The contemporary international order faces a fundamental challenge: the emergence of private governance structures designed to circumvent traditional multilateral mechanisms. A recent geopolitical initiative illustrates this transformation, revealing how powerful states and wealthy private actors now coordinate conflict resolution outside the framework of international institutions entirely.
The Genesis of Parallel Governance: Private Power Over Collective Security
Following declarations that an initial ceasefire phase had concluded in a major regional conflict, international observers noted a striking disconnect between stated peace objectives and observable outcomes on the ground. While diplomatic agreements claimed comprehensive resolution pathways, the material conditions—humanitarian access, territorial boundaries, security conditions—showed minimal progress in key areas. This gap between proclamation and implementation set the stage for an alternative approach to conflict governance: the creation of privately-organized boards designed to manage territories and populations according to commercial logic rather than humanitarian principle.
The newly-formed governance structure, operating under the premise of “technocratic management,” represents a departure from post-World War II institutional frameworks. Rather than channeling authority through the established United Nations system that has structured international peace and security, this model concentrates decision-making among selected state representatives and wealthy individual investors. Each participant in this exclusive framework faces a substantial financial commitment—participation fees structured in the billions—creating a business transaction where previous models emphasized collective obligation and universal membership principles.
The Architecture of Exclusion: Who Gets a Seat at the Table
The composition of these governing boards reveals fundamental contradictions with stated objectives. Notably, while representatives from one conflict party—a sitting government leader and national delegation—receive formal positions, representatives of affected populations remain excluded from deliberative structures. This asymmetry persists despite existing agreements that theoretically guarantee future democratic participation for those excluded populations.
More troubling still, individuals facing international justice proceedings for alleged war crimes occupy central leadership roles within these new governance frameworks. Rather than supporting accountability mechanisms or transitional justice processes, the architecture actively elevates alleged perpetrators while marginalizing victim populations. This structural choice indicates fundamental abandonment of international humanitarian law and accountability frameworks that developed over decades of post-conflict reconstruction efforts.
The guest list itself merits examination. Alongside conventional state representatives, the initiative extends invitations to autocratic leaders and individuals implicated in regional conflicts, signaling that shared values around democratic governance or human rights compliance no longer constitute preconditions for international cooperation. The presence of commercial real estate entrepreneurs—individuals with substantial financial interests in territorial reorganization—suggests the underlying logic prioritizes development opportunity over displaced population welfare.
The Business of Conflict: Monetizing Reconstruction and Territory
Perhaps most revealing, the conceptual foundation of this new governance model treats post-conflict situations as real estate development opportunities. Planners explicitly reference architectural transformation—replacement of destroyed infrastructure with contemporary commercial structures including mixed-use developments. The financial scale involved—estimates exceeding $25 billion—represents capital available for reconstruction according to commercial feasibility rather than humanitarian need.
This fundamentally reorders reconstruction priorities. Traditional approaches emphasize restoring essential services, housing, and livelihoods for affected populations. The commercial model emphasizes properties and infrastructure amenities attractive to external investors and future high-value residents. Notably, the plans include provisions encouraging selected segments of affected populations to relocate elsewhere—framing forced displacement not as a humanitarian crisis requiring international intervention, but as a necessary prerequisite for successful development implementation.
The Abraham Accords, previously documented as another framework for authoritarian conflict management, established precedent for this approach. By rewarding authoritarian states with normalization agreements contingent on shared strategic interests rather than human rights compliance, earlier frameworks normalized the exclusion of non-state parties and local populations from peace processes. The current model accelerates this trajectory, making local consent—historically central to peace agreement sustainability—largely irrelevant.
The International Law Problem: From Rules-Based Order to Power-Based Assertion
The governance initiative represents explicit rejection of the post-1945 framework emphasizing universal principles, international law, and rule-based order. The Board of Peace charter—the constitutional document establishing this structure—deliberately omits references to human rights, humanitarian law, or accountability mechanisms. This omission appears intentional, reflecting design that prioritizes unrestricted authority for powerful actors over constraints imposed by international legal obligation.
Traditional frameworks theoretically constrain behavior even for powerful states. The United Nations charter establishes principles regarding dispute resolution and the right of peoples to self-determination, creating at least rhetorical commitments supporting accountability and inclusivity. Multilateral institutions, while admittedly imperfect, require participation from diverse states with varying interests, forcing accommodation and negotiation. The new model eliminates these constraints entirely: a self-selecting group of powerful states and private actors designs and implements governance structures affecting territory and population without external constraint.
This represents a qualitative shift in how international conflict management operates. Rather than evolution within existing institutional frameworks—reform of Security Council procedures or expanded ICC membership—the approach abandons traditional institutions altogether. It establishes parallel structures with authority, resources, and legitimacy derived not from international law or democratic process, but from unilateral power combined with private capital concentration.
The Risk Trajectory: Precedent for Future Conflicts
The most concerning aspect may be the explicit articulation that this model serves as a blueprint for future conflicts involving weaker states or stateless populations. Should the framework “succeed” according to its own metrics—rapid commercial development, investor returns, settlement of conflict according to powerful actors’ preferences—subsequent conflicts involving less powerful parties face similar governance structures. The precedent suggests a future international order where conflict outcomes depend not on justice, accountability, or inclusive peace-building, but on commercial viability and alignment with powerful actors’ strategic interests.
This portends dramatic consequences for international humanitarian law. Ethnic cleansing, historically classified as a serious violation requiring investigation and accountability, now appears potentially acceptable—even encouraged—if it facilitates development. Research on authoritarian conflict management and weak states demonstrates that frameworks prioritizing powerful actors’ interests over inclusive governance produce sustained instability, renewed conflict cycles, and mass violence. Short-term development gains in particular territories correlate with destabilization elsewhere as populations flee or resist displacement, creating cascading humanitarian crises.
The Legitimacy Crisis: Abandoning Pretense of International Order
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of this transformation involves explicit abandonment of previous rhetorical commitments. States previously advocating for democracy and human rights could claim—however weakly—alignment between their foreign policy and stated values. The involvement of acknowledged democratic governments in governance structures that explicitly exclude democratic participation and accountability represents open rejection of that rhetorical framework.
Arab civil society advocates who previously leveraged the gap between American rhetorical commitments to human rights and actual policy now face an absence of even rhetorical commitment. When powerful states cease pretending to support universal principles, constituencies formerly hopeful about gradual policy evolution lose the primary diplomatic leverage they possessed. The stakes become starker: not whether powerful states will live up to existing commitments, but whether any framework constraining powerful actors’ behavior remains viable.
Conclusion: The International System at an Inflection Point
The emergence of private governance structures representing a fundamental challenge to the post-1945 international order. Rather than reformed multilateralism or institutional evolution, this represents institutional replacement—substitution of rule-based frameworks with power-based assertion. The implications extend far beyond the immediate territory under discussion. Should this model persist and expand, the international system transforms from one emphasizing universal principles and constrained authority to one based explicitly on might, commercial interest, and powerful actors’ preferences.
The consequences will likely manifest first among populations of weaker states and territories lacking powerful external advocates. The people residing in areas targeted for such governance frameworks will have minimal influence over outcomes affecting their lives, territory, and futures. However, the destabilization and conflict this produces ultimately reverberates globally. Abandoning accountability frameworks, dismissing humanitarian concerns, and prioritizing commercial extraction over sustainable peace produces conditions generating ongoing crises—refugee movements, security instability, and repeated conflicts requiring successive external interventions.
The moment of critical choice appears immediate. Whether the international order adapts governance frameworks to address contemporary challenges while maintaining commitment to universal principles, or whether it formally abandons that commitment in favor of explicit power-based assertion, remains uncertain. What appears clear is that the period of rhetorical commitment to democracy, human rights, and international law—regardless of inconsistent implementation—may be ending. The question is whether sustained international peace and security can be built on explicit rejection of these principles entirely.
Original analysis inspired by Dana El Kurd from Foreign Policy. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
