UN's Crisis: A Shift from Liberal Optimism to Realist Perspectives

The United Nations (UN), conceived in the aftermath of World War II as a beacon of multilateral cooperation, has long symbolized global aspirations for peace, security, and collective problem-solving. Built on the principles of liberal internationalism, the UN was expected to prevent conflicts, mediate disputes, and provide humanitarian relief through a rules-based order. However, recent crises, such as the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, have exposed deep structural limitations within the organization, raising questions about its relevance and effectiveness in contemporary geopolitics.

The UN’s perceived inability to take decisive action in these conflicts underscores a growing decline in multilateralism. In Ukraine, despite widespread condemnation of aggression, the Security Council has struggled to adopt binding measures due to the veto powers of permanent members, reflecting the prioritization of national interests over collective security. Similarly, in Gaza, protracted violence, humanitarian crises, and repeated resolutions often fail to translate into tangible outcomes, highlighting the gap between diplomatic rhetoric and operational effectiveness. These challenges reveal the tension between the UN’s idealistic mission and the realpolitik of international affairs.

From a theoretical perspective, these developments align closely with realist interpretations of international relations. Realism emphasizes the centrality of power in shaping state behavior and suggests that international institutions, including the UN, operate primarily at the discretion of dominant states. Under this framework, the UN is not an autonomous arbiter of global justice but a platform where powerful states negotiate, impose their interests, and constrain weaker actors. The current geopolitical landscape—characterized by assertive great powers, regional rivalries, and strategic competition—illustrates how multilateral institutions are often sidelined when their actions conflict with national agendas.

This realist lens also explains the structural asymmetry within the UN system. The Security Council’s veto mechanism, designed to prevent major power conflicts, often results in paralysis during crises where permanent members have conflicting interests. Moreover, the uneven distribution of resources and influence limits the organization’s capacity to respond effectively to humanitarian emergencies or enforce peace agreements. Critics argue that without reform, these systemic weaknesses will continue to undermine the UN’s credibility and exacerbate global instability.

Nevertheless, some scholars advocate a balanced approach that recognizes both the UN’s limitations and its potential. While realism highlights power dynamics, liberal theories stress the normative and cooperative aspects of international institutions. Multilateral engagement, peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian coordination remain critical tools for conflict mitigation, even if constrained by politics. Strengthening collaboration among regional organizations, empowering the General Assembly in humanitarian decision-making, and enhancing accountability mechanisms could help the UN regain functional relevance.

In conclusion, the UN’s struggles in Ukraine, Gaza, and other contemporary crises reflect a broader tension between liberal aspirations and realist realities in global governance. While its ideal of a rules-based, cooperative international order remains inspiring, structural constraints, power asymmetries, and geopolitical rivalries challenge its efficacy. Understanding these dynamics through both liberal and realist perspectives provides a nuanced framework for assessing the UN’s future role and for exploring reforms that balance aspirational goals with pragmatic global politics.