The global security system is creaking under the weight of crises it can’t seem to manage. Wars grind on in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and elsewhere. The Security Council is paralyzed by veto politics. The Secretary‑General is criticized from all sides. And into this moment of institutional fatigue steps a new player: President Trump’s “Board of Peace,” launched with fanfare and framed by some as a bold alternative to the United Nations.
It’s tempting to see this as the beginning of a new era—one in which frustrated governments finally break free of the UN’s bureaucracy and build something faster, leaner, and more effective. But the truth is more complicated. The world doesn’t need a replacement for the UN. It needs a smarter, more flexible security architecture in which the UN remains the legal anchor and new initiatives bring energy, innovation, and political will.
The question is not whether the Board of Peace or any other new body will replace the UN. They won’t. The real question is whether they will work with the UN to strengthen global peace and security—or compete with it in ways that leave the world even more fragmented and dangerous.
A Security Council That Can’t Deliver
The UN Security Council is struggling. Its five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—were meant to act as guardians of global stability. Instead, they are often locked in geopolitical standoffs that make decisive action nearly impossible.
On Ukraine, the Council is frozen. On Gaza, it has been unable to produce a resolution that all major powers can support. On Sudan and other atrocity zones, it has been slow, divided, or absent. The veto, once intended as a safeguard against great‑power conflict, has become a tool for shielding allies and blocking accountability.
This paralysis has consequences. When the Security Council can’t act, conflicts may escalate, humanitarian crises deepen, and the credibility of the entire UN system erodes. It’s no surprise that governments are looking elsewhere for solutions both legitimately or illegitimately.
The Rise of Parallel Institutions
In recent years, we’ve seen a proliferation of alternative security mechanisms: ad hoc coalitions, regional organizations, a World Security Council and now the Board of Peace. These bodies are born of frustration and concern about agility and action—qualities the UN often lacks.
The Board of Peace, in particular, has drawn attention because of its high‑profile leadership and its ambition to play a global role. Some of its supporters have hinted that it could become a more effective alternative to the UN. Critics worry it could undermine the UN’s authority or become a geopolitical tool.
But here’s the key point: No new body, no matter how energetic or well‑funded, can replace the UN’s legal authority. The UN Charter is a binding treaty with near‑universal membership. It governs the use of force, sanctions, peacekeeping, and the legitimacy of international action. The Board of Peace can influence politics, but it cannot rewrite the rules of the international system.
What this Board of Peace can do is shape the future of global governance—either by complementing the UN or by competing with it. It’s a false narrative.
A Fork in the Road
We are at a moment of choice. New initiatives can either deepen fragmentation or help build a more resilient, modern security architecture. If these initiatives operate as rivals—duplicating efforts, issuing conflicting messages, or bypassing international law—the result will be confusion, weakened norms, and more room for powerful states to act unilaterally.
But if these or other future initiatives operate as partners—sharing information, coordinating diplomacy, and reinforcing the UN’s legal framework—they can help fill the gaps the UN cannot currently close.
The world doesn’t need a new UN. It needs a networked system in which the UN is the anchor and new bodies bring speed, creativity, and political momentum. Choosing this path requires intentional design, not wishful thinking.
A Smarter Path Forward
So what would a cooperative model look like? It starts with a simple principle: the UN provides legitimacy; new initiatives provide agility. Each has strengths the other lacks.
- Build a “UN‑Plus” Security Network
Instead of treating new bodies as competitors, we should integrate them into a broader ecosystem. A standing “UN‑Plus” forum could bring together:
- the UN
- regional organizations
- new initiatives like the Board of Peace among others
- major donors and peace building institutions
This group would meet regularly to coordinate responses to emerging crises. Think of it as the G20 of global security—informal, flexible, and complementary to existing institutions.
- Share Early‑Warning and Crisis Data
One of the UN’s greatest strengths is its global presence. One of its greatest weaknesses is its slow decision‑making. New initiatives can help by sharing intelligence, early‑warning indicators, and regional insights with UN agencies. Joint assessment missions could become the norm rather than the exception.
- Align Standards and Safeguards
To avoid a race to the bottom, new bodies should commit to international humanitarian law, human rights norms, transparent decision‑making, and clear rules for the use of force. This ensures that parallel institutions don’t become vehicles for bypassing the very norms that are the strength of the UN system under its Charter.
- Support Regional Leadership
Regional organizations often understand local dynamics better than distant capitals. ECOWAS, the African Union, ASEAN, the OAS, and others can take the lead in diplomacy and peace operations, while the UN provides legitimacy and global coordination. New initiatives can supply funding, logistics, and political backing.
- Push for Long‑Term UN Reform
None of this works without reforming the Security Council itself. The world has changed dramatically since 1945. The Council has not. Expanding membership, adjusting veto rules, and creating long‑term renewable seats would make the Council more representative and more effective.
Reform is slow. But without it, frustration will continue to fuel the creation of alternative bodies.
A Future Worth Building
The world is too interconnected—and too fragile—to rely only on a single institution for global peace and security. But it is also too dangerous to abandon the only universal, treaty‑based system we have.
The UN is imperfect. It is slow. It is often divided. But it remains the backbone of international law and the only institution with the legitimacy to speak for the world as a whole.
New initiatives like the Board of Peace can play a valuable role—if they choose partnership over rivalry. They can bring energy where the UN is tired, speed where it is slow, and political will where it is gridlocked.
But they should not try to replace the UN. The world doesn’t need a new center of gravity. It needs a smarter, more connected system—one that blends the UN’s legitimacy with the agility of new actors.
The choice is ours. We can build a cooperative architecture that strengthens global peace and security. Or we can drift into a fragmented world where every crisis becomes a test of which institution has the loudest voice. The stakes are too high for institutional turf wars. What the world needs now is not a new UN, but a renewed commitment to collective security—shared across old institutions and new ones alike.
David M. Crane is a global leader in international criminal justice and the founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. He has spent decades shaping accountability mechanisms around the world, including serving as a driving architect behind the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. Crane is a distinguished scholar of international law, a former senior U.S. national security official, and a leading voice on the rule of law, state responsibility, and the legal limits on the use of force.
