By Janelle Diller, Senior Research Fellow, Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute
Recent United Nations (UN) authorization of the US-proposed Board of Peace (BoP) to implement a US-backed peace plan for Gaza has provoked significant international debate. Resolution 2803 adopted by the UN Security Council (UNSC) in November 2025 (Res. 2803) vividly depicts the challenges of implementing the UN mandate by use of co-regulatory initiatives in the context of increasing geo-political and economic conflicts among nations.
In general, co-regulatory initiatives offer opportunities for the UN to leverage its impact with the distinctive influence and resources of willing actors to achieve aims of mutual interest. However, the co-regulatory design must be fit for purpose and contain features essential to the mandate and rules of the UN that shape its central role in global governance (“UN governance”). Two such features are especially critical to the UN-BoP initiative created by Res. 2803. First, the UN should insist on building sufficient safeguards into such initiatives to ensure that their processes and outcomes are consistent with relevant UN Charter principles and rules of international law. Second, to be effective, such UN co-regulatory initiatives must be required to operate coherently in purpose and methods with related UN action within the broader UN governance sphere.
As explained below, the UN-BoP initiative falls short on both counts (see “Two Organs, Two Tracks”). First, Res. 2803 imposes few safeguards or monitoring measures to help ensure consistency of the BoP actors with the duties of the UN and its Member States under the Charter and international law. Second, Res. 2803 does not require the UN.-BoP initiative to operate coherently within the broader system of UN policies and related action on Palestine – and notably ignores the widely-supported New York Declaration on the Question of Palestine (New York Declaration) adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) two months which is being implemented as a separate UN initiative in the context of the Global Alliance for implementation of the two-State solution (“Global Alliance”), an independent coalition of states, international organizations, and other stakeholders (UN-Global Alliance initiative).
Further examination below reveals an urgent need to address the growing legal and operational risks of the current situation (see “Unsettled Lines of Legal Responsibility”). Serious legal uncertainty surrounds the status and legitimacy of the BoP under international and US law which in turn affects who may be held directly responsible for harm attributable to the UN-BoP initiative and what law applies. In such cases, the examination finds that the states acting within the BoP as well as the UN itself may be held legally responsible under international law for harm attributable to them.
As suggested below, the current pursuit of two disjointed initiatives risks aggravating the dangerous and dire situation In Palestine, and the UN and UN Member states should take urgent corrective action to meet their responsibilities (see section “At a Crossroads: Options Ahead”). The suggested measures involve action by the UNSC, UNGA, UN Secretary General (UNSG) and UN Member states to embed robust safeguards into the UN-BoP initiative and to ensure coherent coordination of the two UN co-regulatory initiatives. With resolve, the UN and its Member states can ensure a joined-up coherent approach for international peace and security for Palestine, Israel and the region achieved through action in conformity with the rules of the UN and relevant international law.
This is an excerpt. To read the full article, visit The Global.