Is the United Nations still relevant?

Your question on UN relevance is open — I'll gather the latest arguments for and against.

Yes - but it is arguably at one of its most vulnerable moments in 80 years.

The United Nations came into existence 80 years ago as its charter came into force and as it marks that anniversary, the debate is whether it is succeeding or losing credibility.

Why many argue it is still relevant

1. Core purpose as a platform for collective security and multilateralism

> If high-level week is any indication, the United Nations is still relevant

Closing the General Debate at the 80th session, General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock said:

> If this High-Level Week is an indication, this house is fulfilling that purpose – the United Nations is still relevant... For proving why our United Nations remains critical, especially facing a crossroads

She also said after 80 years it is time to "adapt and evolve for a United Nations that will carry us through the next eight decades to show eight billion people why this Organization still matters."

The 80th session's theme is “Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights.”

Proponents note historic contributions: In the past eight decades the UN helped rebuild countries after the Second World War, supported former colonies' independence, fostered peace, delivered aid, advanced human rights and development, and tackling emerging threats like climate change.

A joint statement on the 80th anniversary said:

> The United Nations, born from the devastation of World War II, has prevented large-scale conflicts, protected vulnerable populations, and advanced universal human rights

2. Humanitarian and operational work that no other body can replace

Even critics acknowledge that ambassadors can agree the UN needs serious reform to deal with global challenges, from climate change to regulation of artificial intelligence- implying a shared belief that a global regulatory forum is needed.

Why its relevance is questioned

1. Security Council paralysis and the veto

The veto remains the leading factor that calls into question the effectiveness and efficiency of the Council. Article 27(3) requires 9 affirmative votes including all five permanent members (P5) for substantive decisions.

Critics say:

> too often it has incapacitated the Council. Not only do vetoes hamper the efficiency of the United Nations system, but they also undermine its credibility in the eyes of international public opinion

> Observing that some permanent members' abuse of the veto had serious consequences for the organ's credibility and for international peace and security... the Council's paralysis amounted to death and destruction in Gaza and Ukraine

Other criticisms include outdated structure, lack of equitable representation, and ineffectiveness in responding to global security challenges, with no permanent members from Africa or Latin America, and frequent veto use.

2. Geopolitical rivalry and inability to act on major wars

A United Nations University analysis called last year among the darkest in UN history:

> 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

It warns that without sustained deconfliction among the P5, the U.N. cannot function as a system of collective security and that new US-led alternatives like a Board of Peace are a fairly clear effort to offer a U.S.-dominated alternative to a languishing U.N. Security Council. Its core purpose - preventing great-power confrontation from escalating into World War III - is at risk.

3. Severe funding and liquidity crisis

The UN ended 2024 with $760 million in unpaid assessments and has yet to receive $877 million for 2025 – bringing total arrears to around $1.586 billion.

It has been facing a severe and worsening cash liquidity crisis, underpinned mainly by some member states not paying their agreed contributions in full or on time.

The UN regular budget totaled $3.72 billion in FY2025. The United States has the largest assessed contribution (22%), followed by China (20%) and Japan (6.9%). Together the US and China account for 42% of core funding, and delays from them have pushed the UN toward a liquidity crisis.

4. Reform deadlock

There is broad agreement that the UN needs serious reform but that members will find it difficult, perhaps impossible, to agree on even limited reforms. The Secretary-General's UN80 reform initiative aimed at making the Organization more efficient, effective and responsive is seen as necessary, but some argue the UN must become less inward-looking and more strategically relevant, focusing on P5 engagement rather than internal streamlining.

Outlook: Relevant but at a crossroads

Most experts and world leaders at the General Assembly still call on the UN to help resolve longstanding disputes, displacement and climate disaster, but say:

> Unless we find the determination to advance on this issue, the United Nations will lose its credibility

The UN is widely seen as still relevant for humanitarian relief, peacekeeping, health (eradicating smallpox), human rights norms and as the only universal forum where all 193 Member States have an equal voice. However, its relevance for maintaining international peace and security - its original core mandate - is increasingly contested because of Security Council veto paralysis, great-power competition, and financial fragility.

Whether it remains relevant in the next 80 years will likely depend on whether member states, especially the P5, are willing to pay their dues, restrain veto use, and allow structural reform - or whether alternative ad-hoc coalitions replace its security functions.