A recent report from The Economist has suggested the UN could run out of money within months, as an increasing number of member states fail to pay their bills on time. Should the UN run out of money, the consequences could be catastrophic, particularly in developing countries that rely heavily on UN support and aid.

The UN, like all institutions, relies on the goodwill of its members to function properly. If member states no longer see the benefit of the institution, or use it as leverage for their own political agenda, then the institution will no longer be able to fulfill its mission. The UN is currently facing such a crisis. According to the Economist, the UN could run out of money in a matter of months. While the headline is shocking, it's unlikely they will file for bankruptcy or cease to exist. Instead the UN will likely take measures to save money. They are already scaling back spending, cutting costs through means like adjusting the AC temperatures. Such meager adjustments will be unlikely to impact the broader picture should funding continue to dry up. 

In the future, the UN may have to look at cancelling critical missions such as peacekeeping operations or seek to relocate staff outside of the US. These actions are but cracks in the wider veneer of the UN. At the center of this crisis is a lack of good faith from members. Only around 50 countries pay dues on time. Many countries are late or miss payments entirely for a variety of reasons. The big players continue to be the US and China. Previously the US has been habitually late on payments due to regulatory gridlock. At the same time, under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has increasingly threatened to pull back UN funding.

Worry is growing that the US might take a page out of China's book and use its heft as leverage. Last year China delayed payments until the very last moment (where the UN is forced to rebate almost the entire payment back to China) in an apparent attempt to gain leverage with the Secretary General. While the US and China are the big players, they are by no means the only ones who are undermining the institution. With only around 50 out of 193 member countries paying their dues on time to the UN, it is clear that member states either no longer see the value in the UN or don’t believe in its core mission. 

For all its flaws, if the UN falters or fails entirely, it could have disastrous consequences for the other global institutions that emerged as a part of the post war global order. Institutions like the IMF and World Bank could face similar challenges in the coming years. Meanwhile, the ICC, while not having the US or China as members, might face similar funding challenges. Japan is the largest funder of the ICC and has the highest debt to GDP ratio of any developed country, putting their contributions to the court at risk. It is becoming increasingly clear that international institutions are straining, and a lack of funding certainly doesn't help these challenges. The UN and its associated organizations are the single largest provider of aid across the globe. For all their problems, should the post war institutions begin to shut down one by one, it would undoubtedly be catastrophic and member states should make every effort to ensure that doesn’t happen.