Is the United Nations still relevant?

The UN's relevance is hotly debated — I'll survey its latest record to give you a balanced answer.

Is the United Nations still relevant? The answer depends on how you define relevance - as an effective enforcer of peace, or as an indispensable platform for global cooperation. By the second measure, most assessments say yes, but under unprecedented strain.

Why many argue it remains relevant

1. Near-universal legitimacy and convening power

The UN marks its 80th anniversary in 2025-2026. Despite criticism, its more than 190 member states, with only a few exceptions, still send representatives to New York for the General Assembly high-level week, the vast majority sending heads of state or prime ministers.

President of the General Assembly Annalena Baerbock said in closing remarks that if high-level week is any indication, the United Nations is still relevant.

Public opinion supports that view. Most publics in the 25-nation 2025 Pew Global Attitudes Survey hold net-positive views of the United Nations, and several nations — such as South Africa, Nigeria, and Germany — have seen favorable views rise over the past year. That perception makes the United Nations a still-useful venue for international contestation.

Analysts at the Center on International Cooperation describe the UN in 2026 similarly: The UN remains indispensable, and the expectations placed on it have expanded, even as it enters 2026 at a moment when global disorder and institutional constraints converge, placing unprecedented pressure on how multilateral governance is exercised.

2. Humanitarian, peacekeeping and development work that no other body does at scale

In these functional areas — delivering aid, coordinating health, setting development targets, providing peacekeepers where parties consent, and hosting negotiations — there is no alternative with comparable universality.

Why relevance is increasingly questioned

1. Security Council paralysis and the legitimacy crisis

The UN's most fundamental challenge to relevance is increasingly seen as legitimacy.

> The most fundamental challenge to the relevance of the United Nations is intimately linked to perceptions of its legitimacy. For many, this has been irretrievably compromised.

The core problem is the veto power of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Of the five permanent members, one — Russia — has blatantly violated the sovereignty of Ukraine. A second — China — has refused to condemn this violation, while critics point to the United States' unconditional support for Israel's actions in Gaza.

Secretary-General António Guterres on 17 September condemned the UN Security Council's structural paralysis as unacceptable, declaring its reform an 'absolute priority' and warning that the conduct of permanent members has fostered a global 'environment of impunity'.

He argued the Council's composition remains rooted in the post-World War II order of 1945, when the victors of the war were awarded permanent seats and veto powers. It is unacceptable to have a Security Council with a composition that reflects the world that existed many decades ago, instead of reflecting today's world, and that is a factor of paralysis.

Reform is structurally blocked because any amendment to the UN Charter requires the approval of all five permanent members — each of whom stands to lose relative influence.

The result has been inability to reach consensus on major wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan, with vetoes blocking or delaying action.

2. Financial and political retrenchment, especially by the United States

The UN's ability to tackle climate change, global health risks, humanitarian disasters, and development goals is shrinking, and it is shrinking rapidly, in part due to the United States' decision to delay critical budgetary support and put caps on its contributions to UN peacekeeping.

Specific pressures include:

The U.S., traditionally the largest contributor, has withheld or delayed payments, triggering liquidity crises across UN agencies.

Rhetorical attacks and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change and the World Health Organization has disrupted progress on two of the greatest challenges for the 21st century.

If the United States steps back, analysts note, others will step in — particularly China, which has steadily grown its influence within the UN agency system — but Washington may find itself less capable of shaping a system that has adjusted to its absence.

3. Competition from other forums

Regional organizations, ad hoc coalitions (G7, G20, BRICS), and minilateral climate or security deals increasingly handle issues the UN cannot resolve quickly. The UN80 Initiative, a reform effort to modernize how the organization operates, reflects a pragmatic attempt to restore the ability to govern the UN system despite persistent political fragmentation and fiscal constraints, rather than a grand redesign of multilateralism.

Bottom line

The UN is rarely effective as a decisive enforcer against its most powerful members — critics calling it ineffective and unable to achieve any results when one Council member acts incorrectly have a factual basis in the veto record.

It remains relevant — some scholars say irreplaceable — as:

As the UN itself notes, with only four years left until 2030, many countries continue to face structural constraints... it is precisely in such a context that the role of the United Nations becomes even more relevant.

Its relevance in the coming years will likely depend less on whether it can prevent great-power wars, and more on whether member states — particularly the P5 — allow reform of the Security Council, restore stable funding, and use the UN system for climate, health, development and humanitarian coordination where no alternative exists.