The question of whether the UN remains relevant is a matter of ongoing debate among scholars, policymakers, and the public rather than a factual question with a single settled answer. I can offer some perspective on the considerations that typically come up, but this is ultimately a judgment call that depends on one's values and priorities.
Arguments that it remains relevant:
•Near-universal membership and legitimacy: With 193 member states, the UN is the only forum where virtually every country on Earth has a seat at the table, giving it a unique convening power that no other institution can replicate.
•Humanitarian and development work: Agencies like UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR, and WHO deliver food, vaccines, refugee support, and disaster relief to hundreds of millions of people annually—work that continues regardless of Security Council gridlock.
•Peacekeeping: UN peacekeepers are deployed in numerous conflict zones, and while imperfect, peacekeeping missions have helped stabilize situations in places like Liberia, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere.
•Norm-setting: Treaties and frameworks on climate (Paris Agreement), human rights, nuclear non-proliferation, and international law often originate from or are housed within the UN system.
•Specialized agencies: Bodies like the IAEA (nuclear monitoring), WHO (health), and WMO (weather/climate science) provide technical functions many governments rely on.
Arguments that its relevance is diminished or in question:
•Security Council paralysis: The veto power held by the five permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia, China) has repeatedly blocked action on major crises—Syria, Ukraine, and others—leading critics to argue the body is structurally incapable of addressing conflicts involving great powers or their allies.
•Enforcement limitations: The UN has no independent military force and relies on member states for enforcement, meaning resolutions are often symbolic without follow-through.
•Funding and withdrawal threats: Major contributors, including the US, have periodically cut funding or threatened withdrawal from agencies, straining operations.
•Representation debates: Critics argue the permanent Security Council structure reflects a 1945 power balance rather than today's geopolitical realities, fueling calls for reform that have gone nowhere for decades.
•Perceived ineffectiveness in specific crises: Ongoing wars and humanitarian catastrophes happening "on the UN's watch" are often cited as evidence of institutional failure.
My take: Most serious analysts land somewhere in the middle—arguing the UN is simultaneously indispensable for certain functions (humanitarian aid, specialized technical cooperation, a forum for dialogue) and badly in need of reform for others (Security Council structure, enforcement mechanisms). Whether you call that "relevant" often depends on what you think an international body should be able to do versus what's realistic given sovereign states' unwillingness to cede power.
If you want, I can look into more current specifics—like recent Security Council votes, reform proposals, or funding disputes—to ground this in what's happening right now.