Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll gather current perspectives on its role and track its recent impact.

The United Nations is still considered relevant by many governments and observers, but its relevance is contested and conditional - described as "still relevant but not as effective as needed."

Arguments That It Remains Relevant

1. Indispensable multilateral forum:

The United Nations was founded on 24 October 1945 with the goal of promoting international cooperation and world peace. It has continued to provide a framework for multilateral engagement despite major geopolitical shifts.

At the close of the 80th General Assembly General Debate in September 2025, General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock said:

> “If this high-level week is an indication, this house is fulfilling that purpose – the United Nations is still relevant,”

She also said if high-level week is any indication, the United Nations is still relevant. The debate itself underscores continued engagement: 189 Member States spoke from the iconic green marbled podium – including 124 heads of states and government.

The UN itself frames its work as a "tale of two institutions" — one a gridlocked political body, and the other a network of agencies doing "real, important work in the field".

2. Humanitarian, development and normative work:

A recurring question throughout recent debate was not whether the United Nations should exist, but whether it can produce results.

Arguments That Its Relevance Has Declined

1. Ineffectiveness in peace and security:

Even proponents of the United Nations question its effectiveness and relevance because in most high-profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Its first Charter mandates require the UN: “To maintain international peace and security.... (and if necessary to enforce the peace by) taking preventive or enforcement action,”, but due to its restrictive administrative structure, the permanent members of the Security Council themselves have sometimes prevented the UN from fully carrying out its first two mandates.

The UN faces criticism for its perceived irrelevance in a rapidly changing world, and despite criticisms of its bureaucracy and effectiveness, the debate continues.

2. Security Council paralysis and the veto:

There has been criticism that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States), who are all nuclear powers, have created an exclusive nuclear club whose powers are unchecked.

Unlike the General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council does not have true international representation.

As it stands, a veto from any of the permanent members can halt any possible action the Council may take. One country's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of countries, may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis.

Critics say the Security Council's outdated composition undermines its legitimacy and the increasing use of the veto inhibits its functionality—as seen in its paralysis over the wars in Gaza, Iran, and Ukraine.

In both the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, the Council—the only body with the power to issue binding resolutions—has been paralyzed by the veto power held by its five permanent members (P5).

When powerful nations can violate international law or exploit their veto to shield aggression, the moral authority of the UN erodes entirely, highlighting a systemic failure: "a Security Council structurally frozen by the veto power of its permanent members (the P5)".

Current Consensus: Relevant But Needs Reform

The dominant view among diplomats in 2025-2026 is not abolition but reform. Governments have pressed the UN to reflect the world as it is, with a recurring debate over what the United Nations should do, how much authority it should have and whether better delivery requires stronger operational capacity – or a narrower institutional role.

Secretary-General António Guterres' 2025 annual report acknowledged the organization operates "despite enormously trying times – indeed, precisely because of them – we can and must keep pushing for the better world that we know is within reach", while the 2024 Pact for the Future commits to more representative and effective global governance, including reforms to the Security Council.

In short: The UN remains the only universal, legitimacy-conferring forum for international law, humanitarian coordination, sustainable development and climate cooperation — functions no other body fully replaces. But on its core security mandate — preventing and ending major wars — its relevance is severely constrained by great-power rivalry and veto politics, leading many to call it increasingly ineffective unless structurally reformed.