A considerable degree of uncertainty and confusion prevails as to the nature and role of the UN. This is aggravated by the tendency of the UN system: to define its mandate in an unreal fashion; to try to give the impression that the outputs from its activities have a direct effect on the internal realities of States; to maintain a permanent state of confusion between the functions of negotiating or seeking greater consensus on the one hand, and the functions of management on the other.
A perusal of the texts, resolutions or documents of the UN tell very little about the real nature of the system. The basic instruments indicate a real hiatus between hard facts and mere talk, inasmuch as they tend to present as normal functions terms of reference which are totally unrealistic. The thousand of resolutions adopted every year, the planning and programming documents describing theoretically the objectives and strategies of organizations, do not supply an appreciably greater amount of information. Nor is it possible to refer to documents evaluating the results obtained, since there are virtually none and that those who claim to be performing this task have a limited threshold of credibility because of their lack of criteria and methods.