Is the United Nations still relevant?

The UN's relevance is debated — I'll assess its current impact and challenges.

Is the United Nations still relevant? The answer depends on how relevance is measured - as an ideal, an operational actor, or an enforcer of peace. At 80 years old in 2025-2026, the consensus is: still indispensable, but increasingly challenged and at a crossroads.

1. Arguments That The UN Remains Relevant

A. Universal and Legitimate Forum

The UN has grown from 51 founding members to 193, making it the most universal, representative, and authoritative intergovernmental organization in the world .

As one analysis noted at the 80th General Assembly high-level week: if "turning up is what matters, then the sheer popularity of the forum with world leaders is a clear indicator that the United Nations is widely viewed to be politically relevant" . At the close of the General Debate of the 80th session, UN officials concluded "this house is fulfilling that purpose: the United Nations is still relevant."

Public opinion supports this. A Pew Research Center survey in September 2025 covering 31,938 adults in 25 countries found that a median of 61 percent had a favorable view of the organization, while only 32 percent had an unfavorable view . In the United States specifically, 57 percent held a positive view.

B. Humanitarian, Development and Normative Work

According to the United Nations 2025 Annual Report, over 70% of global humanitarian aid and peacekeeping efforts are coordinated through UN agencies.

Concrete impact in 2024 includes:

Beyond operations, its true power lies in "norm entrepreneurship—institutionalizing principles" of human rights (UDHR, 1948), gender equality (CEDAW), and climate justice (Paris Agreement, 2015). The SDGs remain the only universal framework for inclusive, sustainable development, and former officials credit the UN with preventing World War III and offering small states "a buffer" against great powers.

2. Arguments That Its Relevance Is Declining

A. Security Council Paralysis and the Veto

The most cited cause of irrelevance is structural.

> Increasingly, the United Nations is seen as an ineffective body in managing conflicts in the world. The problem is the veto power of the five permanent members

The UNSC still reflects the power distribution of 1945, dominated by the P5. Designed in 1945, its anachronistic structure, centred around five permanent members with veto powers, is increasingly unable to address today's conflicts. In 2025, permanent members cast vetoes blocking action on Gaza and Ukraine.

Data shows gridlock deepening:

This paralysis was visible on major crises: Since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia has continually used its veto to block Security Council action, and on Gaza the Council was only able to pass a ceasefire resolution 171 days into Israel's assault, the USA having vetoed four earlier proposals.

As the UN marks its 80th anniversary, it faces "the uncomfortable reality of sliding into irrelevance. The organization's inability to prevent wars, resolve conflicts, or adapt effectively to shifting global dynamics has left it adrift". One commentator in 2025 wrote "The United Nations is now 80, and its long slide toward irrelevance appears unstoppable".

The most fundamental challenge is seen as legitimacy. For many it has been irretrievably compromised because Russia violated Ukraine's sovereignty, China refused to condemn it, and the United States is seen as providing unconditional support for Israel's actions in Gaza.

B. Financial and Institutional Crisis

The UN stumbles under financial arrears of more than USD 5 billion, paralysis in its Security Council and growing reliance on mini-lateral groupings that deliver expedient crisis management, but erode global legitimacy.

The United States' decision to delay critical budgetary support and put caps on contributions to peacekeeping has threatened a downward spiral as other states, especially China, delay their own support. This shrinks its ability to tackle climate change, global health, and humanitarian disasters.

Beyond money, the UN faces a crisis of relevance as regional alliances and informal coalitions increasingly bypass it, leading to a perception of "a world without rules" where the Council mirrors the power politics it was meant to constrain.

3. Reform or Ritual?

Almost all analysts agree reform, not abolition, is needed. The debate at 80 is whether the UN can transform to meet 21st-century demands.

Proposals include:

Conclusion

The UN is simultaneously indispensable and ineffective.

It is still relevant as the only universal platform for dialogue, norm-setting, humanitarian coordination, and development — functions no other body can replace, and which a majority of global publics still support. As Kofi Annan described it, "The UN is humanity's imperfect instrument of hope."

It is becoming less relevant as a collective security guarantor. When great-power interests are involved, veto politics, funding crises, and geopolitical fragmentation prevent decisive action, prompting states to work around it.

In short: The UN remains relevant for what it does every day to keep people alive and set standards, but risks irrelevance for what it was created to do first — prevent war — unless structural reform succeeds.