The 15 reasons why top UN legal experts say Trump’s Gaza plan breaches international law

United Nations human rights and legal experts on Friday warned that the proposed US-sponsored peace plan for Gaza risks entrenching violations of international law.

​​​​​​US President Donald Trump on Monday revealed a 2o-point ceasefire plan, which envisions Gaza becoming a demilitarised zone under a transitional technocratic Palestinian committee with international oversight chaired by Trump himself, until the Palestinian Authority (PA) is ready to govern. 

The plan has yet to be accepted by Hamas, and has been widely criticised by Palestinians as a prelude to continuing Israeli apartheid and genocide.

The plan includes a staged ceasefire and prisoner exchange, amnesty and safe passage for Hamas members who disarm, massive flows of international aid, economic redevelopment zones, and the deployment of a US-backed International Stabilisation Force to replace the Israeli army. It promises that Israel will not annex Gaza, and gestures toward a future pathway to realising Palestinian self-determination.

While the 36 UN experts welcomed certain elements, such as a permanent ceasefire, humanitarian aid under UN supervision, the release of unlawfully detained persons, and commitments against forced displacement and annexation, they stressed that these measures are already required under international law and should not depend on the success of a peace plan.

“Imposing an immediate peace at any price, regardless of, or brazenly against law and justice, is a recipe for further injustice, future violence and instability,” they said.

The experts identified a wide range of concerns, raising questions about the plan’s compatibility with international law and with the International Court of Justice’s 2024 Advisory Opinion, which affirmed that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and must end unconditionally.

Below are the 15 reasons the UN experts condemned Trump's proposal.

1. Self-determination made conditional

The experts said the plan fails to guarantee Palestinians their right to self-determination, including through independent statehood.

Instead, statehood is made contingent on factors such as Gaza’s redevelopment, reform of the PA, and dialogue between Israel and Palestine.

They warned that this places Palestine’s political future in the hands of outside actors, despite the ICJ’s finding that self-determination cannot be conditioned on negotiations.

2. Lack of representative governance

The plan proposes a “temporary transitional government” for Gaza. According to the experts, this body would not be representative of Palestinians, excludes the PA, and lacks legitimacy. No clear benchmarks or timeframes are set for transitioning to representative Palestinian governance.

3. Oversight outside UN authority

Oversight of the plan is assigned to a “Board of Peace” chaired by the US president.

The experts criticised this arrangement as lacking transparency, bypassing UN authority, and placing control in the hands of a state that is a close ally of Israel.

They warned that this model is reminiscent of colonial governance practices and is inconsistent with international law’s demand for multilateral oversight.

4. Replacement of occupation with foreign control

The proposal includes an “International Stabilisation Force” to be deployed in Gaza.

The experts said this would amount to a foreign or US-led occupation, rather than restoring Palestinian sovereignty, and is an infringement of Palestinian self-determination. They emphasised that Israel’s occupation must end “immediately, totally and unconditionally”.

5. Continuing Israeli presence

The plan allows Israel to maintain a “security perimeter” inside Gaza’s borders. The experts described this as a continuation of occupation by other means and therefore unacceptable under international law.

6. Demilitarisation without reciprocity

Gaza is required to undergo indefinite demilitarisation, with no specified end date. The experts warned that if permanent, this would leave Gaza vulnerable to attack. No parallel obligations are imposed on Israel, which retains extensive military capacity and has carried out repeated operations in Gaza.

7. Unequal deradicalisation measures

The plan imposes “deradicalisation” on Gaza but does not address anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab rhetoric in Israel. The experts noted that incitement to violence and even genocide has been prominent in Israeli discourse over the past two years, but this is not addressed.

8. Fragmentation of Palestinian territory

The proposal treats Gaza in isolation and does not integrate it with the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The experts said this undermines the territorial unity of Palestine, which is recognised in international law as a single territorial unit.

9. Economic exploitation risks

An “economic development plan” and the creation of a “special economic zone” could result in foreign exploitation of Gaza’s resources without Palestinian consent. The experts warned that such measures could perpetuate economic dependency rather than support sovereignty.

10. Absence of reparations

The plan contains no requirement for Israel or supporting states to compensate Palestinians for destruction caused by military operations. International law requires reparations for unlawful damage caused by violations.

11. Unequal treatment of detainees

The plan provides for the release of all Israeli captives but only some Palestinian detainees, many of whom are arbitrarily detained. This imbalance, the experts said, denies equal treatment under international law.

12. Amnesty without accountability

Hamas members are offered amnesties regardless of whether they committed international crimes. The experts warned that such unconditional amnesties deny justice for victims of serious violations.

13. No accountability for Israeli crimes

The plan does not address accountability for Israeli international crimes or human rights violations. Nor does it include mechanisms for transitional justice, truth-telling, reconciliation, or guaranteed access for independent journalists. The experts said accountability is integral to any sustainable peace.

14. Omission of fundamental issues

The experts stressed that the plan does not tackle core issues identified by international law and past peace efforts, including:

• The dismantling of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem
   
• Establishment of recognised borders
   
• The right of return and status of Palestinian refugees
   
• The obligation of Israel to make reparations
   

15. Limited UN role

The plan sidelines the United Nations and its agencies, including the General Assembly, the Security Council, and Unrwa, which provides critical services to Palestinian refugees. The experts said this undermines the legitimacy of the process, as the ICJ identified the UN, not individual states, as the proper authority to oversee the end of the occupation.

In their statement, the experts recalled that the ICJ had made clear that conditions cannot be placed on Palestinian self-determination and that occupation must end immediately and unconditionally.

“Any peace plan must respect the ground rules of international law,” they said. “The future of Palestine must be in the hands of the Palestinian people- not imposed by outsiders under extreme conditions of duress in yet another scheme to control their destiny.”