Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll gather the latest assessments to answer.

The United Nations is still relevant, but its relevance is increasingly contested and depends on how you measure it - as a forum vs as an enforcer.

Why many argue it remains relevant

1. It is still the only universal forum
World leaders continue to treat it as politically relevant. As the Chicago Council on Global Affairs noted for the 80th General Assembly in 2025, its more than 190 member states, with only a few exceptions, are sending representatives to New York, and the "sheer popularity of the forum with world leaders is a clear indicator that the United Nations is widely viewed to be politically relevant and an important platform".

World leaders themselves have defended that role, saying "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".

2. Public opinion remains largely positive
A 2025 Pew Research Center survey of 31,938 adults in 25 countries found "A median of 61% of adults across the surveyed countries have a favorable view of the UN, and 32% have an unfavorable view".

Other analysis of the same 2025 Pew Global Attitudes Survey noted "Most publics in the 25-nation 2025 Pew Global Attitudes Survey hold net-positive views of the United Nations, and several nations—such as South Africa, Nigeria, and Germany—have seen favorable views of the United Nations rise over the past year". Opinions were "particularly positive in Canada, Sweden, Germany, Indonesia, South Korea, Nigeria and Kenya. In each of these countries, about seven-in-ten adults or more have a favorable opinion."

Even in the United States, where views are polarized, 57% vs 41% had a more favorable than unfavorable opinion in 2025.

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

3. Operational roles no one else performs at scale

The UN is described as providing "a platform for dialogue and negotiation among member states, facilitates humanitarian aid, and supports peacekeeping operations" and "addresses climate change through initiatives like the Paris Agreement and promotes sustainable development through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)".

Specific achievements often cited:

Regional organizations "play supporting roles, but none can replace the United Nations in legitimacy, scale, or authority" for mediating conflicts, coordinating disaster relief and setting international norms, according to proponents.

Why its relevance is questioned

1. Security Council paralysis and the veto

The core critique is that "in most high-profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution".

The Council's structure is seen as anachronistic.
> "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. That is a self-perpetuating stasis right at the heart of the United Nations"

In legal terms, "a veto from any of the permanent members can halt any possible action the Council may take. One country's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of countries, may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis". Without unanimous approval or at least abstention of the 5 permanent members, the Charter only enables the UN to "observe", report and recommend.

This has led to the common assessment: "Is the United Nations still relevant? Unhesitatingly, I say yes. Is it still fit for purpose? Reluctantly, I say, without reform, no."

2. Legitimacy and enforcement challenges

A 2025 analysis found "When measured by its ability to deliver impactful, material solutions to the most critical global problems, the United Nations' relevance looks far worse. It has been radically diminished by the United States' decision to delay critical budgetary support and put caps on its contributions to UN peacekeeping".

Critics also point to great-power hypocrisy as eroding its central role "to ascribe or deny legitimacy to the use of force" - with Russia "blatantly violated the sovereignty of Ukraine," China refusing to condemn it, and the United States "providing seemingly unconditional support for Israel's atrocities" in Gaza, leading to the conclusion that "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".

Bureaucratic inefficiency and slow decision-making are also perennial criticisms, with sentiment least positive in Israel, where "just 16% have a favorable view of the UN".

3. Structure frozen in 1945

Since its creation in 1945, the Security Council "has undergone one reform in 1965, increasing the amount of non-permanent members from 6 to 10, but there have since been many calls for reform".

There is broad agreement on the need "to modernize the 15-member body to maintain the relevance of the United Nations in the twenty-first century", with debates over categories of membership, the veto, regional representation and expansion to give Africa, Latin America and others permanent representation.

In recognition of this, the UN launched the "UN80 Initiative" under Secretary-General António Guterres ahead of its 80th anniversary to "enhance efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and institutional accountability".

Bottom line

Most experts therefore describe the UN not as irrelevant, but as relevant but constrained: "It may not be flashy, but the UN still plays a vital role in maintaining peace, responding to crises, and inspiring a new generation" - while its future relevance will depend on whether members allow it to be "only as powerful as States allow it to be" and whether structural reform of the Security Council finally advances.