Is the United Nations still relevant?

The UN's relevance is debated — I'll pull the latest evidence on its global role to give you a balanced answer.

Is the United Nations still relevant? The short answer from most experts and public opinion is: Yes, but increasingly constrained - and in need of reform.

Ahead of its 80th anniversary on Oct. 24, 2025, the question is being asked more urgently than at any time since 1945.

> Is the United Nations still relevant? Unhesitatingly, I say yes. Is it still fit for purpose? Reluctantly, I say, without reform, no.

That duality captures the debate.

Why It Is Still Considered Relevant

1. There is no alternative universal forum

The UN is described as having exclusive legitimacy and reach:

> 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

As Guinea-Bissau's President said at the 80th General Assembly:

> The United Nations remains relevant, especially in these times of deep global uncertainty and crisis. It continues to be the only forum where all nations — large and small — have a seat and a voice

Even critics acknowledge that if it is "just" a talking shop, it is a unique forum in which governments have to meet, explain and justify themselves.

Attendance supports that - more than 190 member states, with only a few exceptions, still send heads of state or government to New York for General Assembly high-level week, which is seen as a clear indicator that it is widely viewed to be politically relevant.

2. Public legitimacy remains relatively high

Most publics in the 25-nation 2025 Pew Global Attitudes Survey hold net-positive views of the United Nations

That perception makes the United Nations a still-useful venue for international contestation—and a tool for nations seeking international power and prestige

In the U.S., 57% viewed the UN favorably in early 2025, even as views are polarized by party.

3. Humanitarian, development and normative work

The Secretary-General noted the UN is not just the Security Council chamber, but:

> tens of thousands of women and men around the world. Feeding the hungry. Vaccinating children. Promoting development.

Protecting civilians in peacekeeping operations, mediating conflicts and more

Concrete examples:

Why Its Relevance Is Questioned

1. Security Council paralysis and the veto

The most cited structural flaw:

> The 5 permanent members have veto power over UN Security Council decisions, which means that they can block any decision they oppose

Criticisms include ineffectiveness, lack of representation and legitimacy, and veto power.

> The real engine of the United Nations remains the Security Council. Paradoxically, two of the main perpetrators of global threat and instability, Russia and China, are still two of the permanent members. They regularly veto Security Council proposals

The veto has blocked action on Syria, Ukraine, Gaza and other crises. Analysts note the Council is:

> Paralyzed by the veto rights of the major powers in conflicts such as those in Ukraine and Gaza, the Security Council is degenerating into an echo chamber of international crises

More broadly:

> It can't enforce the policies it adopts, and its actions often depend on the whims of the Security Council, whose five permanent members opportunistically exercise veto power

2. Legitimacy and hypocrisy crisis

Chicago Council experts 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

With Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty, China refusing to condemn it, and the United States seen as providing unconditional support for Israel in Gaza, great-power hypocrisy is seen to have eroded the institution's central role to ascribe or deny legitimacy to the use of force.

3. Financial and political retrenchment

When measured by its ability to deliver material solutions, relevance looks far worse. It has been radically diminished by the United States' decision to delay critical budgetary support and put caps on contributions to UN peacekeeping. This, plus other states delaying support, means:

> the United Nations' ability to tackle climate change, global health risks, humanitarian disasters, technological change, and longer-term development goals is shrinking, and it is shrinking rapidly

Withdrawal from agreements like the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization has further disrupted progress.

Critics also point to bureaucratic inefficiencies, susceptibility to political gridlock, and inadequate representation of the developing world.

The Reform Question

The debate is less about abolishing the UN than reforming it. Proposals regularly discussed include:

As one analysis put it in 2025: The UN's institutional architecture remains anchored in the post-1945 settlement, yet the order it was designed to govern is increasingly contested by Russia, China, and the Global South.

If the U.S. steps back, others - notably China, which has steadily grown its influence within the UN agency system - will step in.

Bottom Line

As the UN's Legal Counsel said in 2022, quoting Trygve Lie in 1948: confidence in the UN to keep the peace has been shaken, yet it has done well in many matters and has important accomplishments to its credit - a sentiment that still applies 80 years on.

Do you see the UN's value primarily as a peace-enforcer, or as a humanitarian and norm-setting platform? That distinction often determines how relevant people think it is.