Pakistan’s receipt of an invitation from United States President Donald Trump to join the newly constituted Board of Peace on Gaza marks a diplomatically significant yet legally ambiguous development in the international handling of the Gaza conflict. While Islamabad has publicly reaffirmed its commitment to a solution in line with United Nations resolutions, the invitation raises profound questions about the legal authority, geopolitical intent and institutional legitimacy of this emerging mechanism.
At a time when Gaza remains devastated by conflict and international legal norms are under unprecedented strain, the creation of yet another diplomatic forum demands rigorous scrutiny rather than uncritical acceptance.
The Board of Peace on Gaza: Legal standing under international law
From a strictly legal perspective, the most immediate concern surrounding the Board of Peace on Gaza is its absence of any clearly articulated basis in international law. Unlike the United Nations Security Council, General Assembly, or even ad hoc mechanisms authorised through multilateral consensus, the Board appears to be a political construct led by Washington, rather than an institution anchored in treaty law or UN mandate.
This raises a fundamental issue:
Can a US initiated body meaningfully shape outcomes in Gaza without undermining established UN frameworks?
International law has long recognised that durable peace processes must rest on principles of sovereign equality, collective decision making and legal continuity. A parallel structure risks diluting existing UN mechanisms rather than reinforcing them.
Pakistan’s strategic calculus: Principle meets pragmatism
Pakistan’s acceptance of the invitation must be understood against the backdrop of its consistent diplomatic support for Palestinian self determination, rooted in international humanitarian law and decades of UN voting alignment. Islamabad’s statement emphasising adherence to UN resolutions is not incidental. It is a carefully calibrated signal that Pakistan does not view the Board as a substitute for established international law.
However, participation itself carries implications.
Pakistan’s presence on the Board may be intended to act as a normative counterweight, ensuring that any peace discourse remains tethered to legal obligations under the Geneva Conventions, UN Security Council resolutions, and the right of return and statehood principles. Yet this role is inherently precarious if the Board’s agenda is shaped primarily by geopolitical expediency rather than legal consistency.
United States leadership: Mediation or managed outcomes?
The involvement of President Donald Trump reintroduces a familiar tension in Middle East diplomacy: the conflation of mediation with influence. The United States has historically positioned itself as a broker in the Israel Palestine conflict, but its neutrality has repeatedly been questioned, particularly following policy shifts on Jerusalem, settlements, and aid conditionality.
The Board of Peace on Gaza thus risks being perceived less as an impartial forum and more as an instrument for managed conflict resolution, where outcomes are framed to align with strategic interests rather than legal imperatives.
From an international relations standpoint, this may further erode confidence among Global South states that already view Western led peace initiatives with scepticism.
Gaza, accountability and the problem of enforcement
Any credible peace framework for Gaza must confront the unresolved issue of accountability for violations of international humanitarian law. Civilian infrastructure destruction, displacement, and humanitarian access restrictions remain subject to ongoing international concern.
The critical question is whether the Board of Peace on Gaza possesses either the mandate or the willingness to address legal accountability, including cooperation with international investigative mechanisms.
Absent such authority, the Board risks becoming a forum for diplomatic optics rather than substantive legal redress.
Pakistan’s role as a normative actor in a fragmented order
Pakistan’s engagement may nonetheless serve a broader strategic function. In an increasingly fragmented international order where multilateral institutions are under pressure, middle powers can play a stabilising role by insisting on legal continuity and multilateral legitimacy.
By participating while explicitly reaffirming UN based solutions, Pakistan positions itself as a guardian of legal orthodoxy within a politically driven initiative. Whether this stance can meaningfully influence outcomes will depend on the Board’s internal structure, decision making processes and transparency.
A parallel process or a precedent setting shift?
The long term implications of the Board of Peace on Gaza extend beyond the immediate conflict. If such bodies gain traction without UN authorisation, they could set a precedent for informal, power driven peace architectures that sideline established legal frameworks.
This would represent a significant shift in global conflict resolution norms, weakening the universality of international law in favour of selective diplomacy.
Engagement Without illusion
Pakistan’s inclusion in the Board of Peace on Gaza is diplomatically noteworthy but legally inconclusive. It reflects both the urgency of addressing Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe and the persistent failure of existing mechanisms to deliver enforceable peace.
Yet engagement must not be mistaken for endorsement. The true measure of this initiative will lie in whether it strengthens international law or quietly circumvents it.
For Pakistan, the challenge is clear: to participate without legitimising a process that risks substituting political convenience for legal obligation.