Is the United Nations still relevant?

Whether the United Nations (UN) is still relevant is one of the most hotly debated questions in modern international relations. As the organization marks eight decades since its founding in 1945, the gap between its ambitious founding mission—to maintain global peace and security—and its actual ability to do so has never been more visible.

The debate is generally divided between those who see the UN as gridlocked and increasingly obsolete, and those who argue that it remains an indispensable, irreplaceable foundation for global cooperation.

The Case Against: Why the UN’s Relevance is Questioned

Critics argue that the UN is increasingly paralyzed, outdated, and unable to resolve the world’s most pressing crises. The primary criticisms include:

The UN Security Council (UNSC) is the only body capable of passing legally binding resolutions, but it is routinely paralyzed by the veto power of its five permanent members (the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the UK). Russia has repeatedly vetoed resolutions regarding its invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the U.S. has used its veto to block resolutions regarding ceasefires in Gaza. When the body responsible for world peace is gridlocked by its most powerful members, critics argue the UN becomes toothless.

The composition of the UNSC reflects the geopolitical reality of 1945, not today. Developing nations and major global players like India, Brazil, and the entire continent of Africa have no permanent seats or veto power. Many leaders argue that this makes the UN unrepresentative and diminishes its legitimacy.

The UN was founded on the promise of "never again". Yet, it has been unable to prevent or halt major modern conflicts—including the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict, and civil wars in Syria, Sudan, and Yemen. High-profile political figures, such as Argentina’s President Javier Milei, have openly criticized the UN for failing to guarantee collective security.

Even when the UN General Assembly passes resolutions or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issues rulings, they often lack enforcement mechanisms. Nations can simply ignore them if they have the geopolitical weight to do so.

The Case For: Why the UN Remains Indispensable

Supporters of the UN argue that while the organization is deeply flawed, the world would be far more dangerous, chaotic, and impoverished without it. They point to several key areas where the UN is highly relevant:

As Czech President Petr Pavel noted, the UN remains indispensable as a forum for dialogue, particularly between adversaries. No other organization brings together more than 190 sovereign nations under one roof. The annual UN General Assembly (UNGA) remains the premier stage for global diplomacy, where world leaders—even those from warring nations—gather to state their cases, meet on the sidelines, and shape international discourse.

Humanity faces threats that no single nation can solve alone: climate change, pandemics, nuclear non-proliferation, and the governance of Artificial Intelligence. The UN is the only body with the convener power to set international standards, treaties, and goals (such as the Paris Agreement on climate change or the Sustainable Development Goals).

While the political arm of the UN is often gridlocked, its humanitarian arms are highly active and effective. Agencies like the World Food Programme (WFP), UNICEF, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), and the World Health Organization (WHO) feed millions of people, vaccinate children, support refugees, and deliver aid in active conflict zones. In many of the world's worst crises, the UN is the only entity keeping populations alive.

While UN peacekeeping forces cannot stop major wars between nuclear powers, they play a vital role in keeping localized conflicts from boiling over. In areas like Cyprus, Kosovo, and parts of the Middle East and Africa, UN peacekeepers act as a buffer, preventing minor skirmishes from escalating into full-scale wars.

Conclusion: Relevant but in Need of Reform

Is the UN still relevant?

If "relevance" is defined as the ability to stop wars between major powers, then the UN's relevance is indeed at an all-time low.

However, if "relevance" is defined as providing a baseline of global order, hosting the only universal diplomatic forum, and coordinating humanitarian survival, the UN is more relevant than ever.

The consensus among most international experts and world leaders is not that the UN should be abolished, but that it must be radically upgraded. For the UN to maintain its legitimacy through the 21st century, it will likely need to find a way to reform the Security Council, limit the power of the veto, and give a louder voice to the Global South.