Is the United Nations still relevant?

The question of whether the United Nations (UN) is still relevant is one of the most pressing debates in modern international relations. As the UN navigates its ninth decade under the UN80 reform process, it faces a profound paradox: while its political and security mechanisms are frequently paralyzed by great-power rivalry, its humanitarian, development, and convening functions remain entirely irreplaceable.

To understand if the UN is still relevant, it is helpful to look at the arguments on both sides of the debate.

The Case Against Relevance: Paralysis and Anachronism

Critics argue that the UN is increasingly obsolete, failing in its core mission to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

The UN Security Council (UNSC) is the only body capable of passing legally binding resolutions, yet its design allows any of the five permanent members (the P5: US, Russia, China, France, and the UK) to unilaterally veto any action. This has resulted in total paralysis during major global crises. Russia has vetoed resolutions regarding its war in Ukraine; the United States has repeatedly vetoed ceasefire resolutions concerning the conflict in Gaza; and China and Russia have blocked action on Syria and other crises.

The UN's structure still reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945, not the multipolar world of today. Entire regions—most notably Africa and Latin America—have no permanent seats on the Security Council, while rising powers like India and Brazil are excluded from permanent status. During the 81st General Assembly (UNGA 81), world leaders repeatedly warned that the UN must reform its representation or risk losing all legitimacy.

Instead of preventing conflicts, the UN is increasingly viewed as a reactive body that simply manages the fallout. It provides food, medicine, and shelter to victims of wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, but remains politically powerless to stop the violence itself.

The UN faces critical budgetary shortfalls. National contributions and official development assistance have seen historic declines, while deep political divisions have eroded trust. When rules and international laws are perceived as being applied selectively by powerful states, global public confidence in the institution collapses.

The Case For Relevance: Indispensability and Global Impact

Supporters argue that the UN’s value should not be measured solely by the dysfunction of the Security Council. Without the UN, the international system would lack the basic machinery required to prevent global chaos.

There is no other forum on Earth where 193 sovereign nations can sit at the same table. The annual UN General Assembly remains the premier global stage where small, developing nations have an equal voice to air grievances, and where heads of state gather to shape international discourse. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted: "The United Nations exists because power requires rules – and humanity needs a place where power answers to principle."

While the political organs grab headlines, the UN’s specialized agencies do the quiet, vital work of keeping the world running.

If the UN were abolished tomorrow, these agencies would have to be reinvented immediately.

Existential, transnational threats cannot be solved by any single country or coalition of the willing. The UN is the only viable framework for managing the "global commons," including:

While the UN has failed to prevent regional conflicts, its primary post-WWII mandate was actually to prevent a direct, cataclysmic war between nuclear-armed great powers. By maintaining diplomatic channels and back-alleys for communication during intense geopolitical rivalries, it has successfully prevented a direct clash between the U.S., Russia, and China.

The Verdict: Reform or Irrelevance?

The consensus among global leaders and policy experts is that the United Nations is still highly relevant, but it is deeply damaged. The question is no longer if the UN should exist, but how it must change to survive the 21st century.

As the UN undergoes leadership transitions—with Secretary-General António Guterres's term concluding at the end of 2026—the organization is at a pivotal crossroads. If the permanent members of the Security Council continue to block reforms and use the UN purely as an arena for geopolitical point-scoring, the institution risks fading into a symbol of failed ambition. However, as a framework for humanitarian relief, international law, and global coordination, the UN remains the only bridge connecting a deeply fragmented, multipolar world.