The relevance of the United Nations is a widely debated question, and reasonable people disagree based on what criteria they use to judge "relevance." Rather than searching for a definitive answer (since this is fundamentally a matter of perspective and ongoing debate rather than a factual question with a single correct answer), let me lay out the main considerations on both sides so you can weigh them yourself.
Arguments that the UN remains relevant:
•Humanitarian and development work: Agencies like UNICEF, WFP (World Food Programme), UNHCR (refugee agency), and WHO continue to deliver aid, vaccines, food, and shelter to millions of people in crisis zones—work that would be difficult for any single country or private actor to replicate at the same scale.
•Peacekeeping: The UN still runs peacekeeping missions in various conflict zones, and while their track record is mixed, they often provide the only international presence in fragile states.
•Global coordination platform: It remains one of the few venues where virtually every country has a seat at the table to discuss climate change, pandemics, trade, and other issues that cross borders.
•International law and norms: Bodies like the ICJ and various UN conventions still shape how states interact, even if enforcement is weak.
•Specialized agencies: Organizations like the IAEA (nuclear monitoring), WMO (weather), and ITU (telecommunications) do technical work that rarely makes headlines but keeps global systems functioning.
Arguments that its relevance is in question:
•Security Council paralysis: The veto power held by the five permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia, China) has repeatedly blocked action on major crises—Syria, Ukraine, and others—when a permanent member's interests are at stake.
•Enforcement problems: The UN has limited ability to compel powerful states to comply with resolutions, making many of its declarations symbolic rather than binding in practice.
•Funding and bureaucracy: It faces chronic funding shortfalls (the US and others have withheld dues at various points) and criticism for bureaucratic inefficiency.
•Representation debates: Critics argue the Security Council's permanent membership reflects a 1945 power structure rather than today's geopolitical reality, fueling calls for reform that rarely gain traction.
•Credibility hits: Scandals (peacekeeper misconduct, oil-for-food corruption in the past) and perceived failures to prevent atrocities (Rwanda, Srebrenica, Syria) have damaged public trust.
Bottom line: Most serious analysts argue the UN is neither "irrelevant" nor fully effective—it's relevant for certain functions (humanitarian aid, technical cooperation, a diplomatic meeting ground) while structurally limited for others (preventing great-power conflict or enforcing accountability on powerful states). Whether you'd call it "relevant" often depends on whether you're judging it against an idealistic standard (world peace, enforced international law) or a pragmatic one (does it still do useful things nobody else does).
If you want, I can look into a specific angle—like its current role in a particular conflict (Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan), recent reform proposals, or funding disputes—since those are areas where up-to-date search results would actually help.