As you may know, the UN was chartered after the second world war. For several reasons, but primarily to hinder another global conflict by having the representatives of the major powers more or less permanently in a situation of dialogue in a set forum, aka the Security Counsil. As this was the second stab at making a proper world forum, it did learn a few lessons from its much shorter lived predecessor, the League of Nations. The LoN essentially broke down, when nazi-Germany and Imperialist Japan decided cooperation with the rest of the world was not in their interest, and in either case they had little influence over the LoN. At least, not as much as they'd like to have. Which is why one today have granted Veto-rights to the major powers in the UN-SC. But anyhow, my take on the current UN: The Good: The UN is a major player in giving humanitarian and disaster aid around the world. Not to mention being the keeper of the human-rights and childrens-rights charter. Also it being an international forum of debate between nations, it can ideally function as a mediator and assistant in defusing contentious issues. The Bad: The UN model, especially in the security counsil is heavily slanted towards the situation immidiatly after WW2. Now, some 63 years after, it is time to revise. Take away veto and permanent seat in the SC from some, and give it to others. In my view, those with permanent seats and veto should now be: USA EU Russia India China Permanent seats (but no veto) should also be given Japan as it is an economic powerhouse, and perhaps even Israel, if for no other reason than it is the most powerful state in the middle east which is a hot-zone of conflict and Israel is the target of much of that hostility. The UK and France (current veto-powers) would get their interests met via the EU. The Ugly: Essentially the UN is a huge beurocracy. It needs some serious slimming down to be effective and able to respond to occuring situations in a pragmatic manner. It could learn a lesson or two from the International Red Cross on how to do international aid work. Today the UN is top-heavy. Lots of red-tape, and very little action when considering the resources they gobble up each year. Resources that would be better spent on the ground where needed, rather than keeping the paper-mill running.