Is the UN reformable — or irredeemable?

The United Nations was born out of catastrophe, its founders determined to build a system that would prevent another global war. Its Charter begins with the pledge “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and to promote “fundamental human rights, the dignity and worth of the human person, [and] the equal rights of men and women.”

The word democracy never appears—but its essence does.

When the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, it again avoided the term, yet Article 21 made its meaning unmistakable: the will of the people, expressed through genuine elections, is the foundation of legitimate government. Democracy was not an afterthought; it was the implicit answer to the question of how to prevent conflict and protect dignity. The UN was meant to be a path toward democratic peace, not just a tool for crisis management.

The record: Mixed at best

On conflict prevention, the UN’s record is uneven. It has mediated truces and supervised peacekeeping missions, but it has also stood helpless in the face of genocide and aggression. On democracy, the results are starker. The world is witnessing a resurgence of authoritarianism, and the very forum meant to defend universal values has become a stage for their erosion.

That failure, however, raises a deeper question: is the UN doomed by design — or merely crippled by circumstance? Should it be abandoned as an obsolete relic, or reformed to meet the challenges of our time?

Reform: Possible in theory, blocked in practice

In principle, there is nothing sacred or immutable about the UN’s structure. It was a political compromise in 1945 and could, in theory, be renegotiated today. In practice, however, reform is thwarted by the same forces that necessitate it: the entrenched power of autocracies that now dominate or obstruct key UN bodies.

This is especially ironic given that the founders themselves built a mechanism for renewal directly into the Charter. Article 109 explicitly provides for a General Conference to review and amend the Charter — essentially a constitutional convention for the international system. Such a conference could, on paper, reconsider every structural feature of the UN: the veto, the composition of the Security Council, the balance of power between the General Assembly and other organs, and even the definition of membership itself. But the same provision also makes clear why no such review has ever materialized: convening this conference requires the approval of the permanent five members of the Security Council — the very states least interested in revisiting the foundations of their own privilege.

Eliminating the veto may be an appealing slogan, but global power asymmetry makes equality among nations a myth. A more realistic approach might involve weighted voting systems, placing countries in different categories based on measurable criteria such as governance standards, human rights performance, and contributions to global stability. Membership in certain bodies — such as the Human Rights Council — should be conditional, not automatic. A country with a poor human rights record, such as Iran, China, or Afghanistan, should not be eligible to have a seat on the Council. 

Most importantly, the concept of sovereignty itself must be re-examined. States that fail to protect their populations, or that export instability beyond their borders, cannot hide behind sovereignty as a shield. Sovereignty implies responsibility. When it collapses, intervention should not be taboo — it should be a principle. The Responsibility to Protect should be adopted as a basic UN principle. 

The narrative battlefield

The UN “should be a battleground to regain initiative,” not a space conceded to autocratic actors. That observation captures the moment perfectly. The UN is a normative institution — its legitimacy derives not from power but from the moral narratives it embodies.

And yet, those narratives have been captured. Autocrats now use the language of rights and development to mask repression and justify aggression. Meanwhile, democracies have grown defensive, procedural, and uninspiring. If the authoritarian camp has mastered the art of emotional storytelling, the democratic camp must rediscover it. The defense of freedom cannot be waged in spreadsheets and summit communiqués alone — it must speak to hearts as well as minds.

Holding the line

The UN may not be reformable now, but it remains a battlefield that should not be abandoned. For those of us in the pro-democracy field, the immediate task is not to dismantle the system but to contest it — to influence its operations, occupy its spaces, and ensure our voices are heard.

Civil society networks such as the World Liberty Congress can play a bridging role — linking pro-democracy activists and movements with sympathetic democratic governments to push back against authoritarian capture and to reassert the UN’s founding ideals.

Formed in 2022, the WLC represents precisely the kind of transnational democratic alliance that the current global moment demands. At its biannual General Assembly in Berlin on November 8–9, more than 180 delegates from over 50 authoritarian countries gathered to elect new leadership, renew their shared commitments, and adopt a sweeping agenda for collective action. In what some observers have already called the world’s first “parliament-in-exile,” activists, journalists, former political prisoners, and dissidents from every region — Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Asia — stood together to declare that their struggle is one and indivisible.

The Assembly also sent a message to the international system itself: democratic legitimacy is not the monopoly of states. When governments fall captive to autocrats, civil society must step forward to represent the aspirations of their peoples. The WLC’s resolutions and the Berlin Manifesto — ranging from sanctions reform to cyber-security cooperation, from defending women’s rights to confronting transnational repression — outlined a vision of global democracy that is both principled and pragmatic. Most importantly, the Congress resolved to build stronger channels of engagement with democratic governments and international bodies, including the UN, to ensure that the perspectives of frontline activists are no longer absent from global deliberations.

This is not a substitute for UN reform — but it is a precursor to it. When the moment for structural change eventually arrives, such alliances can help ensure that the next iteration of the international system is not merely a rearrangement of power, but a genuine recommitment to the values the UN was meant to defend.

Reform may have to wait for another moment of historical rupture, a new reordering of global power. But preparing for that moment begins now — with the recovery of the UN’s original promise: peace through freedom, order through justice, and legitimacy through the consent of the governed.

This article is also published on World Liberty Congress. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Sustainability needs facts, not just promises. illuminem’s Data Hub™ gives you transparent emissions data, corporate climate targets, and performance benchmarks for thousands of companies worldwide.