Board Of Peace Could Complement, Not Replace, UN Security Council

This advisory function would not encroach on the UNSC's authority. Instead, it would enrich deliberations with perspectives from a broader - or simply different - array of states, thereby fostering a more inclusive dialogue on global stability.

The Board's greatest potential lies in preventive diplomacy and mediation-areas where the Council often struggles. The Council is well equipped for crisis response, including deploying troops, enforcing arms embargoes and imposing sanctions.

Yet its bureaucracy and complex politics frequently slow or block early action, allowing tensions to escalate into larger crises.

This is exactly where the Board could make a real difference. Its layered committee structure gives it the speed and flexibility the Council so often lacks in conducting nimble diplomacy.

The Board could act rapidly by sending envoys to shuttle between parties unwilling to meet face-to-face, quietly managing back-channel talks or engaging rivals at the earliest signs of tension.

By feeding frontline insights and practical recommendations straight to the Security Council, the Board could act as a credible early-warning system - spotting risks and proposing concrete steps to de-escalate long before a crisis spins out of control.

That role would align neatly with the United Nations' repeated calls for stronger conflict prevention, shifting the focus from merely reacting to crises to preventing them from igniting in the first place. In practice, this could mean containing minor disputes or flare-ups before they escalate into wider, more destructive confrontations.

The Board is already collaborating with the High Representative and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza to restore infrastructure, education and governance - tasks that UN missions have too often left under-resourced.

The Board also brings much-needed new voices to a system whose core architecture has remained essentially unchanged since 1945. With members spanning the Middle East, Europe, Asia and beyond, it can incorporate input from civil society, the private sector actors and even technologists.

Skeptics caution that the Board may fragment global governance or weaken UN authority. This concern is not new. The Council has long delegated operational responsibilities to regional organizations, and a comparable partnership with the Board - particularly where consensus in the Council remains elusive - would fit comfortably within established practice while helping to avoid overlap.