Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll gather the latest on its role and challenges to give you a balanced answer.

The United Nations is still relevant, but its relevance is increasingly contested and conditional - it depends on how you define "relevant."

There is no other organization like it, but its ability to deliver on its core mandate - maintaining international peace and security - is seen as deeply diminished.

Why many argue it IS still relevant

1. It is still the only universal forum. As the UN marks its 80th anniversary in 2025, the question of the body's relevance looms large, undercut by financial shortfalls, US retrenchment, and growing geopolitical divides. Yet its convening power remains unmatched. Its more than 190 member states, with only a few exceptions, are sending representatives to New York City for the 80th session of the General Assembly, and the vast majority are sending heads of state. As one observer noted, "if turning up is what matters, then the sheer popularity of the forum with world leaders is a clear indicator that the United Nations is widely viewed to be politically relevant".

The President of the General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock, said after the 2024 High-Level Week: "if high-level week is any indication, the United Nations is still relevant", with a similar message that "this house is fulfilling that purpose – the United Nations is still relevant".

A Chicago Council on Global Affairs analysis argues 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". In that sense there has not been a direct war between the P5 since 1945.

2. It does indispensable operational work. The political debate often overshadows the work of UN agencies:

Supporters echo former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld: the UN "was not created to lead mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell. Without the UN, the world may be hungrier, poorer, less safe, and less sustainable".

3. It retains global legitimacy. Though the UN may not be a priority for Americans, the UN's image around the world remains favorable. Most publics in the 25-nation 2025 Pew Global Attitudes Survey hold net-positive views of the United Nations. For many smaller states, it is the only place where they have an equal vote in the General Assembly.

Why many argue it is losing relevance

1. Veto paralysis in the Security Council. The veto power of the five permanent members (P5) USA, UK, France, Russia, and China has crippled decision-making. For example, Russia blocked UN action during its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its 2022 Ukraine invasion, while the US has often vetoed resolutions on Palestine.

Critics note similar vetoes have prevented action in Syria, Sudan, and Cold War conflicts.

Analysts argue: "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", pointing to Russia violating the sovereignty of Ukraine, China refusing to condemn it, and the US providing seemingly unconditional support for Israel in Gaza.

2. Failure to prevent or stop major wars. The UN has been ineffective in major crises such as Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, Syria, and Sudan often reduced to passing symbolic resolutions. The Iraq War in 2003 showed how powerful states can bypass the UN altogether. Earlier peacekeeping missions in Rwanda (1994) and Bosnia (1990s) failed to prevent genocide.

When measured by its ability to deliver impactful, material solutions to the most critical global problems, the UN's relevance looks far worse.

3. Financial vulnerability. The UN's financial dependence on a handful of countries, especially the United States (contributing around 22% of its regular budget), makes it vulnerable to political pressures. That vulnerability has been sharpened by the United States' decision to delay critical budgetary support and put caps on its contributions to UN peacekeeping. Around 40 nations default on annual dues while discretionary donations are declining.

In October 2025 the UN announced a 25 percent reduction in peacekeeping forces due to U.S. funding cuts, repatriating 13,000-14,000 personnel.

4. Bureaucratic inefficiency and weak enforcement. The UN has been criticised for being slow, bureaucratic, and ineffective in enforcement. Even agreements like the Paris Climate Accord (2015) lack strong compliance mechanisms.

5. Rise of alternatives. The growth of regional and global groupings such as G20, BRICS, SCO, AU, and ASEAN shows that states increasingly rely on other mechanisms for cooperation.

The reform question

Almost everyone agrees that without reform the trajectory is downward. "Ultimately, incremental UN reform has failed. Decades of negotiations on Security Council reform have not produced real outcomes, other than frustration and cynicism".

Common reform proposals include:

In its current form, critics warn, the UN risks becoming a symbolic institution rather than an effective guardian of peace and security in the 21st century.

Bottom line

> Is the UN obsolete? No. Is it effective enough for today's crises? Also no.

That is why most scholars describe the UN as "more embattled and more necessary than ever" - still relevant, but in desperate need of structural reform to stay relevant for the next 80 years.

Do you want to evaluate its relevance in a specific area - peace and security, humanitarian aid, climate, or human rights? The answer varies quite a lot depending on the field.