Subject: International Relations

Why in the news?

The United States has launched a new Board of Peace initiative at the World Economic Forum in Davos, projecting it as a global peace-making body that could rival or even replace the United Nations in the long term.The move is significant because many traditional U.S. allies declined participation, revealing skepticism about its mandate and legitimacy.

What is the Board of Peace?

Origin and Initial Mandate

1. Conceptualisation: Conceived by Donald Trump as part of the second phase of a U.S.-brokered 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan announced in September.
2. Original Scope: Oversight of demilitarisation, reconstruction, and governance of the Gaza Strip, following devastation caused by Israel’s two-year war.
3. International Backing: Received formal legitimacy when the United Nations Security Council endorsed the ceasefire plan in November.

Mandate Expansion and Charter Design

1. Mandate Expansion: Expanded from a Gaza-specific reconstruction body to a global institution addressing conflicts worldwide.
2. Charter Language: Defines the Board as an “international organization” promoting stability, peace, and governance in areas affected or threatened by conflict.
3. Notable Omission: The draft charter circulated with invitations does not reference Gaza, despite Gaza being the original trigger.

Leadership and Governance Structure

1. Chairmanship: Trump designated as indefinite chairman, potentially extending beyond his second presidential term.
2. Institutional Hierarchy: Board positioned above a Founding Executive Board.
3. Executive Composition: Includes Jared Kushner, Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, andTony Blair, indicating executive-driven rather than multilateral governance.

Membership Model and Access Rules

1. Term Structure: Standard membership for three-year terms.
2. Permanent Seats: Available upon payment of USD 1 billion to a peace-building fund.
3. Governance Implication: Introduces a financial criterion for institutional permanence, distinct from norm-based multilateral systems.

Why is participation in the Board of Peace contested?

1. Limited Attendance: Heads of state or senior officials from only 19 countries, plus the U.S., were physically present.
2. Ally Skepticism: Several close U.S. allies opted out due to uncertainty over mandate, authority, and overlap with existing institutions.
3. Legislative Constraints: Some countries indicated interest but require parliamentary approval before formal participation.

How does the Board of Peace relate to the United Nations?

1. Institutional Overlap: The Board’s functions closely resemble UN peacekeeping and mediation roles.
2. U.S. Positioning: The President indicated cooperation with the UN while simultaneously questioning its effectiveness.
3. Long-term Implication: The Board was described as potentially making the UN obsolete, signaling a challenge to the post-1945 multilateral order.

What role does the Gaza conflict play in this initiative?

1. Ceasefire Focus: The Board was presented as a mechanism to manage and sustain ceasefires, with Gaza cited as a test case.
2. Border Opening: Announcement that the Rafah crossing would reopen in both directions after Israeli approval.
3. Governance Proposal: Oversight of Gaza by a Palestinian committee under U.S. supervision was mentioned as part of post-conflict planning.

How have major global powers responded?

1. Russia’s Position: Indicated ongoing consultations and refrained from immediate commitment.
2. Engagement with Palestine: Russia hosted Palestinian leadership, highlighting parallel diplomatic tracks.
3. Global Fragmentation: Divergent responses reflect declining consensus on U.S.-led peace initiatives.

Conclusion

The launch of the Board of Peace reflects dissatisfaction with existing global peace mechanisms and highlights the limits of unilateral institution-building. The gap between claimed support and actual participation raises questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness, even as ongoing conflicts like Gaza underline the urgency of peace efforts.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2024] Terrorism has become a significant threat to global peace and security’. Evaluate the effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and its associated bodies in addressing and mitigating this threat at the international level.

Linkage: The question tests how far UN bodies like the Security Council and its counter-terrorism mechanisms have been effective in maintaining global peace and security. The Board of Peace has been launched because existing UN mechanisms are seen as slow and ineffective.

Why in the News

The Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea enters into force on January 17, 2026, enabling, for the first time, the creation of marine protected areas in international waters. This reverses decades of regulatory vacuum over the high seas, which constitute two-thirds of ocean area with less than 10% protected. India has begun shaping a domestic implementation framework, highlighting the Treaty’s scale, timing, and implications for fisheries, marine genetics, and ocean governance.

The High Seas Treaty It is a landmark global accord to protect marine life in the high seas and the deep seabed (the areas of the ocean that lie beyond any country’s national jurisdiction). It applies to over two thirds of the world’s ocean.  It provides a legal framework to  conserve marine biodiversity promote sustainable use of ocean resources  ensure fair sharing of benefits from marine genetic materials found in deep-sea species. The treaty is built around four key pillars: Marine genetic resources and benefit-sharing, ensuring discoveries from marine organisms benefit all humanity. Area-based management tools, enabling the creation of marine protected areas (MPAs) in international waters. Environmental impact assessments which require countries to evaluate how proposed activities could affect fragile marine ecosystems. Capacity-building and technology transfer, helping developing countries participate fully in ocean research and conservation.

What makes the High Seas Treaty a landmark in ocean governance?

1. First-time Legal Protection: Enables designation of environmentally protected zones in international waters.
2. Governance Closure: Addresses long-standing regulatory gaps over marine genetic resources, environmental impact assessments, and conservation measures.
3. Global Scale: Applies to waters covering nearly two thirds of the world’s ocean. (high seas + deep seabed).

Why is the Treaty’s timing significant?

1. Countdown Trigger: Morocco’s ratification (September) activated a 120-day countdown to entry into force.
2. Policy Context: Aligns with the 2022 UN biodiversity goal to protect 30% of land and oceans by 2030.
3. Industry Interface: Comes as applications for deep-sea exploration are under review (with seabed mining governed separately).

How is India preparing for ratification and implementation?

1. Institutional Coordination: Ministry of Earth Sciences convened a national consultation with ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute and Centre for Marine Living Resources and Ecology.
2. Stakeholder Integration: Policymakers, legal experts, scientists, fisheries and maritime industry assessed scientific, legal, and institutional readiness.
3. Roadmap Formation: Recommendations to inform India’s domestic roadmap ahead of the Conference of Parties (August 2026).

What governance gaps does the Treaty address?

1. Marine Genetic Resources: Clarifies ownership sensitivities and equitable access mechanisms.
2. Environmental Accountability: Establishes structured processes to manage impact assessments and conservation obligations.
3. Equity and Access: Balances conservation with national interests of coastal and developing states.

Why does the Treaty matter for India’s fisheries and ocean science?

1. Ecosystem Connectivity: High seas activities influence fish availability within India’s EEZ, despite reliance on nearshore fisheries.
2. Scientific Capacity: India’s strengths in ocean science and marine technology position it to integrate science, policy, and law.
3. Sectoral Relevance: Direct implications for small-scale fisheries, sustainability, and food security.

What are the limits and enforcement challenges?

1. Compliance Constraints: Enforcement options in international law remain limited, relying on cooperation among ratifying states.
2. Participation Gap: Some major players, including the United States, have not ratified, affecting universality.

Conclusion

The High Seas Treaty transforms the oceans from a regulatory “wild west” into a governed commons. India’s early domestic alignment signals strategic intent to shape implementation, protect fisheries interests, and integrate science with law, while the Treaty’s success will hinge on cooperation, compliance, and institutional capacity at scale.

PYQ Relevance 

[UPSC 2023] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted a global sea level rise of about one metre by AD 2100. What would be its impact in India and the other countries in the Indian Ocean region? 

Linkage: UPSC has repeatedly asked questions on international organisations and environmental regimes such as Ramsar Convention, UNFCCC, IPCC, and Sendai Framework, indicating sustained focus on global commons and climate governance. The IPCC’s sea-level rise projections highlight climate stress on oceans, reinforcing the relevance of the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ) in strengthening biodiversity protection and governance beyond national jurisdiction.