Where S Palestinians Consent For Un Resolution

---

 


Perhaps many of us are fully aware that the UN Security Council (UNSC) has recently passed Resolution 2803 (2025) aimed at turning the precarious Gaza ceasefire into a real peace plan.
Needless to say, the resolution is essentially a US-sponsored draft UNSC resolution.
After all, the draft merely endorses President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza Plan, which began with a ceasefire and hostage deal, and would ostensibly end in a heavily conditioned “pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood".
Anyway, the involvement of the UNSC in the Gaza tragedy is arguably a positive development.
Legally speaking, however, many international law scholars - including Jewish legal scholars such as Eliav Lieblich - argue the resolution is inherently problematic in several key aspects.
First of all, did the resolution truly envision any consent by the Palestinians, either through the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) or the State of Palestine or even Hamas, to the so-called Board of Peace (BOP) rule and the deployment of the International Stabilization Force (ISF)?
The resolution recognises the BOP, which is to be chaired by Trump, and so far slated to include Tony Blair as a “transitional governance administration” in Gaza, until “the Palestinian Authority has satisfactorily completed its reform programme, the satisfaction of which shall be acceptable to the BOP”.
The resolution also authorises the BOP to act as a transitional administration, by supervising “a Palestinian technocratic, apolitical committee of competent Palestinians from the Strip,” which would deal with local day-to-day administration.
And the BOP would also be charged with reconstructing Gaza and its economy and performing any additional tasks necessary to advance the 20-point plan.
And finally, the resolution also authorises the BOP to establish an ISF which would work in cooperation with Egypt and Israel and would have the power to “use all necessary measures” (ie, force) to carry out its mandate.
Legal scholars argue that in the absence of any express and categorical consent from the Palestinians, the establishment of an interim administration, deployment of forces, and authorisation of force in Gaza would be legally flawed and worse, the authorisation of force in Gaza would even be considered to be coercive.
Consent is key
Under international law, for the UNSC to authorise a coercive act, it must act under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, since binding enforcement measures can only be undertaken when Chapter VII is properly invoked.
Conventionally speaking, when forces are deployed with SC authorisation in a certain territory, the UNSC would take into account or obtain the consent of the local government.
To cite an example, let us consider Resolution 1456.
Despite the fact the resolution authorised the presence of a multinational force in Iraq following the establishment of an interim government there, it equally recognised “the request conveyed in the letter of June 5, 2004, from the prime minister of the interim government of Iraq to the president of the council, which is annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force”.
Hence, consent from the local authorities is the key. Unfortunately, in the present resolution on Gaza, the consent of the Palestinian authorities is conspicuously absent, both in terms of consent to the powers of the BOP, let alone to the deployment of the force.
All in all, it has almost no meaningful reference to Palestinian participation in the decision-making process.
Needless to say, the express and categorical consent from the Palestinians should be made crystal clear in the resolution, for it is key for the legal status and powers of any interim administration, as well as for increasing its legitimacy.
Stripped of any local (Palestinian) consent, a Chapter VII of the UN Charter mandate is absolutely required to grant the BOP the far-reaching transformative powers the draft envisions.
Otherwise, the BOP would be treated as a new occupying entity that simply receives control over territory in Gaza from a previous occupant - Israel. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy law minister.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---