Prepared by: Amro Selim – PhD Researcher in Political Science
DAC Democratic Arabic Center GmbH
1.5 million and 122 million. These figures do not represent financial expenditures or travel costs; rather, they refer to individuals killed and displaced as a result of armed conflicts over the past decade. During the last ten years, wars and interstate confrontations have proliferated. The international system increasingly resembles a landscape in which power prevails over law, the weak lack protection, and militarization has supplanted diplomacy. Arms races and the accumulation of advanced weaponry have become normalized features of inter-state relations, while deadly and previously unknown pandemics have spread across regions of the world.
Amid this turbulent environment, the United Nations often appears confined to expressions of concern, condemnation, and regret. To some observers, the organization seems detached from the severity of contemporary realities—or constrained by structural limitations that render it incapable of fulfilling its founding mission.
Unprecedented Global Conflicts
The 2025 Global Peace Index, issued by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP), provides a comprehensive assessment of peace across 163 countries and territories, covering 99.7% of the world’s population. The report indicates that the average level of global peacefulness declined by 0.36% in 2025, marking the sixth consecutive year of deterioration. Since the index’s inception in 2008, the world has become 5.4% less peaceful. The gap between the most and least peaceful countries has widened by 11.7% over the past two decades.
The global economic impact of violence reached $19.97 trillion (PPP) in 2024—equivalent to 11.6% of global GDP, or approximately $2,455 per person. Global military expenditure rose to a record $2.7 trillion in 2024, reflecting a 9% increase from the previous year. Since 2008, costs associated with conflict-related fatalities have increased by 421%.
There are currently 59 active state-based conflicts—the highest number since the end of World War II. Seventy-eight countries are involved in conflicts beyond their borders. Internationalized internal conflicts have increased by 175% since 2010. Conflicts ending in decisive victory have declined from 49% in the 1970s to just 9% in the past decade. Meanwhile, spending on peacebuilding and peacekeeping constitutes only 0.52% of total global military expenditure. The number of peacekeeping personnel has declined by 42% over the past decade, despite rising conflict levels. In 17 countries, more than 5% of the population are refugees or internally displaced persons.
Expanding UN Expenditures and the Erosion of Its Core Mission
The maintenance of international peace and security—through conflict prevention, suppression of aggression, peaceful dispute settlement in accordance with international law, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations—constitutes the foundational purpose of the United Nations Charter.
However, the data outlined above raise serious questions regarding the organization’s effectiveness in achieving its primary objective. This concern emerges despite a workforce of approximately 60,000 personnel across the Secretariat, subsidiary bodies, and global offices, and a combined regular and peacekeeping budget exceeding $9 billion annually.
Critics argue that the United Nations has increasingly evolved into a platform for diplomatic appeals, conferences, and institutional processes without delivering commensurate results in preventing large-scale conflicts. Some contend that the organization risks becoming structurally overextended—characterized by rising expenditures and bureaucratic growth amid worsening global instability.
Perceptions of declining effectiveness have led certain major powers and states to pursue unilateral initiatives or alternative alliance frameworks instead of relying on UN mechanisms. Compounding these challenges, the UN Secretary-General recently warned that the organization could face a liquidity shortfall by July due to delayed member state contributions, placing the institution at risk of a severe financial crisis.
The Absence of Structural Reform
Over the past decade, repeated calls for UN reform have yielded limited tangible results. Rather than consolidating existing peace-related bodies, the UN established in 2020 two new departments: the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) and the Department of Peace Operations (DPO). Official reports suggest these reforms improved coordination and responsiveness in contexts such as Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Haiti, and Sudan.
Yet developments in subsequent years raise doubts regarding the sustainability of these improvements. By 2026, Burkina Faso has been classified by several international entities as facing extremely high security risks. The Central African Republic remains fragile due to prolonged armed confrontations among rebel factions, government forces, and communal militias. Haiti’s security environment is widely regarded as among the most unstable in the Western Hemisphere, marked by the territorial control of armed gangs and widespread violent crime. In Sudan, reports indicate over 150,000 fatalities and nearly 30 million displaced persons and refugees.
These realities underscore the gap between institutional restructuring and measurable security outcomes on the ground.
Future Scenarios
The trajectory of global instability invites serious reflection on the sustainability of the current UN structure. Three potential scenarios may emerge in international debate:
- Functional Reallocation: Limiting the United Nations primarily to humanitarian assistance, development coordination, and global logistical services, while establishing a new, independent international organization dedicated exclusively to the maintenance of peace and security.
- Comprehensive Reform: Restructuring the Security Council to ensure equitable global representation and reconsidering the veto mechanism in favor of majority-based decision-making.
- Status Quo Continuation: Maintaining the existing framework, with the attendant risk of continued geopolitical fragmentation and escalating conflict.
A discussion during my doctoral studies in international law highlighted a critical perspective: despite its shortcomings, the United Nations plays indispensable roles in humanitarian coordination, global health, civil aviation, maritime regulation, telecommunications, and numerous logistical frameworks that sustain daily international life.
Yet the severity of contemporary crises compels renewed examination of whether institutional specialization may offer a more effective model—whereby the UN focuses on humanitarian and logistical functions, while a newly constituted and structurally empowered organization assumes responsibility for rapid and decisive peace enforcement.
Conclusion
The contemporary international order faces structural strain. The question is no longer solely whether the United Nations has underperformed in conflict prevention, but whether the architecture of collective security established in 1945 remains adequate for a multipolar and increasingly fragmented world.
Reimagining global governance through institutional differentiation—separating humanitarian coordination from peace enforcement—may constitute one avenue for restoring credibility and effectiveness to international peace and security mechanisms.
Such a proposal does not seek to dismantle the United Nations, but rather to reconsider its functional scope within a transformed geopolitical landscape.
