Indian Council of World Affairs

Abstract: This issue brief examines the emergence of the Board of Peace (BoP) in early 2026 as a transformative and disruptive force in global governance. Conceptualised by US President Donald Trump, the BoP introduces a ‘CEO model of diplomacy’, a transactional, hierarchical, and ‘pay-to-play’ alternative to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). While initially mandated by UNSC Resolution 2803 to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza, the BoP’s structural DNA and ‘Global Stabilization Protocol’ signal an ambition to create a parallel international order based on contractual stability rather than sovereign equality. This brief analyses the legal and systemic tensions inherent in this shift, specifically the potential erosion of jus cogens norms, the lack of judicial accountability, and the risk of ‘mandate creep’ beyond Gaza. Centrally, evaluating India's strategic positioning as an "Observer" on the Board, it argues that while the BoP is the antithesis of the democratic UNSC reforms India has long championed, observer status is in the interests of strategic autonomy. This stance allows New Delhi to protect its energy security and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) while acting as a crucial normative anchor for the Global South. Ultimately, the brief concludes that India’s calibrated engagement serves as a ‘tactical shelter’, ensuring it remains a vital player in a fluid global landscape while duly upholding the universal principles of international law. 

Introduction 

In the early months of 2026, the traditional pillars of global governance have begun to tremble under the weight of a new diplomatic architecture. The formalisation of the Board of Peace[i] (BoP), an organisation conceptualised and chaired by US President Donald Trump, has moved beyond mere rhetoric into a functional, if controversial, reality. While its immediate theatre of operations is the reconstruction and administration of Gaza, its structural DNA suggests a far more disruptive ambition: the creation of a parallel international order that seeks to relegate the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to a relic of a previous century. 

Defining the Board of Peace: The CEO Model of Diplomacy 

The Board of Peace is not a treaty-based organisation in the traditional sense; it is a "transactional administrative body" that operates with the efficiency and hierarchy of a corporate board. Unlike the UN, which is built on the principle of sovereign equality, the BoP is unapologetically centralised. President Trump holds the position of ‘Executive Chairman’, a role that combines the powers of a Secretary-General with the veto authority of a permanent Security Council member but without the checks of a General Assembly. 

The Board’s primary mandate, derived from the UNSC Resolution 2803,[ii] grants it temporary administrative control over Gaza. However, the BoP’s internal charter outlines a ‘Global Stabilization Protocol’ that allows it to intervene in any ‘liquid conflict zone’ where traditional diplomacy has failed. Membership is not a right of statehood but a privilege of ‘investment’. Member states are required to contribute to a ‘Peace Equity Fund’, a massive capital pool intended to replace UN-style aid with private-sector-led reconstruction. This turns international intervention into a venture-capitalist exercise, where the ‘return on investment’ is regional stability and market access. 

The Displacement of the UN Security Council 

The BoP represents a deliberate attempt to bypass the ‘multilateral paralysis’ of the UNSC. For years, the veto power held by the P5 (Permanent Five) has resulted in a stalemate on issues ranging from Syria to Ukraine. The BoP solves this by creating a ‘Coalition of the Invested’.[iii] By moving high-stakes conflict resolution to a board where the US and its chosen partners hold all the voting shares, the Trump administration has effectively created a ‘Security Council 2.0’ that is immune to Russian or Chinese obstruction. 

This institutional encroachment is not just about Gaza.[iv] It is about the fluidity of the current global era. As the established post-1945 order enters a period of profound uncertainty, the BoP offers a ‘fast-track’ alternative. It argues that if the UN cannot solve a problem, a private-public board with a clear CEO and a massive budget can. In doing so, it strips the UNSC of its role as the sole legitimate arbiter of international peace, replacing collective security with a system of ‘contractual stability’. 

International Law and the Crisis of Legitimacy 

Article 29[v] of the Charter allows the Council to create ‘subsidiary organs’. However, legal scholars[vi] argue that the Council cannot delegate[vii] its primary responsibility to a non-UN body that is not accountable to the General Assembly.[viii] From the perspective of international law, the Board of Peace is a radical departure that borders on the ‘extra-legal’. Its legitimacy is challenged by three fundamental legal tensions. 

The Erosion of Jus Cogens and Sovereign Equality 

A foundational norm of international law is the equality of states. The BoP’s ‘pay-to-play’ structure creates a tiered system where only wealthy or strategically aligned nations have a voice. This undermines the democratic legitimacy of international law. If the BoP begins to issue directives that affect non-member states, it enters a territory of ‘normative imperialism’, where a small group of wealthy states dictates the fate of others without the universal consent required by the UN Charter. 

The Problem of Mandate Creep 

Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties[ix], the powers of an international organisation must be clearly defined by the states that created it. While the BoP has a narrow legal foothold in Gaza via Resolution 2803,[x] its self-granted global ambitions lack a legal basis. Any action taken by the BoP outside of Gaza, such as deploying its ‘Stabilization Force’ would likely be viewed as an illegal intervention under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter unless it receives a new, specific mandate that the BoP is specifically designed to avoid seeking. 

Responsibility and Redress 

One of the most concerning aspects of the BoP is the lack of a judicial mechanism. Unlike the UN system, which is linked to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the BoP operates as a closed loop. If the Board’s reconstruction efforts in Gaza lead to human rights violations or environmental damage, there is no clear forum to seek redress against a ‘Board’ that claims sovereign immunity but operates like a private entity. 

The Indian Perspective: Strategy in a Fluid World 

India’s decision to accept observer status on the Board of Peace is an example of pragmatic diplomacy, yet it carries immense long-term risk. For New Delhi, the current global environment is one of ‘extreme fluidity’, where old alliances are shifting and new power centres are emerging. India cannot afford to be absent from a table where the future of West Asia, a region critical to its energy security and the welfare of its massive diaspora, is being decided.

The ‘Vishwa Bandhu’ vs. the Observer

India’s foreign policy is currently anchored in the concept of being a ‘friend to the world’ (Vishwa Bandhu). This role requires India to balance its support for traditional multilateralism with the reality of a changing US stance. By taking an observer seat, India achieves several objectives; it gains a ‘listening post’ to monitor the actions of regional members who have taken full membership seats, ensuring that the BoP’s policies do not harm Indian interests. By refusing full membership and the accompanying billion-dollar ‘equity’ fee, India signals that it is not a ‘client state’ of the new order. It preserves its ability to criticise the Board’s actions if they violate international law. As a power that enjoys deep respect across the Arab world,[xi] India’s presence as a ‘sober observer’ provides a sense of balance. Many Arab states look to India to ensure that the BoP does not become merely a tool for Western intervention.

Resolution 2803 requires a report every six months. By having a seat at the table, India can demand transparency on how funds are used, arguing that ‘International Legal Personality’ granted by the UN requires ‘International Accountability’ to the UN.

The UNSC Reform Dilemma

However, this path is fraught with contradictions. India has spent decades campaigning for a permanent seat on a reformed UN Security Council,[xii] advocating for a multipolar world built on the democratisation of global governance. The Board of Peace is, in many ways, the antithesis of this vision. While New Delhi has sought a more inclusive and representative UNSC, the BoP offers a model that is exclusive and transactional.

If the BoP succeeds in stabilising Gaza, where the UN failed, the momentum for UNSC reform will get adversely impacted, as the ‘real’ power will have migrated to the Board. In the ‘fluid’ world of 2026, absence from emerging foras and models of coalition building is not an answer however. West Asia remains the juggernaut of India's energy security and the home to many Indian nationals; New Delhi simply cannot afford to be a bystander while a new regional security architecture is being built. India can protect its interests in the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which requires the very stability the BoP aims to provide, and it allows India to engage with the Trump administration’s ‘New Deal’ diplomacy while simultaneously serving as a crucial normative anchor for the Global South.

The New Frontier of Global Governance

The Board of Peace is the first major experiment in ‘Post-Multilateralism’. It replaces the slow, consensus-based diplomacy of the 20th century with a fast, transactional, and personality-driven model for the 21^st century. For the international community, it presents a choice between a flawed but universal legal order and a functional but exclusive corporate order.

For India, the ‘Observer’ label is a temporary tactical shelter and can be used as a tool to ensure that the BoP remains a servant of the mandate rather than a replacement for the system. As the BoP begins to exert its financial and military muscle in West Asia, New Delhi will eventually have to decide whether it will help anchor this new, parallel world to UN principles or continue to champion the reform of the old one. The "fluidity" of the current era will not last forever; eventually, the world and India will have to settle into a new equilibrium.

The Final Question: Governance or Guardianship?

The ultimate success of the Board of Peace hinges on a single, unsettling question: can the United States truly be trusted with such an expansive global responsibility? The geopolitical record of early 2026 offers a stark contrast to the BoP’s stated mission of stabilisation. While Washington chairs a board dedicated to ‘reconstructing’ Gaza, its recent unilateral military interventions, most notably the capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela[xiii] and the massive coordinated strikes against Iran[xiv] alongside Israel, suggest a return to a "my way or the highway" mindset.

From the perspective of the Global South, there is a pervasive scepticism that the BoP is less about humanitarian restoration and more about a monopolisation of resources and territory under the guise of security. Critics[xv] argue that with Israel as an active and influential member, the BoP may simply be a strategic bypass to achieve the total removal of Hamas, a feat the IDF has yet to accomplish through conventional warfare. Whether the BoP becomes a tool for reconstruction or a mechanism for constant friction, as seen in the forced reopening of the February 2 Rafah corridor against Israeli wishes, the question of accountability remains. As the Board moves into Phase II, the world must decide if it is witnessing a genuine effort to end human suffering or the birth of a new ‘international guardianship’ where the rights of the governed are secondary to the strategic needs of the Board members.

*****

*Radhika Bhaku, Research Fellow, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are personal.

End Notes

[i] https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-charter-of-trumps-board-of-peace/

[ii] https://docs.un.org/en/s/res/2803(2025)

[iii] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/01/statement-on-president-trumps-comprehensive-plan-to-end-the-gaza-conflict/

[iv] Especially as the term Gaza has been specifically missed out in the Charter. Chapter 1 states, “The Board of Peace is an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict”. https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-charter-of-trumps-board-of-peace/

[v] Chapter V: Article 29 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications

[vi]  https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3217824/view

[vii] The Council must maintain 'overall authority and control' and the delegate must remain subject to the UN's internal constitutional oversight, Dan Sarooshi, The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security: The Delegation by the Security Council of its Chapter VII Powers (OUP 1999) 142–163; see also Erika de Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council (Hart Publishing 2004) 260.

[viii] https://legal.un.org/repertory/art24.shtml

[ix] Chapter V: Article 29 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications

[x] Document Viewer S/RES/2803 (2025)

[xi] ICWA Conversation with H.E. Mr. Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Secretary-General, League of Arab States on ‘International Development and its Impact on Arab Region’, January 30, 2026

/show_content.php?lang=1&level=1&ls_id=14197&lid=8628

[xii] India sharpens demand for United Nations Security Council reform | DD News On Air February 21, 2026

[xiii]  Operation Absolute Resolve

[xiv]  Operation Epic Fury

[xv] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/11/un-security-council-resolution-violation-palestinian-right-self