The United Nations was conceived in the aftermath of industrial slaughter and global collapse, not only as a safeguard against another world war, but as the institutional expression of a profound realization: that humanity had become a single, interconnected community. Whether we liked it or not, our fates were bound together, and peace could no longer be secured by power alone. Its founding premise was modest but revolutionary: that dialogue could replace war, and that law might restrain power. For decades, the UN contributed to a new phase in the evolution of humankind – one in which we began to see ourselves as part of an interconnected global community.
The UN embodied the first attempt to translate this expanding consciousness into a permanent architecture of dialogue, law, and cooperation at the global scale. Today, that premise is faltering. From the deadlock of the Security Council to the failures of peacekeeping missions, the UN is caught between its noble origins and its growing political irrelevance. It remains highly visible but rarely decisive: present in every crisis, but seldom in control. Its credibility erodes with each unfulfilled promise, even as its symbolic weight persists. Despite dysfunction, it remains the only vessel we have for genuine global politics. The task now is not to defend what it has become, but to reimagine what it must be.
The UN was built as an intergovernmental organization, resting on the sovereignty of its member states. That logic made sense in 1945, when national sovereignty seemed to provide both legitimacy and stability. Yet today’s defining challenges – climate collapse, pandemics, artificial intelligence, nuclear weapons – are not “international” problems in the old sense. They are planetary risks, blind to borders and indifferent to sovereignty. The UN’s architecture, rooted in compromise among nation-states, struggles to keep pace. The same sovereignty that protects national independence also obstructs collective survival. In this sense, the UN faces a structural contradiction: how to remain legitimate as an assembly of governments while also becoming effective as a steward of the planet.
History shows that national sovereignty is neither absolute nor the final stage of our political evolution. It has always been a construct, shaped and reshaped by necessity. What once seemed unthinkable in Europe – the pooling of sovereignty through the European Union – became reality when states recognized that their survival and prosperity depended on deeper integration and cooperation. Economic interdependence, shared security concerns, and the moral imperative to prevent another continental war gradually eroded the belief that sovereignty must be indivisible. Step by step, Europeans discovered that sovereignty could be exercised more effectively when shared, rather than when jealously guarded.
The same logic now applies at the planetary level. Our challenges – climate collapse, pandemics, the threat of nuclear weapons, the governance of artificial intelligence – are simply too vast to be managed by states acting alone. Now the UN does not need to erase their sovereignty, but it must guide its transformation: from an absolute shield against outside influence into a framework of shared stewardship over the common goods that sustain human life. Planetary interdependence is no longer a philosophical idea; it is a material fact. The question is whether our institutions will evolve quickly enough to reflect it.
This does not mean we have to discard our existing institutions. It means we need to retool them for planetary relevance. The COVID-19 crisis revealed the cost of fragmentation. The WHO proved indispensable for expertise and coordination, but it remained constrained by politics. Building on it, a Global Pandemic Response Authority could be created within the UN framework, giving WHO the independence and enforcement power it lacks – ensuring rapid, science-based responses that do not wait for political consensus.
Read also:
Ordine liberale internazionale: ottant’anni di un grande ideale
Geopolitical disorder through the lens of expanding interdependence – and human consciousness
The same approach applies to nuclear weapons. The Non-Proliferation Treaty remains the only treaty binding nuclear powers, but it is fraying. The next chapter must be the creation of a Global Nuclear Oversight Authority, under UN auspices, which builds on the NPT by establishing a universal nuclear registry and transparent monitoring. This would allow verifiable reductions and, step by step, move toward eventual abolition. It would not replace the NPT, but rather evolve from it.
Climate governance, too, needs sharper tools. The UNFCCC process has generated awareness but little accountability. A Planetary Climate Tribunal, embedded within the existing UN climate framework, could adjudicate violations of binding commitments and hold both states and corporations accountable. It would ensure that climate justice is not left to the realm of declarations alone. In the field of artificial intelligence, where no global framework exists, the need is even more urgent. No single state or corporation should set the ethical boundaries of technologies that will shape human civilization. A Global AI Ethics Council, modeled on the IAEA, could provide independent oversight and ensure that AI develops in alignment with human values.
None of these innovations are about bypassing the UN’s machinery; they are about extending it. They preserve continuity with existing institutions while giving them authority and scope to meet planetary challenges.
No reinvention of the UN, however, is credible without reforming the Security Council. Its structure reflects the world of 1945, not the realities of the 21st century. The continued exclusion of India, Brazil, and Africa is unjust and destabilizing. Expanding permanent membership to include these powers would recognize demographic, economic, and political realities, strengthening legitimacy rather than diluting it. Reforming the veto is equally essential. The French-Mexican initiative and the ACT proposal already provide a foundation: permanent members should suspend their veto in cases of mass atrocities, and any veto should require a public justification subject to international scrutiny. In extreme cases of genocide or crimes against humanity, a supermajority of the General Assembly should be able to override a veto, restoring the balance between power and principle.
Legitimacy, of course, remains a central concern. The UN’s authority has always rested on states, because only states can claim to represent people through elections. Yet this is no longer the whole picture. Global citizens are already shaping the future through climate movements, digital rights campaigns, humanitarian action, and youth-led protests. Their voices cannot be dismissed as vague opinion. To remain legitimate, the UN must open structured channels for civil society participation. A Global Civil Society Forum, linked to the Human Rights Council, could provide independent scrutiny and accountability. A strengthened High Commissioner for Human Rights, protected from political interference, could ensure that dignity is not hostage to state interests. In the twenty-first century, legitimacy will come not only from intergovernmental authority anchored in sovereignty, but from citizen engagement anchored in universal rights.
None of this will be easy. Vested interests will resist. But without transformation, the UN risks becoming a museum of good intentions – powerful in memory, powerless in practice. It is easy, perhaps fashionable, to dismiss the UN as obsolete. But cynicism is a poor guide to survival. In an interdependent world, there is no alternative to cooperation. If the UN did not exist, we would have to invent it. So now it fails, we must reinvent it.
The United Nations must move from being an intergovernmental forum to becoming the custodian of planetary stewardship. This does not mean abandoning its foundations. It means fulfilling its original promise – peace, dignity, equality, and justice – in a world where survival itself depends on our ability to act as one.