This article critically examines the legality, legitimacy, and ethical foundations of Donald Trump's proposed "Peace Board" as a mechanism for conflict resolution and post-conflict governance. It argues that the initiative lacks any recognised basis in international law, democratic mandate, or institutional accountability and is therefore fundamentally illegitimate. Furthermore, the composition of the board reflects a convergence of political, financial, and security elites whose records and interests undermine their credibility as neutral peace brokers.
Drawing upon theories of legitimacy, political economy, and peace-building, and situating the Peace Board within historical precedents such as colonial mandate systems and post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, this article demonstrates that elite-imposed peace structures consistently fail to deliver sustainable stability. Instead, they generate dependency, corruption, and renewed conflict by privileging control and profit over justice and participation.
The article concludes that genuine peace-making must be grounded in international law, democratic consent, inclusion of affected populations, and ethical independence from financial and political conflicts of interest. The Peace Board represents not an innovation in peace-building but a revival of discredited traditions of elite governance. It risks undermining the rule-based international order and substituting lawful multilateralism with informal power politics.
Introduction
Peace-making in the contemporary international system is grounded in legal norms, multilateral institutions, and the principle of self-determination. Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, international conflict management has increasingly relied upon formal charters, treaties, and collective decision-making procedures designed to prevent unilateral domination by powerful states or individuals. These arrangements sought to replace older traditions of secret diplomacy and elite bargaining with a rule-based global order.
Against this historical background, the creation of a so-called "Peace Board" under the initiative of United States President Donald J. Trump represents a striking departure from established norms of legitimacy and authority. The board has been presented as an innovative mechanism for managing ceasefires, reconstruction, and political settlements, particularly in the Middle East. Yet its authority rests not on treaty law or multilateral agreement but on the personal influence of a single political figure.
This article argues that the Peace Board is illegitimate in law, deficient in democratic authority, and ethically compromised in composition and design. These deficiencies are not incidental but structural, reflecting a broader trend toward the privatisation and personalisation of global governance. Peace is thereby transformed from a collective legal and moral project into a managerial exercise controlled by elites.
The analysis proceeds from the premise that peace is not merely the absence of violence but a political and ethical condition requiring justice, accountability, and participation. Any institution claiming to manage peace must therefore satisfy demanding standards of legality and legitimacy. Trump's Peace Board fails to meet these standards and instead reproduces a discredited model of elite-imposed order.
Conceptual framework: Legitimacy and peace-making
Legitimacy in peace-making operates on two levels: legal legitimacy and moral-democratic legitimacy. Legal legitimacy derives from recognised sources of authority, including international treaties, charters, and institutional mandates. Moral-democratic legitimacy derives from the consent and participation of those whose lives are affected by peace arrangements.
Modern international law rests on the principle that peace cannot be imposed unilaterally. The United Nations Charter affirms sovereign equality and collective security, establishing that decisions regarding war and peace must be taken through lawful multilateral processes. This framework was created in response to the failures of interwar diplomacy, when informal conferences and elite bargaining determined the fate of nations without popular consent.
Peace-making also requires ethical credibility. Mediators and institutions must be perceived as impartial, accountable, and committed to human rights. The presence of financial interests, political bias, or authoritarian affiliations undermines this credibility. Trust is a central resource in peace processes; without it, agreements lack durability.
This article adopts a critical political economy approach, recognising that peace institutions are shaped not only by ideals but by material interests and power relations. When political authority, economic incentives, and security control converge in the same actors, peace risks becoming an instrument of governance rather than a project of justice.
Illegitimacy and the absence of legal authority
Under international law, institutions that claim authority over peace and security must derive their mandate from collective legal instruments. The United Nations, regional organisations such as the European Union and African Union, and ad hoc peace missions are all constituted through formal agreements ratified by states. These frameworks provide rules of procedure, mechanisms of accountability, and legal personality.
Trump's Peace Board possesses none of these characteristics. It has no founding treaty, no ratification process, and no recognised status under international law. It is not accountable to the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, or the International Court of Justice. Instead, it exists as a private political initiative, dependent entirely upon the authority and influence of its founder.
From a legal perspective, this renders the board indistinguishable from a diplomatic club or informal forum. It has no jurisdiction over sovereign territories and no lawful competence to administer reconstruction, governance, or security arrangements. Any attempt to do so would constitute extra-legal intervention.
This absence of legal authority undermines the normative foundations of the international order. The post-1945 system was constructed to prevent precisely this form of unilateral power. By bypassing multilateral institutions, the Peace Board weakens the rule-based system and normalises informal mechanisms of control.
The democratic deficit
Legitimacy also depends upon democratic consent. Peace processes derive moral authority from the participation of affected populations, either directly or through representative institutions. This principle reflects the broader norm of self-determination enshrined in international law and human rights instruments.
Trump's Peace Board lacks any such mandate. It was neither elected nor authorised by any parliament or international assembly. It has not been endorsed by the populations of the territories it claims to address. Instead, it is composed of political and economic elites acting without accountability to those whose lives will be shaped by its decisions.
This absence of consent is especially problematic in regions with histories of external domination. In the Middle East, peace initiatives imposed by foreign powers have often been perceived as instruments of control rather than reconciliation. The Peace Board reproduces this pattern by excluding local civil society, victims' groups, and grassroots political movements from decision-making processes.
Democratic peace-making requires inclusion, transparency, and deliberation. Elite governance, by contrast, relies on secrecy and hierarchy. Decisions are made behind closed doors by individuals insulated from the consequences of their policies.
Ethical fitness of the Board's principal figures
Donald J. Trump: Trump's political career has been defined by polarisation, transactional diplomacy, and scepticism toward multilateral institutions. His withdrawal from international agreements and rhetorical hostility to collective governance undermine his credibility as a neutral peace architect. His blending of political authority with private branding and business interests further erodes trust in his impartiality.
Jared Kushner: Kushner's central role in Middle East diplomacy despite lacking formal diplomatic training illustrates the dangers of personalised governance. His subsequent receipt of substantial investment from Gulf sovereign wealth funds creates unavoidable perceptions of conflict of interest. Peace negotiations cannot command legitimacy when negotiators later benefit financially from regional actors involved in those negotiations.
Tony Blair: Blair's legacy remains inseparable from the Iraq War, widely criticised as unlawful and destabilising. His post-premiership career as a consultant to governments and corporations, including authoritarian regimes, exemplifies elite impunity. His continued prominence in peace initiatives reflects continuity of power rather than accountability.
Financial and Investment Figures: The inclusion of financiers introduces a market logic into peace-making, whereby reconstruction is framed primarily as an economic opportunity rather than as a humanitarian or civic obligation. In this model, the success of peace is measured less by social cohesion or political reconciliation than by indicators of investor confidence and capital flows. Such actors are structurally incentivised to prioritise stability conducive to commercial activity over the pursuit of justice, accountability, and inclusive governance. Historical experience in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates that reconstruction dominated by private financial interests frequently fosters corruption, deepens social inequality, and diverts resources away from local communities, thereby undermining both legitimacy and long-term peace.
Security and Intelligence Officials: Security officials approach peace through control and surveillance rather than political inclusion. Many represent governments accused of human rights violations, importing authoritarian practices into peace governance. Peace becomes synonymous with order rather than justice.
Taken together, the board's members form a closed elite network lacking the impartiality and moral credibility required for peace-building.
Structural corruption and conflicts of interest
The Peace Board collapses negotiation, governance, and reconstruction into a single elite forum. This violates principles of separation of powers and good governance. Those who design peace agreements also oversee economic and political outcomes, creating inherent conflicts of interest.
Corruption in this context is structural rather than necessarily criminal. The incentive system itself distorts priorities. Reconstruction contracts, political influence, and strategic advantage become rewards for compliance with elite-designed settlements.
Peace is thereby commodified. Destruction generates investment opportunities, and conflict zones become laboratories for economic experimentation rather than communities seeking justice.
Peace as management rather than justice
A defining feature of the Peace Board is its technocratic conception of peace. Conflict is treated as a logistical and security problem to be stabilised rather than a political and moral crisis requiring accountability and reconciliation.
This approach prioritises:
- Order over rights
- Efficiency over participation
- Control over representation
Such a framework marginalises transitional justice and civic engagement. Peace becomes fragile because it rests on compliance rather than consent.
Historical parallels
Colonial Mandates: League of Nations mandates framed foreign control as temporary stewardship but produced domination and resistance. Local populations were excluded from governance. The Peace Board mirrors this structure of elite oversight without consent.
Iraq (Post-2003): The Coalition Provisional Authority centralised political and economic power in foreign hands, producing corruption and delegitimised institutions. The Peace Board reproduces this concentration of authority.
Afghanistan: Technocratic governance without social ownership collapsed once external support withdrew. Stability without legitimacy proved illusory.
These precedents demonstrate that externally imposed peace structures consistently fail.
Implications for international law
International law rests on sovereignty, self-determination, and collective security. The Peace Board undermines these principles by substituting private authority for lawful multilateral process. If normalised, such bodies would weaken the rule-based international order and encourage a return to informal power politics.
Conclusion
Trump's Peace Board is illegitimate in law, deficient in democratic authority, and ethically compromised in both its composition and institutional design. It lacks a recognised mandate under international law and operates outside the established frameworks of multilateral governance that have historically underpinned legitimate peace-making. Structurally, it embeds conflicts of interest by concentrating political authority, financial influence, and security oversight within a narrow circle of elites, thereby transforming peace into a managerial and economic project rather than a process grounded in justice, accountability, and reconciliation.
Historical experience consistently demonstrates that such elite-imposed peace structures fail to achieve durable stability. From colonial mandate systems to post-conflict reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, externally driven models of peace have produced dependency, corruption, and renewed cycles of violence rather than genuine political settlement. These precedents reveal that peace cannot be engineered through technocratic management or financial incentives alone but must be rooted in the political agency and consent of society's most directly affected by conflict.
Genuine peace must therefore arise from lawful international frameworks, inclusive political processes, and the meaningful participation of local populations. It requires transparency, respect for human rights, and institutions that are accountable to both domestic and international legal standards. Without these foundations, peace becomes hollow, fragile, and vulnerable to collapse, serving the interests of external actors rather than the needs of communities seeking recovery and justice.
The Peace Board thus represents not an innovation in conflict resolution but a revival of discredited traditions of elite governance in which power, wealth, and influence substitute for legality and representation. By privileging control over consent and stability over justice, it risks perpetuating the very conditions that generate instability and grievance. Far from offering a credible pathway toward reconciliation, the initiative underscores the dangers inherent in abandoning multilateralism and democratic legitimacy in favour of personalised and privatised models of peace-making.
Why Malta should not become a member of the peace board
Malta's participation in such a body would be both legally problematic and politically inconsistent with its constitutional and diplomatic commitments. As a neutral state under Article 1 of its Constitution, Malta is obliged to pursue a foreign policy grounded in non-alignment, international law, and multilateral cooperation. Membership in an elite, extra-legal peace mechanism dominated by partisan political actors would undermine this constitutional principle by entangling Malta in a politically controversial initiative lacking international legitimacy.
Furthermore, Malta's credibility as a small state has historically rested on its support for multilateralism, particularly through the United Nations and European Union frameworks. Aligning with a personalised peace initiative led by a former US president would weaken Malta's standing as an advocate of international legality and would risk associating the country with policies shaped by unilateralism rather than collective security norms.
There are also reputational and ethical risks. Participation would imply endorsement of a governance structure marked by conflicts of interest and opaque decision-making. Given Malta's recent challenges concerning rule of law, financial transparency, and governance standards, involvement in a body perceived as elitist and commercially entangled would further expose the state to international criticism and diplomatic vulnerability.
From a democratic perspective, Maltese membership would lack domestic legitimacy. The Peace Board does not operate under any parliamentary oversight, treaty ratification process, or international accountability mechanism. This absence of constitutional and democratic safeguards contradicts Malta's obligations as a democratic republic and EU member state, where foreign policy initiatives must be subject to legal scrutiny and public accountability.
Finally, Malta has no strategic or humanitarian advantage to gain from participation in such a structure. Its diplomatic resources are better invested in strengthening UN peace-building mechanisms, EU conflict-prevention initiatives, and regional Mediterranean stability through recognised institutions. Engagement with an informal elite forum risks diverting Malta from constructive multilateral diplomacy towards symbolic association with an experiment in privatised peace-making.
References
Blair, Tony. A Journey: My Political Life. London: Hutchinson, 2010.
Chandler, David. Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-Building. London: Pluto Press, 2006.
Chesterman, Simon. You, the People: The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Fukuyama, Francis. State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004.
International Commission of Jurists. The Rule of Law and the Role of International Peace Institutions. Geneva: ICJ, 2012.
Kushner, Jared. Breaking History: A White House Memoir. New York: Broadside Books, 2022.
Mazzucelli, Colette, ed. The Legitimacy of International Institutions. London: Routledge, 2019.
Paris, Roland. At War's End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Piketty, Thomas. Capital and Ideology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020.
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. San Francisco, 1945.
United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report: Conflict and Development. New York: UNDP, 2005.
United States Senate. Report on Conflicts of Interest and Foreign Investment in Post-Government Service. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2023.
Weiss, Thomas G., and Ramesh Thakur. Global Governance and the UN: An Unfinished Journey. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010.
Zartman, I. William. Negotiation and Conflict Management: Essays on Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2008.
Professor David Zammit serves as both a lecturer and the Rector of Pro Deo International University in Italy. He has been actively engaged in the field of education for the past 35 years. Throughout his career, he has delivered lectures in various countries and has participated as a speaker at numerous symposia.