UN Expert: Security Council Resolution 2803 Undermines Palestinian Self-Rule

Albanese argues that Resolution 2803 does not lay a pathway toward ending the Israeli occupation; instead, it risks consolidating it.

A United Nations human rights expert has issued a forceful warning that the UN Security Council’s recent adoption of Resolution 2803 threatens the Palestinian right to self-determination, entrenches Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT), and risks legitimizing ongoing mass violence. The resolution, passed with 13 votes in favour and abstentions from Russia and China, is intended to support security and reconstruction in Gaza — but according to the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the OPT, it could have the opposite effect.

Francesca Albanese, who holds the UN mandate concerning human rights in territories occupied since 1967, said the resolution fails to uphold the legal obligations of the Security Council under the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law.

“I welcome the renewed focus on Gaza and the urgent need for a permanent ceasefire,” Albanese said. “But I am deeply perplexed. The Council has chosen not to ground its response in the body of law it is obliged to uphold.”

A Resolution That Reinforces, Rather Than Ends, the Occupation

Albanese argues that Resolution 2803 does not lay a pathway toward ending the Israeli occupation; instead, it risks consolidating it. She warns that the approach adopted by the Council “entrenches external control” over Gaza’s borders, governance, security, and reconstruction.

According to Albanese, the resolution replaces the clear legal obligations states have toward Palestinians with a security-first, capital-driven model that prioritizes disarmament of Palestinian armed groups while ignoring the structural causes of violence:

• Israel’s unlawful siege of Gaza

• A 58-year occupation

• Racial segregation and apartheid policies

• Ongoing ethnic cleansing and systematic displacement

“The resolution betrays the people it claims to protect,” she said.

The Role of the United States Under the Plan Raises Legal Concerns

One of Albanese’s most serious criticisms relates to the proposal for a multinational force overseen by a “Board of Peace” chaired by the President of the United States.

“A military force answering to an active party to the conflict — one that has continually provided military, diplomatic and economic support to the illegal occupying power — is not legal.”

She warned that this framework risks giving the United States de facto control over Gaza’s governance and security, essentially placing the territory under a new form of foreign trusteeship:

“It will leave Palestine in the hands of a puppet administration, with the United States as the new manager of the open-air prison that Israel has already established.”

International Law: The Foundation Ignored

Albanese emphasized that the Security Council is bound by Article 24(2) of the UN Charter, which requires it to act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, including respect for:

• The right to self-determination

• The prohibition of territorial acquisition by force

• International humanitarian law

• International human rights law

The resolution, she says, disregards these foundations and risks creating a precedent where political expediency overrides legal obligations.

The Special Rapporteur highlighted the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion, which found Israel’s prolonged occupation unlawful and reaffirmed the inalienable right of Palestinians to self-determination.

What a Lawful International Presence Should Look Like

If an international presence is required in Gaza, Albanese said, its mandate must be legally grounded and aligned with the ICJ’s findings.

Such a presence must:

• Supervise Israel’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal

• Protect civilians and ensure a genuine ceasefire

• Prevent further forced displacement

• Ensure accountability for war crimes and grave breaches

• Support Palestinian-led governance

• Restore the right of Palestinians to determine their own political future

The resolution, she argues, does none of this.

States Must Not Become Complicit

Albanese expressed alarm that some governments are already using Resolution 2803 as a political escape valve, pausing discussions on sanctions or other measures needed to stop ongoing violations.

“States cannot ignore serious breaches of peremptory norms because a political plan offers temporary diplomatic convenience,” she said.

She warned that as long as Israel maintains any physical presence in the OPT, all states are obliged — under international law — not to recognize, support, or assist the unlawful situation.

“An Existential Moment” for the International Community

Albanese urged all UN member states, especially those that voted for the resolution, to interpret it strictly in line with binding legal obligations.

“To sideline international law renders the UN complicit and undermines the UN Charter,” she warned. “It can only lead to intensifying human carnage.”

She concluded with a stark call to action:

“This is an existential moment. The future of Gaza — and the future of the Palestinian people — must not be decided without their agency and consent. Only an approach rooted in justice, legality and self-determination can lead to genuine peace.”