Tomorrow marks a very happy birthday for the United Nations, which was founded on October 24, 1945, to promote peace, security, and cooperation in the post-World War II global landscape. Its purpose was to replace the failed League of Nations, an organisation some, at the time, blamed for the lack of cooperation and peace leading to the Second World War. The United Nations sought to establish a platform for international cooperation and peace.

But 80 years on, it begs the question - not much from the 1940s is fit for purpose today, is the United Nations any different? It is argued that the United Nations remains relevant only if it adapts to modern challenges. Its peacekeeping missions, such as UNMISS in South Sudan and UNDOF between Syria and Israel, alongside humanitarian operations and development programmes run through agencies like UNICEF and WHO, demonstrate its continued influence on the world stage.

Yet the organisation’s moral authority and institutional framework cannot compensate for outdated approaches. When programmes fail to address contemporary crises, the UN risks applying 1945 solutions to 2025 problems. A recipe for irrelevance in an era that demands fresh thinking.

The Security Council’s structural paralysis offers the clearest evidence of the UN’s failure to modernise. Dominated by the P5 (Permanent 5), the UK, USA, France, Russia, and China, the Council still reflects the power dynamics of 1945 rather than today’s multipolar reality. Former UK International Development Secretary Claire Short pointed to the dysfunction and scandal which shrouds the Iraq oil-for-food programme, where oil was sold for humanitarian supplies: “It was the Security Council’s Sanctions Committee, which was dominated by the US and the UK, that failed to take action against the widespread reports of corruption.” From Rwanda to Syria, the pattern repeats, when action threatens P5 interests, the veto enables paralysis.

Meanwhile, rising powers remain shut out. Brazil, Germany, Japan, India, and South Africa have emerged as major economies since 1945, yet none hold a permanent seat or veto. The result is a profound deficit of legitimacy: critical decisions affecting global security rest with five nations whose interests often contradict broader international consensus.

Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, put it bluntly; “The US has brazenly wielded and weaponised its veto to strong-arm the UN Security Council, further undermining its credibility and ability to live up to its mandate to maintain international peace and security.” When the system protects narrow national interests instead of preventing global conflict, the system fails its founding purpose. The United Nations’ ability to enforce its own resolutions has long been a point of contention, with them often being flat-out ignored. In theory, Security Council resolutions are meant to be binding, in practice, they’re frequently ignored by powerful states such as Russia and Israel when it suits their interests.

Countless resolutions calling for an end to Israeli settlement expansion, such as Resolutions 2334, 446 and 452, or demanding Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine, have gone unenforced. It’s like they make a wish and blow out the candles, expecting anything to change without proper enforcement. The UN can pass motions, issue condemnations, and call for ceasefires, but it has no standing army or coercive power of its own to make them happen.

As a result, the UN’s authority can feel more symbolic than substantive. However, the UN was never supposed to be a global governing body with its own army or coercive power. Its strength lies in diplomacy, legitimacy, and collective action, not imposed through force.

Ultimately, at eighty, the United Nations stands at a crossroads. Sink or swim. Reform could reignite life back into its mission, restoring its role as the guardian of peace and justice.

But if it continues down the path of outdated solutions and unequal power dynamics, the world will carry on without it. The choice is clear: evolve or end, just as the League of Nations did.