Davos live legal updates: Sweden rejects Trump’s “Board of Peace” initiative

In a striking development at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Sweden has formally declined participation in the United States’ newly announced “Board of Peace” initiative for Gaza. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson confirmed that the Swedish government would not engage with the board “as presented so far,” reflecting deep concern among European and international stakeholders over the initiative’s unprecedented legal and diplomatic implications.

The US-led “Board of Peace” represents one of the most extraordinary and legally complex undertakings in post-war governance in modern international history. According to draft documents reviewed by Reuters and first reported by Bloomberg News, the Trump administration approached approximately sixty countries, notifying them that continued membership on the board beyond an initial three-year period would require a financial contribution of one billion US dollars. The board is intended to oversee Gaza’s transitional administration following the second phase of President Trump’s twenty-point peace plan, an initiative designed ostensibly to implement stability and reconstruction in the Palestinian territory.

The draft charter outlines a governing body of eleven executive members with rotating additional participants. Key positions include President Donald Trump as chair, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, special envoy Steve Witkoff, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, UN Coordinator Sigrid Kaag, former UN envoy Nickolay Mladenov, US Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gabriel, billionaire investor Marc Rowan, and World Bank President Ajay Banga.

Security responsibilities would be vested in an International Stabilisation Force commanded by Major General Jasper Jeffers, tasked with demilitarisation, humanitarian aid distribution, and maintaining order. Countries approached for participation reportedly include Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, and European Union representation via Ursula von der Leyen.

The board’s legal standing, however, is deeply ambiguous. Gaza is widely regarded as a territory under belligerent occupation during the conflict periods of 2023–2025, and international law strictly limits administrative authority in such contexts. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Regulations, and customary international law governing post-conflict administration, only the occupying power or an internationally mandated body may exercise governance over civilian populations. A board established unilaterally by the executive branch of a foreign state, with no UN Security Council or General Assembly mandate, falls outside this legal framework and risks violating fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.

Legal Implications of Monetising Governance

The demand for a $1 billion contribution to secure continued participation is unprecedented in modern international relations. No international legal framework recognises the concept of purchasing authority over a population emerging from conflict. Trusteeships, UN peacekeeping missions, and transitional administrations have historically been funded through assessed contributions or voluntary humanitarian donations, not transactional payments linked to governance rights. Conditioning political authority on financial contribution constitutes a form of coercive commodification of governance and raises serious questions under the UN Charter, including the principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention, and the right of peoples to self-determination.

Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees that all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status. The board’s current architecture excludes Palestinian participation entirely, replacing the civil population’s agency with a pay-to-play executive committee dominated by foreign officials, financiers, and political appointees. Such an arrangement contravenes the principles of democratic governance and the rule of law and could be viewed as a violation of customary human rights protections applicable in post-conflict settings.

The board’s proposed composition is a recipe for geopolitical friction. Israel, as the territory’s principal occupying power for much of the conflict, was reportedly not consulted regarding the creation or management of the board. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, have expressed concern over the board’s unilateral establishment and the inclusion of Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, whose government has historically supported factions opposed to Israel.

The ceasefire that concluded the 2023–2025 Gaza conflict remains tenuous. Hamas-led forces reportedly killed approximately 1,200 Israelis during the initial attacks in October 2023, while Israeli military responses resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties. Introducing a foreign-led governance board without consultation with either the occupying power or the local population risks undermining fragile stability, creating conditions for renewed violence, and violating international norms on occupation and civilian protection.

European participation presents additional diplomatic challenges. While Ursula von der Leyen and several EU member states have been approached, engagement risks legitimising a governance structure that bypasses multilateral institutions and international law. Conversely, refusal may marginalise Europe in a key post-conflict reconstruction process. Sweden’s decision to abstain thus serves as a clear statement of principle, highlighting both legal and ethical concerns over unilateral and monetised governance.

President Trump has publicly described the board as “the greatest and most prestigious board ever assembled at any time, any place,” signalling a corporate management philosophy applied to conflict resolution. By appointing family members, political allies, and business leaders, while monetising participation, the initiative transforms post-war governance into a quasi-franchised enterprise, subordinating multilateral legitimacy and civilian representation to transactional influence.

International legal scholars have warned that if implemented, the board could set a dangerous precedent. Any state could replicate the model in other conflict-affected regions, including Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine, Haiti, or Myanmar, commoditising political authority and deploying stabilisation forces without international authorisation. This approach undermines the multilateral rules-based order established post-1945, potentially reducing sovereignty to negotiable commodity and conflicts to commercial opportunities.

Sweden’s rejection of the “Board of Peace” initiative serves as a principled and legally coherent stand against the privatisation of post-conflict governance. The initiative, in its current form, risks reducing one of the world’s most sensitive humanitarian crises to an administrative project controlled by a single foreign leader, funded through compulsory contributions, and insulated from both local accountability and international legal oversight.

This development has significant global implications. If such a model is accepted, it could redefine how post-war reconstruction and conflict resolution are conducted, subordinating law and consent to the logic of transactional geopolitics. Sweden’s refusal underscores the importance of maintaining multilateral frameworks, civilian participation, and adherence to international humanitarian law, even in an era of increasingly audacious unilateral initiatives.

History will likely judge the Trump “Board of Peace” initiative not as a breakthrough in diplomacy but as a controversial experiment that challenged the very foundations of international governance, sovereignty, and legal accountability. The international community now faces a critical choice: endorse a commercialised model of peace or reaffirm the rule-based system that underpins global security.