Legal Dilemmas in Lebanon: The Intersection of Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Humanitarian Law
Lebanon’s complex political, historical, and social landscape is deeply intertwined with conflict and foreign intervention. Marked by civil wars and sectarian strife, the country now finds itself at a fragile juncture where legal dilemmas are prevalent.
The sovereignty of Lebanon is increasingly challenged by external powers and non-state actors, complicating its governance. Groups like Hezbollah undermine the Lebanese government’s authority and raise critical questions about the legality of foreign military actions. Concerns voiced by regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt highlight the urgent need to empower the Lebanese state.
As the conflict escalates, accusations of human rights violations are mounting alongside a profound humanitarian crisis, with over a million displaced people. Humanitarian organizations are sounding alarms over the trampled rights of civilians, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with international humanitarian law.
At this pivotal crossroads, the intersection of sovereignty, human rights, and humanitarian law presents both challenges and opportunities. Lebanon urgently requires global engagement to tackle its legal dilemmas, protect human rights, and address humanitarian needs. In this article, Lawyer Monthly magazine delves into these critical issues, offering in-depth analysis and insights into the complex legal landscape defining Lebanon’s current predicament and potential pathways to stability.
Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity
Lebanon’s sovereignty has faced significant challenges, particularly from foreign actors such as Israel and Syria. The presence of armed groups, notably Hezbollah, complicates the Lebanese government’s authority and raises crucial questions about the legality of external military actions. Recent discussions between Saudi Arabia and Egypt have underscored the necessity of empowering the Lebanese state to reclaim its sovereignty. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi highlighted their concerns over escalating Israeli actions, reiterating their commitment to Lebanon’s territorial integrity.
The humanitarian crisis unfolding in Lebanon has resulted in the displacement of over a million individuals, exacerbated by extensive bombardment from Israeli forces. The international community is urged to fulfill its obligations, particularly in facilitating an immediate ceasefire and ensuring the Lebanese Armed Forces can restore order along the Israeli border.
Human Rights Violations
The escalating conflict has seen accusations of human rights violations against various actors, including state and non-state parties. Extrajudicial killings, torture, and excessive force against civilians are rampant, contravening international human rights law. As the situation deteriorates, the potential for civilian suffering to increase is alarmingly high.
Reports indicate that recent Israeli airstrikes have resulted in over 1,000 deaths and mass displacements within Lebanon. With ongoing attacks causing significant destruction, the humanitarian impact is profound. The High Commissioner has called for all parties to distinguish between military objectives and civilian populations, urging accountability for violations of international humanitarian law. The ongoing violence not only threatens innocent lives but also hinders vital humanitarian efforts, making immediate intervention imperative.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
The conflicts in Lebanon, particularly the wars with Israel, raise pressing issues related to International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The protection of civilians, treatment of prisoners of war, and prohibition of indiscriminate attacks are fundamental tenets that have come under scrutiny. Senior UN officials have called for adherence to international law amid the escalating violence, emphasizing the need to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian access.
Israeli airstrikes have targeted medical facilities and residential neighborhoods, leading to extensive civilian displacement. Such actions may constitute violations of a state’s legal responsibilities to protect non-combatants and distinguish between military and civilian objectives. The rising number of displaced individuals highlights the urgent need to safeguard humanitarian corridors, ensuring that essential aid reaches those in need.
Disarmament and Armed Groups
The existence of non-state armed groups, especially Hezbollah, poses legal challenges regarding disarmament, arms control, and the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The UN Security Council has called for the disarmament of these groups, complicating the political landscape.
Israel’s concurrent activation of thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies associated with Hezbollah can be viewed, in retrospect, as the initial strike rather than a singular event within the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. As the Israel Defense Forces intensify their operations deep within Lebanon and appear to be gearing up for a ground invasion, various academics, journalists, and some diplomats assert that Israel’s actions are unlawful. Such claims are misguided. According to international law, Israel’s actions are justified.
Proponents of Hamas often contend that resistance to occupation legitimizes Palestinian acts of terror. This interpretation misrepresents international law; however, Hezbollah cannot make a similar claim. Hezbollah is unable to argue that it is striving to liberate its nation or establish a state. As Hezbollah persistently assaults Israel with the intent to annihilate it, Israel possesses a legitimate right to self-defense as outlined in the United Nations Charter, Chapter VII, Article 51, and may employ any lawful means necessary to prevent such aggression.
In times of war, even when adhering to international humanitarian law, collateral damage and unintended civilian casualties can occur. In this case, the Lebanese government bears responsibility for its own predicament. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran established Hezbollah in 1982 to combat Israel in southern Lebanon, promote Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s unconventional theological views, and create a proxy military force.
Since its inception, Hezbollah has expanded significantly. The Lebanese government has conferred legitimacy upon the group by integrating it into the state apparatus. It occupies over ten percent of the seats in Lebanon’s parliament, offers social services, operates hospitals, owns a satellite television station, manages educational institutions, and develops infrastructure. Essentially, Lebanese officials and Hezbollah supporters in the West argue that Hezbollah should enjoy the legitimacy associated with state involvement while evading accountability for its actions.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which concluded the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, mandated the disarmament of Hezbollah and other militant groups. It stipulated that only the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese Armed Forces were permitted to operate in the area south of the Litani River. Additionally, Resolution 1701 reaffirmed the obligations outlined in the Taif Accords, as well as UN Resolutions 1559 and 1680, which called for the disarmament of all armed factions in Lebanon.
This was in accordance with the Lebanese cabinet’s decision on July 27, 2006, asserting that no weapons or authority should exist in Lebanon outside of that of the Lebanese state. At that time, Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, expressed his intention to comply with the ceasefire agreement with Israel.
However, Israel has fulfilled its obligations by withdrawing from all Lebanese territory, while Hezbollah has maintained its presence in southern Lebanon, augmenting its military capabilities and leveraging its position to continue hostilities.
In spite of the resolutions and diplomatic efforts, UNIFIL remains ineffective due to the absence of an enforcement mechanism. Resolution 1701 is governed by Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, which does not provide for military enforcement as outlined in Chapter VII. Article 51 of Chapter VII asserts that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.” Moreover, Israel retains the right to exercise this defense “until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” In the context of Hezbollah, however, the Security Council can only “recommend appropriate procedures” for UNIFIL to take action, in accordance with Chapter VI and contingent upon the approval of the Lebanese Armed Forces, which have been compromised by Hezbollah operatives.
Hezbollah’s non-compliance with United Nations resolutions does not exempt the Lebanese government from its obligation regarding the aggression emanating from its territory. With the U.N. unable to take action, Israel cannot afford to wait for Lebanon to assume its responsibility in addressing the Hezbollah issue. In Gaza, when Hamas operates from civilian facilities such as schools and hospitals, those locations forfeit their protected status. A similar situation exists in Lebanon. By permitting Hezbollah to operate within its borders and recognizing it as an official entity, Lebanon bears responsibility for the actions of Hezbollah. Consequently, Israel’s right to self-defense encompasses military operations against all locations used by Hezbollah throughout Lebanon.
Accountability for War Crimes
There are ongoing debates about accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during various conflicts in Lebanon. The lack of a functioning judiciary capable of handling such cases raises questions about justice and reconciliation.
The Israeli military asserts that it has targeted Hezbollah strongholds and military assets in Lebanon, reporting on September 24 that it has struck more than 1,600 Hezbollah locations.
In response, Hezbollah has launched over 200 rockets into northern Israel since September 22. Nevertheless, both parties have caused considerable suffering to civilian populations. “The devastating loss of life in Lebanon highlights the indiscriminate nature of explosive violence in densely populated areas,” stated Dr. Iain Overton, Executive Director of AOAV. “When bombs are deployed in civilian environments, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants becomes obscured, resulting in ordinary individuals bearing the brunt of the consequences. Our data consistently indicates that when explosive weapons are utilized in populated regions, over 90% of casualties will be civilians. There is an urgent need for international action to investigate these incidents and ensure that those accountable for such atrocities are brought to justice.”
Humanitarian organizations, including AOAV, have expressed serious concerns regarding breaches of international humanitarian law by both sides involved in the conflict. The laws governing warfare stipulate that all parties are required to exercise continuous caution to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. Military actions should be confined to legitimate military targets, and indiscriminate attacks—those that do not specifically aim at military objectives or fail to distinguish between civilians and combatants—are strictly forbidden.
The misuse of communication devices, such as pagers and radios, in previous incidents has exacerbated these issues. On September 17 and 18, numerous communication devices detonated throughout Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of at least 37 civilians. While the Israeli military has not provided an official statement, various sources, including officials from the United States, have indicated potential Israeli involvement. AOAV has pointed out that this method, which contravenes the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, underscores the intricate and evolving dynamics of contemporary warfare, yet it does not mitigate the resulting consequences.
Dr. Overton emphasized, “The presence of a Hezbollah commander, rocket launcher, or any military installation within a civilian area does not warrant an attack on that area without consideration for the civilian population, including the obligation to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants and to comply with the principle of proportionality. Indiscriminate violence is indefensible under the laws of war, and all parties engaged in the conflict must prioritize the safety of civilians above all else.”
UN Resolutions
Various UN resolutions, including Resolution 1559 (2004) and Resolution 1701 (2006), have sought to address issues related to disarmament, sovereignty, and the role of foreign troops in Lebanon. Compliance with these resolutions remains a contentious issue.
The Taoiseach, Simon Harris, has characterized Israel’s assault on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon as a violation of international law. In an interview with BBC News in Washington, D.C., Harris expressed that this incident is an “extraordinarily concerning development.” The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have confirmed that their personnel “opened fire in the vicinity” of the base located in Naqoura on Thursday, after directing UN troops to “remain in protected spaces.” Ireland contributes 379 troops to the UNIFIL peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. Fortunately, none of the Irish personnel were injured in the recent incidents; however, two Indonesian soldiers sustained injuries on Thursday. Additionally, two other peacekeepers were hurt in a separate explosion on Friday, which the IDF has stated is under investigation.
Israel asserts that the United Nations has not effectively implemented resolution 1701, which mandated the establishment of a demilitarized zone and the disarmament of Hezbollah, attributing this failure as a contributing factor to the ongoing conflict. In response, UNIFIL has stated that Israel’s military incursion into southern Lebanon represents a breach of resolution 1701.
Harris remarked, “It is quite challenging to accept guidance from Israel regarding adherence to UN resolutions or international law at this moment, especially given the disproportionate nature of the conflict and its severe humanitarian repercussions for civilians, including children.” The Taoiseach indicated that there are “significant lessons” to be drawn from the Northern Ireland peace process, emphasizing the importance of “never allowing the global community to equate a terrorist organization with a sovereign state.”
Ireland is among several European nations that have acknowledged the state of Palestine. The Taoiseach explained that this decision was made because “we recognize that Palestine is not synonymous with Hamas.” He further stated: “Hamas is a reprehensible and abhorrent terrorist organization that must be unequivocally condemned by all individuals of sound judgment. We understand the experience in Ireland of attempts to usurp and undermine national identity and symbols by terrorists, and we must never tolerate such actions.”
Regional Geopolitics
Lebanon’s conflicts are often influenced by regional powers, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. The legal implications of foreign interventions and support for different factions further complicate the legal landscape.
The ongoing covert conflict between Iran and Israel is arguably the most significant threat to the stability of the Middle East. Israel routinely conducts airstrikes against Iran-affiliated militant groups throughout the region. While Tehran has so far refrained from direct participation in the Hamas-Israel conflict that began on October 7, 2023, militias aligned with Iran in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Yemen have launched missile and drone assaults against Israel. Additionally, other Iran-aligned groups in Iraq and Syria have targeted U.S. military installations in those areas.
Moreover, Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, commonly referred to as the Houthis, has attacked commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea as a reaction to Israel’s offensive in Gaza. In light of these developments and Iran’s threats to obstruct access to the Mediterranean Sea, the United States and its allies have increased their naval presence in the region and conducted strikes on Ansar Allah positions in Yemen. The escalating uncertainty regarding the security of vital trade routes, coupled with the intensifying tensions between Iran and Israel, presents significant challenges to the advancement of economic corridor initiatives.
Conclusion
Lebanon’s situation demands an urgent and comprehensive response from the international community. Addressing the legal dilemmas arising from the conflict, ensuring accountability for human rights violations, and facilitating humanitarian access are essential steps towards a more stable and just future for the Lebanese people. As the world watches the unfolding crisis, the call for action must be answered with commitment and resolve to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights for all.
Related: What Do ICC Lawyers Do?