Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll gather up-to-date perspectives on its role and effectiveness.

The United Nations is still relevant - but its relevance is uneven and increasingly contested, especially as it turns 80 in 2025-2026.

Why arguments that it IS still relevant persist:

1. It remains the only universal platform with legitimacy
The General Assembly itself recognized that "There is no other global organization with the legitimacy, convening power and normative impact of the United Nations". From an institutional perspective it remains "the only universal platform with the mandate to maintain international peace and security".

That legitimacy is reflected in attendance. At the 80th General Assembly, with only a few exceptions, more than 190 member states sent representatives, the vast majority heads of state, presidents or prime ministers, which is described as "a clear indicator that the United Nations is widely viewed to be politically relevant". In closing remarks at the General Debate, President of the General Assembly Annalena Baerbock said if high-level week is any indication, the United Nations is still relevant.

2. Humanitarian, development and peacekeeping work

The UN stresses it is "not just the chamber behind me. It is tens of thousands of women and men around the world. Feeding the hungry. Vaccinating children... Protecting civilians in peacekeeping operations" and that it remains "a major actor for the weak and forgotten" sometimes the only actor in certain countries.

Concrete scale in 2024-2025:

The 2024 Summit of the Future adoption of the Pact for the Future, calling for stronger diplomacy, climate action and Security Council reform, was framed as a "historic turning point for multilateralism".

3. Global public opinion still net-positive

Despite criticism, global polling shows support outweighs disapproval:

It is also the framework for major treaties like the Paris Agreement created at COP21 and the annual COP and climate NDC process.

Why its relevance is questioned:

1. Security Council paralysis and veto abuse

The core critique is that the Council, "designed as the premier crisis response mechanism, has been paralyzed by veto abuse in the most critical conflicts of our era". Specifically, "In Gaza, the US has vetoed seven ceasefire resolutions. In Ukraine, Russia has blocked all meaningful Security Council action since 2022".

Analysts argue the UN "is now grappling with a collapse of legitimacy—largely triggered by the continued abuse of veto power by permanent members" which has "prevented timely responses to catastrophic conflicts in Gaza, Syria, and Ukraine".

The veto means the UN "can’t force desired outcomes, such as compelling Russia to end its attack on Ukraine, because enforcement 'depends on the political will of major powers'" - a protocol "baked into the U.N.’s 1945 design". The Security Council's inaction on Gaza and Ukraine has "once again put a spotlight on structural problems at the United Nations" particularly veto power.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres in September condemned "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'", amid ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan where vetoes blocking action.

2. An outdated and unrepresentative structure

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.

This has led to repeated calls that "If the United Nations is to remain relevant in this century, it must reflect today’s realities, not the postwar power arrangements of 1945", with demands for two permanent African seats with veto, expansion, or outright abolition of veto.

Perceptions of legitimacy have been "irretrievably compromised" for many because "one—Russia—has blatantly violated the sovereignty of Ukraine" and another — the U.S. — is seen as providing support for Israel's actions in Gaza. Great-power hypocrisy has eroded the institution's relevance "in its most central role, which is to ascribe or deny legitimacy to the use of force".

3. Financial and political constraints

When measured by ability to deliver, relevance "has been radically diminished by the United States’ decision to delay critical budgetary support and put caps on its contributions to UN peacekeeping" which has created a downward spiral as other states like China delay support, shrinking ability "to tackle climate change, global health risks, humanitarian disasters", compounded by U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and WHO.

In the U.S., opinion is more negative: a Gallup poll found "a majority of Americans think the U.N. is doing a 'poor job' protecting human rights, upholding international law" and 70% rate it poorly on protecting human rights and upholding international law.

Conclusion: Conditionally relevant

The debate is not whether the UN does anything — its humanitarian, peacekeeping, legal (International Court of Justice) and norm-setting functions still reach over 100 million people annually — but whether it can fulfill its founding core purpose "to maintain international peace and security"when the Security Council can be vetoed by any of the P5.

As former UN Legal Counsel noted, there are "77 years of UN history to consider, and often blame" and multilateralism "lacks scale, ambition and teeth — and some of the instruments that do have teeth show little or no appetite to bite".

Most experts therefore conclude: the UN is still indispensable as a convening platform, aid provider and source of international law — "if there is a crisis of multilateralism, that does not imply a crisis of international law" — but without structural reform of the Security Council, financing, and great-power commitment, it risks becoming what critics call a "talking shop" or increasingly "near-irrelevance" for hard security crises.