Introduction
The United Nations (UN) was established in 1945 with the primary aim of maintaining international peace and security while fostering cooperation among states. This essay examines whether the UN remains the central institution of the contemporary international order from the contrasting perspectives of realism and liberalism in International Relations. Realism views the international system as anarchic and emphasises state power and national interest. Liberalism, by contrast, highlights the potential for institutions to facilitate cooperation and mitigate conflict. By analysing these theoretical lenses, the discussion will assess the UN’s ongoing relevance, drawing on key examples such as Security Council decision-making and peacekeeping operations. The argument suggests that while the UN retains symbolic importance, its centrality is increasingly questioned under realist scrutiny yet upheld, albeit with limitations, in liberal accounts.
The Realist Perspective: The UN as a Reflection of Great-Power Politics
From a realist standpoint, international organisations like the UN are not autonomous actors but instruments through which powerful states pursue their interests. Structural realists such as Waltz argue that the anarchic nature of the international system compels states to prioritise survival and relative gains, rendering institutions secondary to power distributions (Waltz, 1979). The UN Security Council’s permanent five members (P5) exemplify this dynamic, as their veto rights allow them to block resolutions that conflict with national priorities. The repeated inability of the UN to authorise decisive action in Syria after 2011, owing to Russian and Chinese vetoes, illustrates how the organisation mirrors existing hierarchies rather than transcending them (Mearsheimer, 1994/95). Furthermore, realists contend that the UN’s enforcement capacity remains dependent on the willingness of powerful states to contribute resources. NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011, authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1973 yet conducted largely by Western powers, demonstrates that the UN often serves as a legitimising forum rather than an independent decision-maker. This perspective therefore suggests that the UN is far from being the central hub of the international order; instead, it functions as a venue for great-power bargaining where outcomes reflect underlying material capabilities rather than institutional authority.
The Liberal Perspective: The UN as a Facilitator of Cooperation
Liberal theorists, particularly institutionalists, maintain that the UN plays a vital role in reducing transaction costs, providing information, and establishing norms that encourage repeated cooperation among states. Keohane’s influential work on regimes demonstrates how institutions help states overcome collective-action problems by creating expectations of reciprocity and monitoring compliance (Keohane, 1984). The UN’s peacekeeping missions, which have expanded significantly since the end of the Cold War, offer tangible evidence of this function. Operations in places such as South Sudan and Mali have helped stabilise fragile ceasefires, even if they do not always produce lasting peace. Moreover, the UN General Assembly and its specialised agencies have contributed to the development of international norms in areas such as human rights and sustainable development, shaping state behaviour over time. From this viewpoint, the UN remains central precisely because it provides institutionalised channels through which liberal values of multilateralism and rule-based order can be advanced, notwithstanding occasional setbacks.
Assessing Contemporary Centrality: Convergence and Divergence
Evaluating the UN’s role today requires acknowledging both theoretical insights and empirical realities. Realists rightly highlight persistent great-power rivalries, most visibly in current tensions between the United States, Russia and China over issues ranging from Ukraine to the South China Sea. These rivalries have paralysed Security Council action on several occasions, supporting the claim that the organisation’s centrality is diminishing. Nevertheless, liberals point to the UN’s continued utility in agenda-setting and norm diffusion. For instance, the Sustainable Development Goals adopted in 2015 continue to guide national policies and development assistance across the Global South. The organisation also retains near-universal membership, conferring a unique legitimacy that regional bodies such as ASEAN or the African Union cannot fully replicate. Yet both perspectives converge on the observation that the UN’s effectiveness hinges on the political will of member states. Its inability to reform the Security Council structure, despite decades of discussion, further underscores structural constraints. Thus, while the UN is not irrelevant, its position as the undisputed centre of the international order is arguably eroded by the rise of alternative forums and shifting power balances.
Conclusion
In summary, realism portrays the UN as a mirror of power politics, limited in its capacity to constrain great powers or act independently, whereas liberalism emphasises its continuing value in fostering cooperation and embedding norms. Evidence from Security Council practice and peacekeeping operations lends support to both interpretations, suggesting that the UN retains relevance without enjoying unchallenged centrality. The implications are clear: states and scholars must recognise the UN’s enduring yet circumscribed role, adapting expectations accordingly while exploring complementary mechanisms to address contemporary security challenges.
References
- Keohane, R.O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
- Mearsheimer, J.J. (1994/95) The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), pp. 5–49.
- Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill.
