Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll assess its current role — from peacekeeping to climate and reform debates — with up-to-date evidence.

Yes — but its relevance is increasingly contested and conditional on reform. The debate at the United Nations' 80th anniversary in 2025-2026 reflects both views.

Why many argue the UN remains indispensable

1. It is still the only universal platform.
Despite talk of irrelevance, participation remains high. The 2026 General Debate featured 194 speakers, including 113 Heads of State and Government. Closing the debate, General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman said leaders had confronted conflict, stalled development and accelerating technological change but shared a common conviction: "the United Nations remains indispensable". Similarly, General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock said "the United Nations is still relevant".

Experts note that popularity itself signals relevance: more than 190 member states send representatives, with the vast majority sending heads of state or prime ministers, showing the forum is "widely viewed to be politically relevant". World opinion also remains favorable: in the 2025 Pew Global Attitudes Survey across 25 nations, most publics hold net-positive views of the UN.

2. Humanitarian, development and health work at scale no other body can replace

As one analysis puts it, 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" — best thought of not as a "Parliament of Man" but as a "Concert of Great Powers".

3. No alternative for global governance on new issues
Issues like climate, AI, and digital governance require multilateral rules. In 2026, 128 delegations raised artificial intelligence in the Assembly Hall, compared to only five four years earlier, underscoring the UN's role as a venue for debating governance of technologies that are "global in effect". Leaders adopted the Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact and Declaration on Future Generations in 2024 to attempt to revitalize cooperation.

Why relevance is questioned

1. Security Council paralysis and the veto
The most cited cause of diminished relevance is the Security Council. Former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that "The Security Council's ongoing failure to properly function constitutes the most egregious cause," highlighting the repeated use of veto by permanent members "to shield themselves, their allies and their proxies from accountability".

Without meaningful reform, he warned, "the UN risks lurching towards either collapse or irrelevance". The five Permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — have held veto power since the inception of the Council. This has blocked action on Ukraine, Gaza and other crises, leading critics to say the most fundamental challenge is legitimacy compromised by great-power hypocrisy — with Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty, China refusing to condemn it, and the United States seen as providing unconditional support for Israel in Gaza.

This fuels widespread reform demands. As General Assembly President Rahman noted, Africa's continued exclusion from permanent membership of the Security Council was described as an injustice. Spain went furthest, calling to "do away with the right of veto of the permanent members" and ensure fair regional representation.

2. Severe financial crisis and US retrenchment
The UN's ability to deliver is "radically diminished by the United States' decision to delay critical budgetary support and put caps on its contributions".

Experts warn this creates a downward spiral as other states, especially China, delay their own support, shrinking the UN's ability to tackle climate change, global health, humanitarian disasters and development goals. Former officials warn that will result in "fewer vaccinations, reduced humanitarian aid and diminished mine-clearance efforts".

3. Competition and expectations gap
A recurring question throughout recent debate was not whether the UN should exist, but "whether it can produce results". Governments press for reform precisely because the institution is judged by "whether collective action changes realities on the ground". Alternative groupings (G7, G20, regional organizations, ad hoc coalitions) often move faster, and rising multipolarity means states pursue "multivector" policies across overlapping orders rather than relying solely on the UN.

Bottom line

The UN is often described as reflecting the world more than leading it, and its limits reflect the political divisions of its members. It remains uniquely relevant as:

It appears increasingly irrelevant as a decisive security actor when veto-wielding powers are party to conflicts, and its operational relevance is threatened by funding shortfalls.

Most governments' position in the 2025-2026 General Debate was not to abandon the UN but to demand reform so it "better reflect[s] the realities of the 21st century" — suggesting that the continued demand for reform is itself evidence that states still see the institution as worth fixing rather than replacing.