United Nations

The United Nations is presented as an institution whose formal authority survives into the global crisis but cannot by itself resolve the struggle over who may speak for humanity. Judith Li dismisses its role in international decision-making; later, the organization withdraws the United States’ leadership mandate as the world descends into anarchy, a gesture with little practical force.

Authority and the Contact Dispute

During her confrontation with Sigur Johanson, Judith Li argues that the United States must prevent other states from gaining access to the Yrr’s biological technology. She opposes coexistence in part because it would let any suitably equipped state try to communicate with the Yrr and seek alliances or knowledge. In that argument, the United Nations is reduced to a forum where every state has a vote—an arrangement Li regards as incompatible with American control. Her position makes the organization a political counterweight to the national monopoly she wants to preserve, even though the passage does not describe the United Nations itself taking part in the contact effort.

Revoking the United States’ Mandate

In the later account of societal collapse, the United Nations revokes the United States’ leadership mandate. The decision formally withdraws the international authorization for United States leadership, but the narrative immediately calls it futile: anarchy has already spread through many states, armed conflicts are widening, and marauding groups roam the Earth. The contrast is stark. The organization can still issue a consequential institutional decision, yet the unraveling of social order has left that decision unable to restore coordination or security.

Role in the Crisis

The United Nations’ two appearances frame a conflict over international authority at opposite ends of the catastrophe. Before the collapse, Li treats shared decision-making as a threat to United States supremacy; afterward, the organization attempts to revoke that country’s mandate, when effective collective action has largely failed. Its limited depiction is significant: it is neither shown directing the response to the Yrr nor portrayed as capable of preventing disorder. Instead, the gap between formal legitimacy and practical power becomes part of the crisis itself.