DefinePK

Abstract

The United Nations, established in the wake of World War II to safeguard international peace and security through a state-centric framework, faces an existential test in the 21st century. This article argues that the organization is defined by a central paradox: it is simultaneously adapting to new global challenges while being constrained by its outdated institutional architecture. The analysis employs a qualitative case study approach, drawing on UN documentation and secondary scholarship, and is guided by a theoretical framework synthesizing Liberal Institutionalism, Human Security, and Network Theory. The findings reveal a significant capacity for normative innovation, as seen in the adoption of agendas like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and for operational adaptation through robust peacekeeping and multi-stakeholder partnerships. However, these advancements are consistently undermined by profound structural rigidities, most notably the Security Council veto power, which leads to paralysis on critical issues, and a volatile, donor-driven funding model. The discussion interprets these findings, highlighting the tension between the UN’s progressive agenda-setting and its regressive operational limitations, explained through the competing logics of different International Relations theories. The article concludes that while the UN remains an indispensable platform for global cooperation, its long-term effectiveness hinges on bridging the gap between its 21st-century ambitions and its 20th-century hardware. Its future likely lies not as a world government, but as the central node in an increasingly fragmented and polycentric global governance network.
Keywords: United Nations, Global Governance, 21st Century, Multilateralism, Security Council Veto, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Human Security, Multi-stakeholderism