — but whether governments expect it to perform functions for which they have never actually given it sufficient political authority. In that view, the UN is not powerless — it is only as powerful as states allow it to be.

This mixed record is historical. UN-supported operations contributed to political transitions in Namibia, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Liberia, while it also failed to prevent atrocities in Rwanda and Srebrenica and could not prevent the Iraq war in 2003.

Arguments That Its Relevance Is Declining

Criticism concentrates on the Security Council:

•1945 structure: Its structure still reflects the world of 1945. The United States, Russia, China, Britain and France retain permanent membership and veto power.

•Increasing veto use: According to official Security Council data, permanent members exercised 19 vetoes between 2006 and 2015. Between 2016 and 2025, the number increased to 49. In 2024, the Security Council cast eight vetoes on seven failed draft resolutions — the highest since 1986. In 2025, vetoes decreased to four — two US vetoes on Gaza, two Russian vetoes on Ukraine — but the Council adopted only 44 resolutions, its lowest output since 1991.

•Paralysis on major wars: In 2025, permanent members cast vetoes blocking action on Gaza and Ukraine, and during 2025 and early 2026 the Council struggled to act decisively on Gaza, Ukraine, and Myanmar. Critics describe the veto power as the organisation’s Achilles heel, making the UN appear toothless and clawless, and argue its outdated composition undermines its legitimacy.

•Structural and financial pressure: No reform has altered the Security Council's structure since 1965, while the African Union, India, and Brazil — representing over 3 billion people — hold no permanent seats. At the same time, under the UN80 reform initiative, the organisation estimates its overall resource base could decline by approximately $16 billion between 2024 and 2026 – nearly 25 per cent, limiting missions' ability to implement mandates.

The paradox has been summarized as: the Security Council does enable aggression and the institution does essential work that nothing else can replicate — it feeds hundreds of millions and protects tens of millions of displaced ones — and both descriptions are true.

Bottom Line

For many analysts, multilateralism may be fraying, but it is not failing. The UN is judged less as a world government that can impose peace against the interests of the great powers, and more as a platform, mediator, legitimiser and coordinator that is strongest where major powers agree, and weakest precisely where their strategic interests collide.

Its relevance therefore depends on what you expect from it:

•If relevance means preventing all major-power wars or enforcing Security Council resolutions against a veto-holder: it is increasingly seen as ineffective.

•If relevance means providing humanitarian aid, peacekeeping where consent exists, setting international norms (human rights, climate, health), and keeping a universal diplomatic channel open: it remains indispensable and has no credible replacement.

The reform debate reflects this tension — calls to restrict the veto and expand permanent membership versus the reality that veto powers must vote to remove their own veto, which they are unlikely to do.

Citations (2)

1tension.reportNot yet classified
Is the UN Still Fit for Purpose? The Case For and Against Reform | tension.
Backs: “Humanitarian and development work: The UN provides humanitarian assistance to millions affected by crises, including refugees and disasters. In 2024, UNHCR assisted a record 129.9 million forcibly displaced people and the WFP fed approximately 343 million people across 78 countries.”
2centrefordevelopmentandstability.comNonprofits and think tanks
The UN Is Not Powerless — It Is Only as Powerful as States Allow It to Be
Backs: “Norms, legitimacy and convening power: Even critics note that even though the UN is not perfect, it is still very important for solving global problems. The UN possesses international legitimacy, convening power, humanitarian infrastructure and the ability to bring adversaries into an internationally recognised…”