Miklos K. Radvanyi, vice president of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute provided an analysis for Gulyáságyú Média. / Radványi Miklós, az egyesült államokbeli republikánus think-tank, a Frontiers of Freedom Institute alelnöke angol nyelvű elemzése a Gulyáságyú Média számára.
You can find all of Miklos K. Radvanyi”s opinion pieces on this link. Radványi Miklós összes írását ezen a linken találja.
Nyitóképünkön: Donald Trump részt vesz a Béketanács alapokmányának kihirdetésén és aláírási ceremóniáján Davos-ban 2026. január 22-én. Forrás. Wikipédia.
Támogatóink hozzájárulása nélkül ez a cikkünk sem készülhetett volna el. Ne csak olvassa, támogassa is lapunkat: kattintson ide.
The decisive menace of the current international order is not a series of individual conflicts, but the rapidly accelerating global rivalry among the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China, and the Russian Federation – three heavily armed nuclear powers locked in a contest for global influence, technological dominance, and strategic superiority. Unlike the bipolar standoff of the “Cold War,” this rivalry is multipolar, asymmetric, and increasingly unconstrained by shared rules, unfolding simultaneously across military, economic, cyber, and political domains. As each side seeks to secure its position and limit the others’ positions, the real risk is not preplanned confrontation but miscalculation, escalation, and the steady erosion of the mechanisms that in the past prevented such rivalry from turning into catastrophe. Moreover, this rivalry, presently simmering under various political covers, is subdued by the fear of mutual annihilation, which is ultimately transitory, while aggressively hateful ambitions persist indefinitely. Finally, because of the constant incongruity among the domineering states, they view the charters of international organizations and the fundamental principles of international law as no more than flexibly interpretable possibilities without committing themselves to respect them unconditionally.
Great-Power Rivalry and the Risk of Escalation
Already during the 2024 presidential campaign, candidate Donald J. Trump enunciated the idea of a “Board of Peace,” an international body designed to prevent global conflicts and de-escalate wars through diplomacy and strategic pressure rather than prolonged military engagements. While this idea has remained rather broad and has lacked detailed legislative text, it has reflected recurring topics of President Trump’s foreign policy aspirations. According to his statements, the “Board of Peace” would aim to anticipate conflicts before they escalate into wars, to apply diplomatic, economic, or political pressure to deter violence, and to leverage American influence to broker negotiations as soon as possible.
The Structure and Ambitions of the Board of Peace
Proposed in September 2025 and formally established on the sidelines of the 56th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 22, 2026, the “Board of Peace” was initially designed, according to the White House’s declaration, “to transform Gaza from a region plagued by war into one defined by opportunity, hope, and vitality.” Yet, on February 19, 2026, President Trump expanded the scope of the “Board of Peace” by explicitly signaling a much broader global peace role, beyond Gaza, for the “Board of Peace,” which could cover other conflicts and international issues mostly handled by the United Nations and its various organizations. The organizational structure of the “Board of Peace” centers around President Trump who serves as the unelected Chairman. The President has a strong central authority, including the power to unilaterally invite or remove member states, approve or veto decisions and resolutions, determine membership terms, interpret the Board of Peace’s Charter. The Main Board, called the General Assembly of Members, comprises all member states and meets at least once annually. In addition, it votes on key decisions such as budgets, policies, and appointments. Finally, member states serve for up to three-year terms, renewable at the Chairman’s discretion, or indefinitely, provided that they contribute over $1 billion U.S. Dollars.
Legal and Constitutional Constraints
Clearly, this structural design will need reasonable improvements. Primarily, it is unclear whether the board would operate within the executive branch, alongside already existing institutions, or as an advisory body. Moreover, would the “Board of Peace” duplicate or override existing diplomatic channels? Would it provide binding recommendations or remain advisory? Would it coordinate with allies, international organizations, and Congress? Would the “Board of Peace” rely exclusively on President Trump’s constitutional powers, or would it gain additional statutory legitimacy? Finally, there are the so-called Red Line constitutional issues. Under Article II, the President clearly can set up executive-led diplomatic mechanisms. However, under Article II, Section 2, the President needs the two-thirds approval of the Senators, if he makes treaties, which create “binding international legal obligations.” Also, Article I gives Congress exclusive authority over spending. This “power of the purse” shall make committing U.S. resources without congressional approval unambiguously unconstitutional. The creation of new offices exercising governmental authority falls under the “Appointment Clause” of the Constitution. This means that without Senate confirmation, such officials’ presidential appointments would be unconstitutional too. The Constitution does not permit the President to delegate sovereign power. Last but not least, there is the issue of Judicial Review. Under this doctrine, the “Board of Peace” is constitutionally feasible only as a diplomatic, voluntary, executive-led mechanism. The moment it becomes a governing or enforcement body, it would certainly collide directly with Article I and II of the U.S. Constitution.
History teaches us that selfish ambition coupled with political cupidity are politically destabilizing. From Plato and Aristotle to the Founders, political cupidity corrodes justice, and therefore must be constrained by reason, morality, and institutional design. James Madison’s clearsightedness of secularization of ethical absurdities is unambigous in Federalist No. 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Thus, political cupidity is not “political realism.” On the contrary, if it is repeated unchecked and classified as a mistake, the rule of law survives in form, while it will surely die in reality.
In reality, President Trump’s “Board of Peace” freezes the future of the world in the present of his broad foreign policy initiative. While it highlights a stated desire to reduce global conflicts without prolonged wars, its actual value will depend on details that have not yet been provided. Until these refinement emerge, the “Board of Peace” can only function as a political wish rather than as an actionable framework for U.S. diplomacy. An unbiased critique of the “Board of Peace” phenomenon must also state that it is not a legitimately recognized international body whose legitimacy cannot rest exclusively on formal sovereignty of the member states. This, in turn, places it on a precarious legal ground. Rendering this situation even less legally acceptable is that it does not have direct representation of the affected populations. Therefore, it is democratically deficient by design. In conclusion, the “Board of Peace” is only acceptable as a temporary mechanism, but not as a lasting peace construct.
Az idei év különösen nehéz lesz a maradék magyar független sajtónak, hiszen Orbán Viktor már az év elején kiadta az ukázt a sajtó megsemmisítésére. Így arra kérjük Önöket, hogy mindenki, akinek számít még a sajtószabadság, az támogasson legalább egy független sajtóterméket. Amennyiben tehetik, legyen ez lapunk, hiszen mi még a független sajtón belül is nehéz helyzetben vagyunk. A támogatási lehetőségek: http://gulyasagyu.media/tamogatas
Ehhez a cikkünkhöz is hozzászólhat a Facebookon: