When the United Nations Security Council was established in 1945, it was envisioned as the paramount pillar of international peacekeeping. Nearly eight decades later, however, the organization too often experiences impasses as geopolitical rivalries among its members intensify.  

Amid these frustrations, the US administration is taking matters into its own hands by advancing an unconventional initiative: the establishment of a Board of Peace. This innovative apparatus represents a selective coalition of states tasked with coordinating conflict mediation and reconstruction efforts outside the formal structure of the United Nations.  

Supporters argue that such a mechanism could bypass diplomatic gridlock and accelerate peace initiatives. Critics warn that it risks undermining the legitimacy of established international institutions and redrawing a new world order by dignifying human rights perpetrators. As debates unfold, the Board of Peace raises an important question: is it a rival to the UN system, or a pragmatic response to its growing paralysis? 

The UNSC and its Structural Drawbacks 

The most recent international conflicts have raised critical questions on the pragmatism and productivity of a global legal order deep-rooted in the United Nations and its principal peace and security body, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).  

Established in the afterglow of the Second World War, the composition of the UNSC reflected the treacherous relations between nations and the geopolitical realities of the time. The UN Charter still carries the scars of the conflict by acknowledging the enemy states of the initial signatory member states: France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In practice, the Council’s structure reflected a moment in history when global power was concentrated among a small group of states and when the voices of former adversaries in the war had yet to be fully integrated into the post-war international order. 

This apprehension pushed for the five original signatories to be granted permanent status (P5) in the UNSC, along with the ability to veto any action by the Council. This privilege is often regarded as a mechanism capable of blocking collective action when the strategic interests of these states are involved. A notable historic instance is the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union with their respective allies, times when the Council’s peacekeeping activity was greatly paralyzed. Only conflicts in which the great powers’ rivalry was not at stake were tackled, while clashes involving any of the two antagonistic parties were largely evaded, such as the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary.

This standoff is particularly striking given the UNSC’s original design, which, besides the political body, also envisaged an enforcement mechanism coordinated through the Military Staff Committee. This feature was supposed to be underpinned by the military capabilities of its leading powers; under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, member states – notably the P5 – were expected to place armed forces at the Council’s disposal. While preparations commenced, the committee was unable to agree on force levels or composition, and the scheme was later fully renounced following the tensions generated by the Cold War. As a result, the system evolved into one where authority remained highly centralized in the P5, while the capacity for collective enforcement became dependent on ad hoc coalitions and voluntary contributions, reinforcing the asymmetry at the heart of the UNSC’s hierarchical structure.

The latest incidents of the 21st century reinforce the impotence of the UNSC to collectively come to terms, especially when members of the P5 are embroiled. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict that erupted in 2022 spurred numerous vetoes, such as the Russian veto on deploring the invasion in Ukraine on February 25th, 2022, or the veto on a resolution condemning the attempted annexation of four Ukrainian regions. 

Furthermore, the Gaza War, which commenced in October 2023, highlights that P5 members can veto UNSC propositions even when not directly involved in conflict. The United States vetoed draft resolutions demanding a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza in October 2023, December 2023, and February 2024, warning that it would undercut diplomatic negotiations. When questioned, US representative Robert A. Wood alluded to the lack of inclusive language in the draft, with no regard towards Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7th, or Israel’s right to self-defence in accordance with international law.  

The Board of Peace and its Strategic Distinctness 

While the United Nations Security Council remains the central authority for maintaining international peace and security, parallel diplomatic initiatives increasingly seek to complement – or bypass – its procedural constraints. One such example is the emerging concept of a “Board of Peace”: a multilateral coordination platform aimed at facilitating negotiations and reconstruction efforts beyond the rigid veto dynamics of the Council. 

The Board of Peace can be understood less as a broadly developed multilateral alternative and more as a policy initiative driven by the administration of President Trump. Rather than emerging from a collective international effort to reform global governance, the proposal reflects a unilateral attempt to shape conflict mediation and reconstruction processes according to U.S. strategic preferences.

This is easily discernible in the Board’s governance model. Unlike the United Nations, a universal body that relies on a somewhat consensus (principally among the P5 members), the Board of Peace is an invitation-based organization that is designed to act quickly in its endeavours. This undergirds the necessity of all members of the Board to be heavily aligned with regard to political agendas and international aims; participation is determined by political alignment with the initiative’s objectives, resulting in a more selective coalition of states rather than an inclusive international forum. Thus, the Board is depicted as a ‘selective coalition of willing states’, where enrolment is invitation-only and participation longevity is contingent on the Chairman’s (President Donald Trump) willing rather than through collective decision-making.  

Central to this model is the role of the Board’s chairman, President Trump. The Board’s charter grants the chairman extensive executive authority, including the power to veto internal decisions and remove member states from participation. This concentration of authority contrasts sharply with the collective bargaining structure of the UNSC, where even the most powerful states must operate within a formal institutional framework. What’s more, long-term membership also hinges on a reported $1 billion financial contribution, bolstering the exclusive, opt-in character of the Board, rather than all-encompassing.  

Board of Peace: Objectives and Formation 

The Board of Peace’s current primary objective is the restoration of Gaza, with Phase Two of President Trump’s reconstruction plan already enabled and under the Board of Peace’s supervision. In short, the phase is set to assign a new Palestinian technocratic governance, facilitate the reconstruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, and assist in the complete demilitarization of Hamas. In this framework, reconstruction would not simply involve rebuilding physical infrastructure in Gaza but also creating conditions for long-term stability.  

Current Board of Peace membership consists of a peculiar assemblage of heads of states, for a few reasons. Firstly, there are many states that have played crucial roles in the Gaza war, particularly in relation to conflict mediation, making them indispensable from any future settlement: 

• Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt hold valuable expertise acting as mediators in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, hosting Hamas leaders and often being critical of Israel’s demeanour in the conflict.  

• Jordan played a serious role in the combat, in charge of the management of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. 

• Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – affluent Arab Gulf states – are recognized as pivotal financial donors for Gaza’s reconstruction. 

• Israel, initially being opposed to Turkey and Qatar entering the board for the contending views they held against Israel in past mediation efforts, has agreed to cooperate given the close tie with the US, along with the disfavour for UN bodies (with reference to the UNSC resolutions on Gaza, vetoed by the US). 

On the other hand, the selection of international actors from beyond the Middle East has generated controversy, particularly regarding the Board’s commitment to human rights norms. Respectively, other countries and officials joining the Board of Peace include: 

• Hungary’s Viktor Orban, one of the only two European Union members that agreed to join (besides Bulgaria), far-right populist and close ally of President Trump. 

• Belarus’s Alexander Lukashenko, the current longest-serving European leader and President Putin’s right-hand. 

• Argentina’s Javier Milei, criticized for his authoritarian tactics and his ‘chainsaw’ economic austerity scheme.  

• Leaders from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Vietnam – countries classified as ‘not free’ by organizations monitoring political rights and civil liberties. 

Such a lineup has prompted human rights advocates to question the idea of ending suffering and bloodshed in a body comprising leaders and governments ‘with human rights records ranging from questionable to appalling’.  

The Board of Peace charter specifies that all decisions of the board ‘shall be made by a majority of the member states present and voting’; in conjunction with the human rights scrutiny, this suggests that the Board of Peace places governing officials subject to right-abusing allegations in charge of global peacekeeping. Experts have called for a ‘reparative, rights-based approach’ to Gaza’s reconstruction, warning that peacebuilding initiatives must prioritize accountability, civilian protection, and long-term justice rather than purely geopolitical arrangements. 

Is This Competition or Complementarity? 

While it is in the centre of heated speculations for its intent to sidestep the UNSC, the ratification of the Board of Peace is an intriguing facet to study. The Council did not formally endorse the Board as an institution; rather, it signalled a willingness to consider arrangements aligned with broader reconstruction objectives at an earlier stage of the initiative, ‘authorizing’ the board’s members to make ‘such arrangements as may be necessary to achieve the objectives of the plan’.  

However, the emergence of this new institution has triggered questions about whether it represents a parallel peace architecture or merely an auxiliary diplomatic mechanism. Officials from Russia have already expressed scepticism regarding how the Board of Peace will coexist with the Security Council, emphasizing that the UNSC remains the ‘only universally recognised body for maintaining international peace and security’. 

In practice, the Board of Peace may represent a hybrid model of conflict governance. Rather than replacing the institutional architecture established after the Second World War, it illustrates how states increasingly experiment with flexible coalitions that operate both within and alongside existing international institutions. Whether the Board evolves into a lasting pillar of global governance or remains a temporary diplomatic experiment will depend largely on its ability to deliver tangible outcomes, particularly in the reconstruction and stabilization of Gaza. Besides this, it is rather inconceivable that a future US administration will sustain this initiative, given it all started from President Trump’s ‘rule the world’ mantra.  

What is clear, however, is that the growing complexity of contemporary conflicts is pushing the international community to reconsider how peacebuilding institutions should operate. The Board of Peace may therefore signal not the end of the United Nations system, but the emergence of new complementary mechanisms designed to adapt global governance to a changing geopolitical landscape.

Featured photo above is of the Board of Peace Charter Announcement & Signing Ceremony. Photo by Press Service of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.