Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll gather the latest evidence on its impact and challenges to assess its role today.

The United Nations is still relevant, but its relevance is uneven and contested - widely seen as a "tale of two institutions"

1. Why many argue it remains relevant

a) It is the only universal platform:
The United Nations remains the world's most universal institution, bringing together 193 member states under one roof. Even governments that challenge UN norms, including Russia and China, do not withdraw from the UN, and even when the Trump administration announced withdrawal from 66 UN agencies it stopped far short of a full pullout, because it remains the main global forum with broad legitimacy.

> The more important issue is not whether the United Nations still matters. It clearly does.

Through its agencies and specialized bodies, it coordinates humanitarian assistance, supports peacekeeping operations, promotes sustainable development, and provides platforms for dialogue.

As one analysis notes: It can feed millions of people, coordinate humanitarian responses, monitor conflicts, deploy peacekeepers, negotiate agreements, establish international norms and provide a diplomatic platform that almost every recognised state continues to use.

Concrete examples are often cited:

In short, the "field" UN - the network of agencies doing "real, important work in the field" - is generally viewed as highly relevant, even by critics of the political UN.

2. Why its relevance is questioned

a) Security Council paralysis and the veto:

Much of the criticism directed at the United Nations eventually arrives at one place: the Security Council.
Its structure still reflects the world of 1945. The United States, Russia, China, Britain and France retain permanent membership and veto power. The Council has 15 members: five permanent and ten elected, but the five permanent members hold the veto.

Observers note the Security Council is paralyzed, notably because of the veto power held by the five permanent members.

Data shows the problem is worsening: permanent members exercised 19 vetoes between 2006 and 2015. Between 2016 and 2025, the number increased to 49.

When permanent members or their strategic allies are directly involved in a conflict - from Gaza to Ukraine - the institution cannot manufacture political consensus that does not exist. This led to the General Assembly increasingly using procedures like Uniting for Peace and the 2022 Veto Initiative to debate issues when the Council is deadlocked.

As a result, leaders from the Global South are actively calling for Security Council reform, including demands for two permanent seats for Africa with veto power, arguing the current structure no longer reflects global power distribution.

b) Financial and political crisis:

The UN faces what it calls its most serious financial crisis in decades. Under the UN80 reform initiative, the organisation estimates that its overall resource base could decline by approximately $16 billion between 2024 and 2026 – nearly 25 per cent.

The United Nations began 2026 by cutting 2,900 positions, with more than 1,000 staff already laid off, driven by drastic declines in funding from members, especially the United States under the second Trump administration. The United States recently paid $725 million toward its regular budget and $102 million for peacekeeping, yet still owes $1.3 billion in annual dues.

Humanitarian financing reflects this: In 2024, the U.S. financed roughly $14.1 billion of the global humanitarian system, paying for nearly 40% of everything. In 2025, this dropped to about $3.4 billion. For 2025 the UN needed $45.3 billion for life-saving activities but just 21 per cent was funded as of September, with nearly $9.6 billion received.

In April 2026, UN peacekeeping chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix warned that budgetary constraints were limiting missions' ability to implement political and civilian-protection mandates and affecting the safety of UN personnel.

This creates the paradox identified by analysts: The world entered 2026 with 65 armed conflicts involving states active in 2025 — the highest number recorded since 1946, with roughly 244,600 people killed, while the resources available to the institution expected to help manage many of them are shrinking. The UN is therefore being asked to do more precisely when it may have less capacity to do it.

Critics also note internal problems: investigative bodies like the Sudan fact-finding mission have filled less than one-third of approved positions, and funding for new mechanisms often depends on voluntary contributions rather than core budget.

As the Council on Foreign Relations president noted, given the many wars being waged, the answer to "Is the United Nations Meeting Its Potential?" has to be no.

3. Verdict: Relevant but constrained

Analysts increasingly argue the wrong question is whether the UN is irrelevant; the more important issue is whether governments expect the organisation to perform functions for which they have never actually given it sufficient political authority.

The world often talks about the United Nations as though it were a government above governments. It is not. It cannot independently deploy military force wherever it chooses. It cannot compel permanent Security Council members to abandon their strategic interests.

The organisation ultimately reflects the behaviour of the governments that created it. When they cooperate, it can deliver. When they compromise, it can mediate. When they provide resources, it can act. And when the world's most powerful states choose confrontation over consensus, the institution inevitably reflects that division.

So the realistic question at 81 is not whether it can create a world without geopolitical rivalry - no international institution can - but whether it can prevent that rivalry from becoming completely unmanaged, keep diplomatic channels open, protect civilians, and turn temporary agreements into longer processes of de-escalation.

For most states, especially smaller ones, and for millions dependent on humanitarian aid, an imperfect universal institution is still considered preferable to managing differences without one. Its continued relevance therefore depends less on bureaucratic reforms like UN80 alone, and more on whether member states - particularly the P5 - are willing to fund it, compromise, and allow it to act.