Is the United Nations still relevant?

The UN's relevance is hotly debated — I'll pull the latest evidence on what it still delivers and where it falls short.

Short answer: Yes - but not in the way it was in 1945, and its relevance is increasingly selective.

The question is debated at every UN General Assembly, including the 2026 one held under the theme of "restoring trust and managing transformation". The consensus among scholars and diplomats is similar to what one 2026 analysis put it: "Yes, but not for the reasons its defenders usually claim. And its current form is unsustainable."

Why the UN is still relevant

There is no plausible replacement. Founded 80 years ago, the United Nations is today "an integral part of the world's political, humanitarian and diplomatic life". Its near-universal membership of 193 states gives it a legitimacy that no alternative has replicated:

> "These successes explain why, despite repeated criticism, no viable alternative has emerged to replace the UN as the centerpiece of contemporary global governance."

The organization itself defends this position, saying "The United Nations still represents the power of multilateralism... So the United Nations still matters."

Its relevance today rests on 4 functions where it has no real substitute:

1. Humanitarian and development delivery. This is the least visible but most vital role.

> The UN coordinates food distribution to roughly 160 million people across crisis zones. The World Food Programme, UNICEF, and the refugee agency (UNHCR) operate in places where no one else will go.

More formally, agencies such as WFP, UNICEF, UNHCR and WHO "provide food assistance, healthcare, education, refugee protection, and emergency relief to millions of people each year". In 2025, for example, the UN Central Emergency Response Fund was allocating millions to address displacement in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

Through the Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals it has also provided a common framework for poverty, health, education and climate policy, and it has created "a comprehensive body of human rights law" including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention.

2. Technical and regulatory standard-setting.

> The International Civil Aviation Organization sets the rules that let you fly between countries without your plane falling out of the sky... The World Health Organization, for all its COVID-era failures, still runs disease surveillance and vaccination campaigns that no single country could manage alone.

Analysts note the UN plays indispensable roles in humanitarian coordination, global health, civil aviation, maritime regulation, telecommunications and other logistical frameworks that sustain daily international life.

3. Diplomatic infrastructure.

> The UN provides a permanent venue where adversaries can talk without formally recognizing each other... The General Assembly is a talk shop, yes. But talk shops prevent wars.

It was established in 1945 to preserve peace, promote cooperation and prevent another global conflict, and it remains "the only universal organization where every sovereign state can participate".

4. Peacekeeping - still a cornerstone, though limited. Amid escalating armed conflicts, UN peacekeeping missions "remain a cornerstone of international efforts to promote security and stability".

The UN currently operates 11 peacekeeping missions worldwide, with more than 60,000 personnel from over 120 countries. In 2025 the Security Council extended the mandates of eight out of eleven peacekeeping operations, and peacekeepers have "monitored ceasefires, supported elections, protected civilians, and assisted post-conflict reconstruction" since 1948.

Why its relevance is questioned

1. The Security Council veto - paralysis by design.

> The Security Council is broken by design. Five countries hold veto power. In 2026, this means Russia can block action on Ukraine, the US can block action on Israel-Palestine, and China can block action on Taiwan or Xinjiang.

Scholars agree: the veto "has often led to inaction during critical conflicts, undermining its role as a guardian of peace". The inability to respond decisively to conflicts in Ukraine, Syria and Gaza has reinforced criticisms that "geopolitical rivalry frequently overrides the collective security objectives of the UN Charter".

A practical example: analysts noted that in 2025 the Security Council had 44 resolutions but was paralysed on Gaza and Ukraine where "a veto holder is a party or a patron".

Calls to reform - scrapping or limiting the veto, and expanding permanent membership to include Africa, Latin America and major Asian powers - are long-standing but deadlocked. As one review put it, many developing countries argue institutions "continue to reflect the political realities of 1945 rather than those of the twenty-first century".

2. Ineffectiveness in major wars and great-power conflicts. Critics argue the UN faces "valid criticism regarding bureaucracy, inefficiency, and occasional impotence in preventing major conflicts and atrocities", and is increasingly seen as "ineffective and incapable of fulfilling its mandate".

The 81st General Assembly ended "with no breakthroughs on the world's most challenging conflicts", reflecting a broader view that the UN "faces serious limitations today" despite its role in diplomacy and aid.

3. Financial and political strain. The UN's regular budget for 2026 was $3.45 billion, about 7 percent below the previous year's appropriation - less than many city budgets, as critics note.

Funding is increasingly fragile. The UN's statements note it must continue mandates even after the US announced withdrawal from dozens of international organizations. On January 20, 2025, President Trump announced the United States would begin the one-year WHO withdrawal process, part of broader 2025 aid cuts that hit UN agencies hard.

4. A world the Charter wasn't built for. In 1945 the founders faced 51 member states and two nuclear powers. Today challenges like climate change, cyberattacks, AI governance and pandemics "move faster than the WHO's bureaucratic processes" and aren't mentioned in founding documents. Power has also diffused to China, India, the EU and middle powers like Turkey and Indonesia, yet the formal structure still treats 1945 as the permanent reality.

Selectively relevant - and no alternative

The most accurate description from recent assessments is:

> The UN isn't irrelevant. It's selectively relevant. It works where great-power interests align or where they don't care. It fails where they clash directly. It works on technical problems. It fails on political ones. It keeps people alive. It doesn't keep the peace.

That is why General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock in September 2026 called for rebuilding trust so the UN "lives up to that incredible potential" - an admission that potential is not currently fulfilled.

Reform proposals tend to accept that the Security Council monopoly on force needs to be worked around, for example through more routine use of "Uniting for Peace" General Assembly resolutions and greater empowerment of regional organizations, plus restraint in veto use during humanitarian emergencies.

Completely replacing the UN is widely seen as a fantasy - the G7 is too small, the G20 too incoherent, and regional bodies lack global scope - while letting it decay is seen as dangerous. Its future relevance therefore depends less on whether member states need a universal multilateral institution - they do - and more on whether they are willing to pay for it, give it real authority, and adapt its 1945 architecture to a multipolar, interdependent world.