Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll gather up-to-date analysis to weigh the case for and against it.

The United Nations is still relevant, but its relevance is uneven, contested, and under severe strain in 2026 - a common description is "selectively relevant."

The short answer from recent analysis is: Yes, but not for the reasons its defenders usually claim. And its current form is unsustainable.

Why it is still considered relevant

1. The only universal forum:
The UN remains the only universal forum for global cooperation on war and peace, even as the international order it anchors is under mounting strain.
Political analyst Peter Kagwanja has noted the post-war UN remained “still a work in progress”, but had continued to provide a framework for multilateral engagement despite major geopolitical shifts.

On 24 October 2026, as the UN celebrated its 81st anniversary, Secretary-General António Guterres reaffirmed the enduring relevance of the United Nations as the organisation marked its 81st anniversary, declaring that the world body is 'needed more than ever' amid an era of compounding global crises.
He listed its core functions over eight decades: settling disputes through diplomacy and international law, working to eradicate poverty and hunger, promoting human rights, and delivering life-saving aid to people facing war, disaster, and displacement.
In a video message he added that from transportation trade and technology, to safeguarding the health of people and planet, to championing gender equality and giving all countries an equal voice on the global stage, the United Nations is an essential part of the fabric of our world.

2. Operational footprint no other body can replace:

Even during the current crisis, the UN Peacebuilding Fund announced more than $1 billion in support to global peacebuilding since 2020, supporting more than 50 countries.

3. Norm-setting and law: Even when it cannot enforce peace, the UN provides the scaffolding for international cooperation. Faced with fallout such as closure of the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, governments have stressed the importance of international legal principles including the prohibition of aggressive war and freedom of navigation. The Trump administration itself has turned to the Security Council to endorse its conflict management efforts in Haiti and Gaza.

Why its relevance is questioned

1. Security Council paralysis:
A key focus of criticism has been the Security Council, which has struggled to fulfil its Charter-given mandate to maintain international peace and security, as the world is facing more armed conflicts than before.
As regards the most salient peace and security challenges today – the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, as well as Ukraine and Sudan – the UN is notable mainly for being stuck.
The mechanism is the veto: Unanimously adopted resolutions fell to 65 per cent in 2024, while in the decade from 2016 to 2025 there were 49 vetoes, compared with 19 in the previous decade.
Former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned in December 2025 that the Security Council’s ongoing failure to properly function constitutes the most egregious cause of the UN's crisis, highlighting the repeated use of veto by permanent members “to shield themselves, their allies and their proxies from accountability.” Without meaningful reform, he warned, “Without it, the UN risks lurching towards either collapse or irrelevance,”

The organization is also becoming seen as less relevant in a world divided by conflicts and dominated by powerful nations with colonial-era roots, particularly after perceived inaction on the war in Gaza.

2. Financial and existential crisis:
The UN remains trapped in an open-ended crisis, even after an additional round of cost cutting and other reforms.

Much of this is driven by the United States, which is assessed at 22 percent of the UN regular budget and approximately 26 percent of the UN peacekeeping budget. In January 2026, the administration announced the US withdrawal from 66 organizations and entities, more than half of them affiliated with the UN, including steps to withdraw from or cease funding to the Human Rights Council, UNRWA, WHO and UNESCO. UN diplomacy remains paralysed while funding cuts have weakened UN capacity.

3. Reform pressure:
The 2025 UN80 initiative launched by Guterres is the most wide-ranging internal reform plan in over a decade, aiming to make the UN more “effective, cost-efficient, and responsive”, but critics argue the question is no longer whether the UN requires reform, but whether its institutional design remains adequate to a world where major powers increasingly act outside the constraints it was created to impose.

Calls include veto reform, transparency in the Secretary-General’s election, and giving the Global South a stronger voice. Former Secretary-General Ban proposed a single, non-renewable seven-year term to strengthen independence from the Permanent Members.

Bottom line

In 2026 the UN is at a genuine inflection point. It can continue to function as a reactive forum constrained by geopolitical inertia and diminishing resources — or it can evolve into a platform of strategic stewardship

For most member states, especially small and medium-sized countries of the Global South, there is no alternative that gives all countries an equal voice on the global stage. For great-power war prevention, the Security Council is largely blocked. For humanitarian delivery, public health, climate, development and peacekeeping in conflicts where great powers have less direct stake, it remains indispensable — but increasingly underfunded and overstretched.

Whether it stays relevant will depend less on whether the idea of the UN is still needed — even critics say it is — and more on whether members will fund it and reform the Security Council veto system that makes it unable to act on its core mandate: maintaining peace and security.