Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant today? I'll examine its current role and impact for you.

The United Nations remains relevant, but its relevance is increasingly contested and conditional.

Why arguments for relevance persist

On its 80th anniversary in 2025, the organization is still described as the only institution with unique legitimacy and scope:

> There is no other global organization with the legitimacy, convening power and normative impact of the United Nations

and

> the only universal platform with the mandate to maintain international peace and security

From an institutional perspective, supporters note:

This view is echoed in international law analysis that the UN "remains a major actor for the weak and forgotten; and it is sometimes the only actor assisting in certain countries"

By one framing, the UN is still relevant if one keeps in mind the core purpose of its founding: to prevent another world war between the great powers

Concrete functions cited:

Why relevance is questioned

The UN turns 80 at a moment when its relevance is under sharper question than at any point since its founding. The UN80 Initiative launched in early 2025 is described as less a celebration than an attempt at a serious reworking of an organization seemingly in intensive care

Key criticisms:

1. Security Council paralysis and legitimacy
The most fundamental challenge is linked to perceptions of legitimacy being irretrievably compromised, with Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty, China refusing to condemn it, and the United States seen as supporting Israel's actions in Gaza

Increasingly, the United Nations is seen as an ineffective body in managing conflicts, with the problem being the veto power of the five permanent members

Recent example: At UNGA on 28 September 2025, while all 14 other members voted in favour of a Gaza ceasefire resolution, the United States vetoed it. Russia has used veto on numerous occasions to block resolutions on Syria, and China joined Russia to veto resolutions on Syria, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe

The veto creates a distinct imbalance between permanent and non-permanent members, who have little decision-making power, and the Council has had a mixed track record, intervening successfully in some crises (e.g., Somalia), but not in others (e.g., Rwanda and Gaza)

2. Representation
The UNSC represents only 7.8 per cent of all states today, while it stood at 22 per cent back in 1945, with developing and small states underrepresented

Institutions derive strength from adaptability and must evolve to reflect contemporary realities, including expanding the Security Council and rethinking the veto mechanism

3. Financial and political retrenchment
When measured by its ability to deliver impactful solutions, relevance looks far worse, radically diminished by the United States' decision to delay budgetary support and put caps on peacekeeping contributions, plus rhetorical attacks and withdrawals from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization disrupting progress on climate and health

Polarization is also domestic: in the US, 62% of Democrats vs 29% of Republicans say strengthening the UN is a very important foreign policy goal

4. Mixed effectiveness
Critics question its effectiveness because in most high-profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution

Synthesis

Analysts distinguish between two measures of relevance:

Therefore, most assessments conclude: Yes, the United Nations remains relevant, particularly in humanitarian coordination, international law, refugee protection, and global health, but its effectiveness in preventing or stopping conflicts between major powers is widely debated — with urgent calls for reform to preserve its value.