Is the United Nations still relevant?

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

The United Nations is still relevant, but its relevance is increasingly contested - the debate intensified as the organization turned 80 in 2025.

Why arguments for continued relevance persist

1. Founding purpose - preventing another world war:
The United Nations was created in 1945, following the devastation of the Second World War, with one central mission: the maintenance of international peace and security. It came into existence 80 years ago, as its charter came into force. It was founded as an effort to avert another world war in the aftermath of Germany's surrender.

Analysts argue that core purpose remains: preventing great-power confrontation from escalating into World War III. In that sense, it has "succeeded so far".

The UN maintains unique legal authority. There is no other organization with the capacities and the legal authorities of the United Nations, as bad as the Security Council often is. The United Nations Security Council stands alone in its Charter-mandated authority to act on behalf of all Member States on questions of peace and security. Only the Security Council can authorize the use of force under international law.

It also provides an irreplaceable forum. Over the last 80 years it has brought 193 countries together, built trust among them, and brought them together to find solutions to common and shared challenges. As a multilateral institution today it has 193 member states. The concept of multilateralism itself is "only as good as the member states decide to make it" - comparing criticism of multilateralism to blaming a sports stadium when your team lost.

At the closing of the 80th General Assembly debate in 2025, General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock said that if high-level week is any indication, the United Nations is still relevant, adding "this house is fulfilling that purpose – the United Nations is still relevant".

2. Operational relevance - humanitarian, development and peacekeeping:

Why relevance is questioned

1. Security Council paralysis and the veto:

The Council is comprised of five permanent members – China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia, who possess the right of veto – and 10 non-permanent members who are elected for two-year terms.

Criticism centres on three issues: Security Council membership does not reflect today's world; developing countries are underrepresented, and there are no permanent members from either Africa or Latin America; and five permanent members enjoy veto power and frequently use it.

For years, the council's dysfunction has been treated as a symptom of geopolitical rivalry. Vetoes are lamented, and calls for Security Council reform are reiterated, while without sustained deconfliction among the P5, the U.N. cannot function as a system of collective security. Delegates have warned that some permanent members' abuse of the veto had serious consequences for the organ's credibility and paralysis amounted to death and destruction in Gaza and Ukraine.

Successive General Assembly presidents and the Secretary-General have said reform is essential. Secretary-General António Guterres stressed that "the most important reform that needs to be established is the reform of the UN Security Council", and a former president warned "Unless we find the determination to advance on this issue, the United Nations will lose its credibility".

2. Budget and capacity crisis:

Last year was among the darkest in the history of the United Nations. Gripped by a budgetary crisis and unable to respond to catastrophic wars in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, the U.N. spent much of 2025 focused on internal reform.

Examples:

This contributes to a sense that many member nations are flouting rules and weakening their support, leaving the organization at one of its most vulnerable moments.

For 2026, analysts argue the priority should shift from inward-looking budgetary discipline and governance reforms to strategic relevance, including getting the P5 to engage constructively within the organization as currently constituted.

New alternatives also challenge its centrality, such as the launch of a new U.S.-led Board of Peace described as a fairly clear effort to offer a U.S.-dominated alternative to a languishing U.N. Security Council.

Bottom line

The UN is not as effective as its Charter envisions, especially on peace and security where the veto allows any P5 member to block action. But no other institution has its universal membership, legal legitimacy to authorize force, and operational network for humanitarian aid, health, development (like the Sustainable Development Goals), climate, and peacekeeping.

Most experts therefore answer: Yes, still relevant - but not as relevant or effective as needed, and its future relevance depends on reform. As Brookings scholars noted, few defend the Security Council as a highly efficacious body right now in preventing conflict, and there is broad agreement the organization must “adapt and evolve” to show 8 billion people why it still matters, while also preserving what would be irreplaceable if lost.