On Jan. 22, the Trump administration held a ceremony to launch the Board of Peace, a new international organization designed to carry out peace-building functions in Gaza and potentially other areas affected by conflict. The ceremony included signature of the Charter of the Board of Peace, an international agreement establishing the Board as an international organization. The White House announcement of the ceremony did not include the text of the Charter or list the states that signed it, but an Israeli newspaper has published a text here, and press reports indicate that as many as 35 countries may have signed the agreement.
Although its Charter makes no explicit mention of Gaza, the Board of Peace is expected to oversee reconstruction efforts there, a role provided for in the Trump administration’s Comprehensive Plan to end the Conflict in Gaza and endorsed by the UN Security Council in resolution 2803. According to last week’s White House announcement, “the Board of Peace stands ready to mobilize global resources, enforce accountability, and guide the implementation of the next critical phases of demilitarization, governance reform, and large-scale rebuilding” in Gaza.
The discussion below analyzes some key questions about the Board of Peace Charter and the framework it establishes for the Board’s work. Under the Charter, Donald Trump, in his capacity as Chair of the Board, exercises virtually complete control over the composition of the Board and its decision-making structures, control that would continue even after the end of his term as U.S. President. The Charter envisions that member states and other donors will voluntarily contribute billions of dollars in financial resources to fund the Board’s activities and operations and that it will benefit from involvement of recognized international leaders selected by Trump. It also envisions the need for a variety of start up tasks, including selecting sites for the Board’s headquarters and field offices, and entering into agreements on their legal status with host states, which will need to be completed before the Board can be in a position to establish significant operations, and may impact its immediate term ability to implement programs directly in Gaza.
The decision to create a new organization to perform important peace-building functions in Gaza, and potentially elsewhere, rather than relying on existing institutions is consistent with the Trump administration’s skepticism of existing multilateral institutions, a number of which it has withdrawn from. Whether the Board of Peace, organized in the ways described below and centered around Donald Trump’s personal leadership and control, will succeed in gaining the confidence of stakeholders in peace-building efforts and delivering meaningful results remains to be seen.
1. What mandate does the Charter give the Board?
The Board’s mandate, set out in Article 1 of the Charter, is general in character. It specifies that
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. The Board of Peace shall undertake such peace-building functions in accordance with international law and as may be approved in accordance with this Charter, including the development and dissemination of best practices capable of being applied by all nations and communities seeking peace.
The Charter does not elaborate further on what “peace-building functions” – which are the central activities the Board is mandated to undertake – are intended to entail. The Board will likely have latitude to decide what kinds of activities fall within this mandate.
Notably, the mandate specifies that peace-building functions undertaken by the Board are to be “in accordance with international law.” In principle, this reference to international law could entail both sources of authority and restrictions applicable to the Board’s work.
International law may authorize the Board to carry out particular functions. As noted above, UN Security Council resolution 2803 authorizes the Board to take specified actions in relation to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan to End the Conflict in Gaza, and thus the Board may rely on the international legal authority provided by that resolution to take such actions.
International law may also serve to limit actions the Board may take. Acting in accordance with international law presumably requires, for example, that the Board’s activities respect international human rights law. In the context of development and reconstruction projects the Board might pursue, the Board would accordingly need to act in accordance with relevant international law restrictions, such as those regarding expropriation of property and forced displacement of individuals or communities.
Although the Board’s creation has been closely associated with efforts to resolve the conflict in Gaza, the Charter makes no mention of that conflict and its mandate is not limited to work related to it. This appears to reflect a conscious choice to create the possibility of the Board engaging in activities related to other conflicts.
2. What authorities does the Charter give the Board to fulfill its mandate?
The Charter addresses the Board’s powers only in general terms. Article 6.1 of the Charter provides that
The Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities possess international legal personality. They shall have such legal capacity as may be necessary to the pursuit of their mission (including, but not limited to, the capacity to enter into contracts, acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property, institute legal proceedings, open bank accounts, receive and disburse private and public funds, and employ staff).
The Board does not have the authority to compel action by its members or by others. Article 2(b) of the Charter provides that “Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to give the Board of Peace jurisdiction within the territory of Member States, or require Member States to participate in a particular peace-building mission, without their consent.” The same would apply to states and other actors who are not members of the Board and who thus are not bound by the Board’s Charter and are under no legal obligation to comply or cooperate with any actions of the Board. In connection with peace-building efforts in Gaza, the UN Security Council authorized establishment of a temporary international stabilization force to deploy in Gaza under unified command acceptable to the Board of Peace. The Board would not have authority to authorize the deployment of such forces in other contexts without comparable action by the Security Council or the consent of the host state.
The Board also lacks authority to require financial contributions to fund its activities. Article 5.1 of the Charter provides that “funding for the expenses of the Board of Peace shall be through voluntary funding from Member States, other States, organizations, or other sources.”
3. What resources does the Board have available to carry out its mandate?
The Charter appears to envision that the Board will attract significant voluntary financial contributions and marshal the expertise and stature of experienced leaders to achieve its mission.
The Charter contemplates that member states will contribute significant sums of money in the first year of the Board’s existence to fund its work. Article 2.2 provides that states that contribute at least $1 billion to the Board in its first year will be exempt from the three-year term limit the Charter establishes for Board members. This funding threshold may suggest the scale of funding the drafters of the Charter expect that the Board will raise, and the Board’s ability to secure such contributions will be central to its ability to conduct significant peace-building activities.
The Charter also provides that the executive board of the Board of Peace will “consist of leaders of global stature” selected by the Board’s Chairman, presumably with the goal of allowing the Board to draw on significant experience and expertise in planning and carrying out peace-building activities.
The Trump administration has not made any announcements to date about any commitments or contributions of funds to the Board; it remains uncertain how much money the Board will succeed in raising. Reconstruction costs for Gaza, the principal conflict with which the Board has been associated to date, have been estimated to be as high as $70 billion.
In mid-January, the Trump Administration announced an initial group of members of the Board of Peace, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Deputy U.S. National Security Advisor Robert Gabriel, Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and Apollo Global Management CEO Mark Rowan.
Aside from these arrangements for the Board’s funding and leadership, Article 6(a) of the Charter gives the Board the authority to hire staff. It is unclear at this stage how large a staff the Board may ultimately employ, and whether it will develop significant institutional capabilities to implement programs on its own. To the extent that it does not do so, it will presumably be dependent on third-party implementing partners to carry out its peace-building activities.
4. How is the Board governed?
Decisions about the Board’s work are made via votes by the Board’s members. However, the Board’s Charter gives significant powers to Donald Trump as the Board’s Chairman regarding the composition of the Board and the direction of its work.
Article 3.2 provides that Donald Trump will be the Board’s inaugural Chairman. Under Article 3.3, Trump may be replaced as Chairman only if he resigns voluntarily or if the Board’s Executive Board votes to remove him as a result of incapacity. (Because the Executive Board’s members are appointed, and subject to removal, by the Chairman, the likelihood of a successful Executive Board vote to replace the Chairman in most circumstances seems low).
Notably, the Charter designates Trump personally as Chairman, rather than designating him in his capacity as President of the United States. Accordingly, the Charter appears to contemplate that Trump would continue to Chair the Board and exercise the Chair’s significant powers even after he no longer serves as President unless he voluntarily resigns the position.
The Charter gives Trump, as Chairman, the authority to choose which states will be invited to become members of the Board. (He appears already to have exercised this power both in extending invitations to join the Board and in revoking an invitation previously extended to Canada in response to a speech delivered by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum in Davos). Trump may also remove states from Membership in the Board, subject to a veto by two-thirds of the Board’s Member States.
Trump also exercises significant control over the Board’s decisions. Article 3.1(e) of the Charter provides that decisions of the Board of Peace “shall be made by a majority of the Member States present and voting, subject to the approval of the Chairman.” The phrase “subject to the approval of the Chairman” suggests that Trump retains the power to veto decisions of the Board by declining to approve them. Separately, Article 3.1(e) provides that the Chairman may cast a vote in his capacity as Chairman in the event of a tie. Further, Article 9 of the Charter provides that “The Chairman, acting on behalf of the Board of Peace, is authorized to adopt resolutions or other directives, consistent with this Charter, to implement the Board of Peace’s mission,” suggesting an ability of the Chairman to direct the work of the Board independently of votes by the Board.
As Chairman, Trump also has the power to appoint members of an Executive Board, which is mandated to exercise powers necessary and appropriate to implement the Board of Peace’s mission. He may also select a Chief Executive to lead the Executive Board, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the Executive Board’s members.
Article 7 provides that “the Chairman is the final authority regarding the meaning, interpretation, and application of this Charter,” giving Trump the power to resolve any interpretive questions or disputes regarding authorities of the Board’s various bodies, including regarding the extent of his own power as Chairman.
Article 10.2 of the Charter gives the Chairman the authority to dissolve the Board at such time as he considers necessary or appropriate.
5. What institutional tasks does the Board face in starting up its work?
Before the Board could be in a position to undertake operational activities to facilitate peace-building in Gaza or elsewhere, it will need to complete a number of initial organizational tasks.
The Charter contemplates that the Board will establish a headquarters and field offices and that it will negotiate agreements governing them with the states that will host them. Similarly, the Charter provides that the Board “shall ensure the provision of such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of the functions of the Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities and personnel, to be established in agreements with the States in which the Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities operate or through such other measures as may be taken by those States consistent with their domestic legal requirements.”
Selecting the locations for the Board’s activities and putting and negotiating agreements with host states may take considerable time. Agreements providing privileges and immunities for the Board’s activities, such as tax exemptions and immunities from suits in local courts and other forms of domestic legal process, may require approval from national parliaments in some states which could be time consuming in some cases. The Board will presumably want to complete these steps before receiving significant contributions of funds or establishing significant operations to avoid risk that its assets or operations could be vulnerable to seizure or disruption by actors seeking to challenge the Board or its activities.
It is unclear whether the Board intends to establish its own independent capacity to implement peace-building programs, as opposed to contracting with third parties to implement such programs on its behalf. To the extent that the Board does plan to establish such capacities on its own, it will presumably require time to hire relevant personnel and put plans and procedures in place.
Notably, the Board’s initial authorization from the UN Security Council regarding implementation of the Comprehensive Plan to End the Conflict in Gaza expires on December 31, 2027 unless renewed by the Council. How far along the Board will be toward establishing its institutional structures and capabilities and implementing programs in advance of that date remains to be seen.
– Michael Mattler, Published courtesy of Just Security.
