Why the recent UNSC Resolution 2803 “Board of Peace” violates the UN Charter

On 17 November 2025, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 2803, known as “Board of Peace,” to create an International Stabilization Force (ISF) for the Gaza Strip. The resolution passed 13–0, with Russia and China abstaining, and surprisingly with Algeria voting in its favour. The Palestinian Authority welcomed it, while Hamas rejected it. UN experts and OHCHR see it as a violation of the UN Charter, international law, and the inalienable rights of Palestinians, especially their right of self-determination.

The resolution, in its preamble, welcomes “the constructive role” that the US and other countries played in facilitating the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, while the US administration remains complicit in the genocide by shielding Israel from any UNSC resolution through its veto power, sanctioning the ICC, and providing massive, continuous military aid to the Israel.

Before examining the legality of this resolution, there are some facts that I believe were not addressed accurately in the text of the resolution. The resolution didn’t mention the main subject of the resolution, which is the Palestinians themselves. Palestinians were excluded from the drafting process and the negotiations prior to voting on it. Moreover, the resolution mentioned that a ceasefire was reached before the resolution; however, on the ground, Israel has violated the ceasefire 400 times, continued airstrikes and bombardment of the Gaza Strip, killing 279  and injuring 400 Palestinians.

The Resolution calls on all parties to implement Trump’s comprehensive plan and maintain the ceasefire in good faith and without delay. While the resolution does not provide a clear monitoring mechanism for the ceasefire, Israel continued to violate the ceasefire, just yesterday on 19/11/2025, Israel’s airstrikes killed 28 and injured 77 Palestinians in one-day attacks in the Gaza Strip.

In its Paragraph 2, the resolution describes the Board of Peace (BoP) as “a transitional administration with international legal personality” which will rule the Gaza Strip until the Palestinian Authority completes its reform as scheduled. It further states that Palestinian self-determination and statehood can be achieved when the PA reform program is completed and the Gaza Strip redevelopment advances. The right of self-determination is universal and unconditional. UN Charter Art. 1(2), and the joint Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) highlight all peoples’ right to self-determination without addressing this right with any preconditions. The UN Special Rapporteur Aureliu Cristescu concluded that the right of self-determination is a peremptory norm (jus cogens), which makes it binding unconditionally on all states. 

The Palestinians’ right of self-determination is an inalienable right enshrined in international law and cannot be subjected to preconditions, like the reformation of the PA and the advancement of Gaza’s redevelopment plan.

Francesca Albanese support’s this position, stating that: ““The ICJ was clear: self-determination is an inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the UN and all States have an obligation to assist in its realization. This can only begin with the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.”

 Moreover, this right cannot be granted by external powers and authorities through a specific pathway; it is an inherent right belonging exclusively to the Palestinian people and can neither be taken from them nor granted to them by other states. This narrow interpretation of the self-determination right not only violates international law and the UN Charter, but it undermines the legal value of the self-determination right and enhances colonial systems.

READ: UN delivers yet another stab in the back to the Palestinians

The resolution legitimises the Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip, in clear violation of previous UNSC and UNGA resolutions and recent ICJ advisory opinions 2024, which all concluded that the Israeli occupation in the OPT, including the Gaza Strip, is a belligerent illegal occupation, calling Israel to withdraw from all the territories it occupied in 1967. It doesn’t mention the Israeli occupation or call for its full withdrawal. However, the resolution calls on the member states in the International Stabilisation Forces (ISF) to work and cooperate with Israel. Israel, the occupying power, cannot be treated as a monitoring neutral power that should cooperate with the BoP to make sure that the ceasefire is maintained. In contrast, Israel, as an occupying power accused by the UN of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, cannot be legally and morally a part of the implementation mechanism. Moreover, the PA and PLO seem to have no part in the suggested plan; the resolution only mentions “the newly trained and vetted Palestinian police force” without stating who they are, how they are going to be formed, and to which Palestinian political body they belong. In other words, the resolution calls to legitimise the Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip and delegitimize the PA, PLO, and the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. This violates Article 24(2) of the UN Charter which states: “the Security Council Must Act Within Charter Principles.”. Th UNSC acts ultra vires by adopting Donal Trump’s comprehensive plan which excludes the Palestinians and the and include their occupiers. The UN special rapporteur in the OPT Francisca Albanese supports this interpretation stating that: 

“I am deeply perplexed. Despite the horrors of the last two years and the ICJ’s clear jurisprudence, the Council has chosen not to ground its response in the very body of law it is obliged to uphold: international human rights law, including the right of self-determination, the law governing the use of force, international humanitarian law, and the UN Charter. Rather than charting a pathway toward ending the occupation and ensuring Palestinian protection, the resolution risks entrenching external control over Gaza’s governance, borders, security, and reconstruction. The resolution betrays the people it claims to protect.”

The resolution ignores root causes, settlement expansion, and systemic apartheid. a very important fact, the prolonged Israeli occupation and siege of the Gaza Strip. Instead of calling on Israel to adhere to international law and UN resolutions, withdraw from the occupied territories, and stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide, it focuses on disarming Palestinian armed groups and imposing an external power (i.e., International Stabilisation Forces) on Palestinians, thereby weakening their aspirations and hope for self-determination. In this regards, Albanese highlighted that: ““If the OPT, including Gaza, requires an international presence, it should be mandated to supervise Israel’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories, in line with the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion and General Assembly resolution,” the Special Rapporteur said. “Such a presence should protect civilians, guarantee the cessation of hostilities, prevent further displacement, ensure accountability for grave breaches, and support the Palestinian people in exercising their right to freely determine their political future.””

The foundations of this resolution appear to be political rather than legal. It comes at a time when legal and international pressure against Israel is increasing, providing a way out for Israel from its predicament. Albanese described the resolution as: “political pressure valve” to suspend discussions on sanctions and other concrete measures necessary to halt serious violations”

This resolution undermines Palestinians’ rights rather than providing protection for them. It imposes a foreign external power as a guardian over the Palestinians, ignoring their legitimate struggle—emphasized by UNGA Resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974—against Israel’s occupation to achieve their rights, including the right to self-determination. It further erodes Palestinians’ self-determination by linking its implementation to preconditions that violate international law and the UN Charter, as mentioned above. States, including those that voted in favor of the resolution, have an international responsibility to act against this wrongful measure by neither recognising it nor cooperating with its implementation. A permanent peace can only be achieved by upholding the rule of law, strengthening global justice, ending the Israeli occupation and impunity, and advocating for Palestinians’ right to self-determination and statehood.

OPINION: Things happen: Trump, the Crown Prince and killing Khashoggi

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.