Global governance: Are the UN, IMF, and WTO still useful?

In an increasingly interconnected and complex world, global governance institutions such as the UN , the IMF , and the WTO face growing pressure to demonstrate their relevance. Emerging in the postwar period to prevent new conflicts, stabilize international finance, and promote trade, they must now respond to more diverse challenges: from pandemics to regional conflicts, economic crises, and climate change. But are they still useful or have they become obsolete?

The United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945 with the goal of preserving international peace and security. Its General Assembly and Security Council are its best-known bodies, along with specialized agencies such as the WHO and UNDP.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) , also founded in 1944, focuses on maintaining global financial stability. Its task includes providing loans to countries in crisis and monitoring the health of global economies.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) , for its part, was created in 1995 to regulate international trade and resolve disputes between member countries. It replaced the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and has more than 160 members.

Throughout their history, these organizations have achieved significant progress. The UN has promoted peacekeeping missions, multilateral agreements, and sustainable development. The IMF has prevented major financial collapses in regions such as Latin America and Asia. The WTO has reduced tariffs and promoted the growth of global trade.

However, criticism has not ceased. The UN is criticized for its ineffectiveness in conflicts such as those in Syria and Ukraine, partly due to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The IMF has been accused of imposing counterproductive austerity policies and favoring developed economies. The WTO is facing deadlocks in its negotiations and questions about its ability to address issues such as digital trade and agricultural subsidies.

The current multipolarity , with the rise of powers like China and India, challenges the Western leadership that has traditionally dominated these institutions. Furthermore, the major challenges of the 21st century—such as climate change, artificial intelligence, and pandemics—require more agile and equitable cooperation.

In response to this, many are proposing structural reforms . At the UN, there are suggestions of expanding the Security Council to include countries in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. At the IMF, there are discussions about redistributing voting rights to better reflect the economic weight of emerging countries. And at the WTO, there are calls for faster and more effective mechanisms for resolving disputes and adapting to technological change.

Despite its limitations, the UN remains the primary multilateral forum for international diplomacy and humanitarian aid. The IMF retains a key role in financial stability, as evidenced during the COVID-19 crisis, when it offered assistance to dozens of countries. And although the WTO is undergoing an institutional crisis, its framework continues to regulate much of global trade.

Furthermore, these entities serve as spaces for global coordination that are difficult to replace. In times of fragmentation and nationalism, they offer a platform—albeit imperfect—for dialogue and cooperation.

Global governance institutions such as the UN, the IMF, and the WTO face enormous challenges and growing mistrust. But they also remain indispensable in addressing problems that no country can solve alone. Their transformation is not optional, but urgent. Modernizing their structure, making them more inclusive, and adapting them to the new realities of the 21st century is the only way for them to remain relevant in a constantly changing world.