The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2803 with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions from Russia and China. It welcomes and endorses Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict (annexed with Resolution 2803) and his Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity of 13th October 2025. It also acknowledges the roles played by the USA, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey in securing the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The resolution determined the situation in the Gaza Strip as a threat to regional peace and security of neighbouring states.
The Mandate of the Board of Peace (BoP)
The resolution welcomes the establishment of the Board of Peace (BoP), a transitional administration with international legal personality, which will set the framework and coordinate the funding for the development of Gaza. President Donald Trump will chair it, and Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is slated to be a part of it. The other members on the board will be decided later. The BoP functions as a temporary but comprehensive international governance and reconstruction authority for Gaza, coordinating humanitarian aid, supporting transitional local administration, rebuilding infrastructure, facilitating movement, and shaping the conditions for long-term political stability and eventual Palestinian statehood. It will continue to function until the Palestinian Authority completes its reform as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s 2020 peace plan and the Saudi-French proposal of 2025, and they take back control of Gaza securely and effectively.
The International Stabilisation Force (ISF): A Security First Framework
The Resolution also establishes the International Stabilisation Force (ISF) as a temporary, multinational security force operating under a unified command approved by the BoP. It aims to stabilise Gaza during the Comprehensive Plan. The ISF’s key functions include securing borders with Israel and Egypt, supporting vetted Palestinian police, implementing Gaza’s demilitarisation, protecting civilians and humanitarian operations, securing humanitarian corridors, and monitoring the ceasefire. The Resolution authorises ISF to take all necessary measures to carry out its mandate. The term ‘all necessary measures’ may even include the use of force. The BoP provides strategic guidance, authorises necessary arrangements, and ensures the ISF’s operations align with Gaza’s governance and reconstruction objectives. In turn, the ISF enables the BoP to implement its mandate by establishing security conditions essential for redevelopment.
The Missing Element – Absence of Palestinian Consent
Primarily, the resolution is silent on the consent of Palestinians, either through the state of Palestine or the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), for the administration through BoP and deployment of ISF forces in their territory. Consent, along with impartiality and non-use of force, constitutes the ‘holy trinity’ of any peacekeeping mission of the United Nations. Even the Security Council’s earlier practice suggests that the deployment of any force into a state’s territory takes place with the consent of the local government or the groups in control of those territories. For example, Resolution 1546 recognised the consent of the local government before the deployment of forces in Iraq, and it was also intended to function in close cooperation with the local forces. In the case of Gaza, although Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas participated in the peace summit in Egypt, he did not sign the final declaration. While the Trump plan received some support from Palestine and indicated agreement in principle to the idea of establishing a technical committee in Gaza, it remains unclear whether such general support can be automatically extended to the specific arrangements envisaged in Resolution 2803. In the absence of clear consent, the resolution may face not only opposition from the local authorities but also a lack of acceptance among the local population.
Notably, in the case of Iraq, Resolution 1483, which regulates the powers of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, makes numerous references to the people of Iraq. The reference to people of Gaza or Palestine is missing from the resolution, and the cooperation requirement is limited to Israel and Egypt. Even the role of Palestinians in the adoption of the entire process is unclear. Since consent has not been obtained from Palestine, and there is a lack of reference to the people of Gaza, the mission may be questioned on grounds of impartiality, which could pose significant challenges to the reconstruction plan envisaged through BoP and ISF.
Coercive Measure Without a Chapter VII Mandate
The absence of consent will label actions such as interim administration, deployment of forces, and authorisation of the use of force as coercive. The council needs to act under Chapter VII to take any coercive action, as binding coercive measures can only be taken under this chapter. Chapter VII is typically triggered by determining a particular situation as a threat to international peace and security; however, in the current resolution, the situation is described as merely a threat to regional peace and security. Professor Eliav Lieblich describes the choice of ambiguous words as deliberate, as it allows states to argue that Chapter VII was not invoked, and thus to contest certain elements of the plan later on.
As Professor Eliav Lieblich argues, the absence of the Chapter VII mandate, combined with the lack of consent from both the local authority and local population, would render the BoP an occupying entity and would amount to a transfer of control over Gaza from Israel to the BoP. Under the law of occupation, an occupying power is prohibited from transforming the occupied territory, whether economically or physically, and is equally restricted from altering the existing governance structure. It was precisely for this reason that the USA-led coalition in Iraq sought to legitimise its otherwise transformative role through a Chapter VII mandate, adopted under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483.
Humanitarian Obligations Recognised under Advisory Opinion
The resolution grants wide powers to BoP in matters relating to humanitarian aid. The resolution authorises BoP to establish operational entities with, as necessary, international legal personality and transactional authorities for the performance of its functions, including the coordination and support of and delivery of public services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza. The concentration of overarching powers in the hands of BoP in matters of humanitarian assistance undermines the authority of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has been working in Palestine since 1949. The resolution also opens the possibility of excluding any organisation found to be misusing such aid, including the UNRWA. In the past, Israel has imposed restrictions on the provision of humanitarian assistance on similar grounds. Since the BoP and ISF are to work in close co-operation with Israel, Egypt does not rule out the possibility of such exclusions occurring in the future.
Such a provision has been included despite the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which recognises the significant role of humanitarian aid in occupied territories and the role played by humanitarian organisations, especially UNRWA, in providing humanitarian aid to the local population. The court in the advisory opinion also concluded that the State of Israel, as an occupying power, is under an obligation to ensure access to food, water, medical care and other essentials, and must facilitate, not obstruct, relief schemes by UN agencies, international organisations and third States. It may regulate aid for security reasons, but such measures cannot undermine its core duty to ensure the regular, fair, and non-discriminatory distribution of humanitarian supplies. The Court also emphasises that starvation may not be used as a method of warfare, that Israel must cooperate with UN bodies such as UNRWA, respect their immunities, and remove impediments to aid delivery. These obligations increase in proportion to the extent of effective control exercised over them.
Accountability Gaps and Selective Application of International Law
The international presence through BoP and ISF should have been mandated to supervise Israel’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territory in accordance with the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion. The presence was intended to protect civilians, guarantee a cessation of hostilities, prevent further displacement, and ensure accountability for grave breaches. However, the resolution does not even acknowledge the violations of international law, like unlawful siege, occupation, racial segregation, apartheid, and genocide. It even fails to address the accountability for such violations. The council failed to seize this moment to hold perpetrators accountable and set a precedent for humanity. The resolution is also silent on arms transfer by several states to Israel, which is being used for the purposes of maintaining their control in Gaza and for committing grave breaches, including genocide. The restriction of arms is recognised only for the Palestinian population and not for Israel, limiting the local population’s right to resist foreign occupation and a racist regime.
Reconstruction as a Tool of Control
The BoP is tasked with supervising Gaza’s reconstruction, yet senior US officials, including Vice President JD Vance, have stated that rebuilding will occur only in areas deemed free of Hamas. This effectively restricts reconstruction to territory under the control of the ISF. Under the ceasefire terms, Israeli forces have marked an informal “yellow line,” beyond which lies roughly 53% of Gaza, including most agricultural and industrial land. This zone, labelled “Hamas-free” by Israel, has been almost completely emptied of its population through the ongoing military campaign and is expected to be the ISF’s initial area of deployment. Consequently, reconstruction will be confined to US-Israeli-controlled zones, leaving the rest of Gaza in devastation and entrenching existing demographic engineering, forced displacement, and ethnic cleansing.
Conclusion – A Resolution that Fails the People it Claims to Protect
Resolution 2803 is not a framework for reconstructing Gaza based on the principles of international law, self-determination, or accountability. Instead, it creates a system that, as Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has observed, replaces clear legal obligations with a security-first, capital-driven model of foreign control that entrenches existing power asymmetries. By excluding Palestinians from consenting to or shaping the mandate, the resolution undermines its own legitimacy. It ignores the legal rights of an occupied people and their right to self-determination. The BoP and ISF structures prioritise security and external authority over civilian protection, meaningful reconstruction, or political agency. Critical legal findings, such as Israel’s obligations under the law of occupation and the widespread violations documented by the ICJ, are sidelined. Rather than confronting siege, displacement, unlawful occupation, and grave breaches, the resolution normalises them by embedding them within an international governance mechanism. In doing so, Resolution 2803 ultimately betrays the very population it purports to safeguard, substituting genuine reconstruction with a model that deepens dispossession and foreign control.
Authors Bio
1. Mr Amit Kumar is currently working as an Assistant Professor of Law at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, India. He has previously published his work in the Asian Journal of International Law, Transnational Legal Theory, the Australian Journal of Asian Law, and the ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law. His areas of interest are PIL, IHL, and International Criminal Law.
2. Dr Alisha Pradhan is currently working as an Assistant Professor of Law at Presidency University, Bengaluru. Previously, she has taught at VIT-AP University and Jagran Lakecity University.
Image Credit: Pixabay
