The urgency for international action in Lebanon

As Lebanon continues to grapple with political paralysis, economic collapse, and escalating security concerns, questions surrounding the country’s sovereignty and the protection of its citizens have taken on renewed urgency. Indeed, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants (MOFA) has informed the United Nations (UN) of Lebanon’s classification of Hezbollah as an outlawed organization, regarding its military and security wings and activities, in accordance with the Council of Minister’s decision on 2 March 2026.

In a thorough legal discussion with The Beiruter, international law expert Patricia Elias outlined 3 potential pathways through which Lebanon could seek international support to stabilize its situation. Her analysis moved beyond political rhetoric, offering a structured legal framework rooted in international law and the mechanisms of the UN.

Elias highlighted that the debate should not be confined to a single option, such as invoking Chapter VII of the 1945 UN Charter, but should instead consider a broader spectrum of legal tools. These include the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), binding UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, and the creation of a specialized UN peace mission tailored to Lebanon’s needs.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

The first option presented by Elias is the invocation of the Responsibility to Protect, an international norm endorsed by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in 2005 in response to international failures during crises such as the Rwandan Genocide (1994) and the Yugoslav Wars (1991-2001). These events exposed the limitations of traditional interpretations of state sovereignty, particularly when governments failed to protect their own populations.

Elias asserted that R2P redefines sovereignty as a responsibility rather than a privilege. When a state is unwilling or unable to safeguard its citizens from mass atrocities, the international community assumes a collective responsibility to act. While Lebanon is not currently experiencing genocide, Elias identified several alarming indicators: a weakened state apparatus, sectarian fragmentation, the presence of armed groups operating outside government control, and a judiciary struggling with impunity.

Importantly, she clarified that R2P is not synonymous with military intervention. Instead, it prioritizes preventive measures, diplomatic engagement, and humanitarian protection. In Lebanon’s case, invoking R2P would signal the need for early, non-coercive international involvement aimed at stabilizing the country before conditions deteriorate further.

R2P is not another war; it is about protecting people from war.

Chapter VII of the 1945 United Nations Charter

The second option that Elias outlined involved the adoption of a binding resolution under Chapter VII of the 1945 UN Charter, which grants the Security Council the authority to take enforcement measures in response to threats to international peace and security.

Unlike Chapter VI, which focuses on the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations through negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and other peaceful means enshrined in Article 33(1), Chapter VII enables concrete action. This includes imposing ceasefires, ensuring humanitarian access, implementing sanctions, and, if necessary, authorizing the deployment of international forces (as a last resort). According to Elias, this is the stage where international decisions transition “from words to actions.”

However, she advocated for a calibrated approach. Rather than a large-scale military intervention, Lebanon could benefit from targeted measures designed to protect civilians and reinforce stability without escalating tensions. Such measures might include sanctions against non-compliant actors, monitoring mechanisms, and limited peace enforcement operations.

A significant obstacle to this pathway, Elias noted, is the potential use of the veto by permanent members of the UN Security Council (also known as the “Permanent Five” or “P5”), enshrined in Article 27(3) in Chapter V. Yet Elias stressed that the existence of veto power should not serve as a justification for inaction. While consensus within the Council remains the ideal scenario due to its legal legitimacy, alternative mechanisms can be pursued if the Council becomes deadlocked.

When the Security Council is paralyzed, history shows that the international community finds alternative ways to act.

A specialized United Nations peace mission

The third and most comprehensive option proposed by Elias is the establishment of a new, specialized UN peace mission in Lebanon. Unlike existing frameworks, such a mission would be specifically designed to address Lebanon’s unique challenges, combining elements from different chapters of the UN Charter.

This mission would go beyond traditional peacekeeping. It would include the appointment of a Special Envoy, direct coordination with the UN Secretary-General, and a mandate by the UN Security Council encompassing ceasefire monitoring, civilian protection, and the facilitation of humanitarian aid. Additionally, it would support the return of displaced populations and contribute to rebuilding state institutions.

Lebanon’s peace cannot be built on destruction, displacement, and enforced silence; it must be built on protection, justice, and dignity.

Elias contrasted this proposed mission with the current role of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which largely operates under a Chapter VI framework. While UNIFIL has played a stabilizing role in southern Lebanon, its mandate is limited, focusing primarily on observation and mediation. As Elias notes, this “soft” approach has proven insufficient in addressing the country’s evolving security dynamics.

A specialized mission, by contrast, could integrate stronger enforcement tools while maintaining a focus on humanitarian objectives. Elias noted that it would also implement key international frameworks, such as UNSC Resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace, and security, and Resolution 1701 (2006), which governs the cessation of hostilities between Lebanon and Israel.

In this context, Elias advocated for the representation of women in such a specialized mission. Indeed, Since the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1325 (2000), there has been an increase in women’s representation in peace negotiations, with studies indicating that peace agreements are 35% more likely to last when women are involved.

Beyond the United Nations Security Council: Alternatives to deadlock

Recognizing the political realities of the Security Council, Elias highlighted alternative avenues for international action. When the Council is unable to act due to veto constraints, the UNGA can play a role in mobilizing international support, particularly through mechanisms such as Resolution 377 A (V) in 1950, known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution.

Additionally, coalitions of willing states can step in to provide humanitarian assistance and stabilization efforts. While such coalitions may lack the full legal authority of Security Council mandates, they can act more swiftly in urgent situations. Elias pointed to the potential involvement of countries like France, alongside regional partners, in forming such initiatives, especially as it signaled its willingness to participate in the formation of a multinational force in Lebanon following the upcoming withdrawal of UNIFIL from the country by the end of 2026.

These coalitions could establish humanitarian corridors, support displaced populations, and enhance civilian protection. Over time, their actions could pave the way for broader international engagement, including eventual endorsement by UN bodies.

The key message is: the Security Council’s veto may block ideal decisions, but it must not block necessary actions. We cannot remain idle. Human lives are at stake, and protecting them must come first.

The role of non-state actors and legal classification

A critical dimension of Elias’s analysis concerns the presence of armed groups operating outside state authority. She argued that classifying such entities as outlawed organizations could significantly strengthen Lebanon’s case for international intervention.

This classification would underscore the state’s inability to exercise full sovereignty and maintain a monopoly on the use of force; a key criterion in international law for invoking external assistance. It would also reinforce the legitimacy of measures taken under R2P or Chapter VII, framing them as necessary responses to a clearly defined threat to local, regional, and international peace and security.

Urgency versus procedure: A moral imperative

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Elias’s argument is her stress on urgency. She rejected the notion that Lebanon should wait for the end of the ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah before pursuing international solutions. In her view, inaction carries tangible cost.

“This is not just about procedures,” she insisted. “It is about life and death.” The potential for escalating violence, displacement, and humanitarian crises necessitates immediate action, even in the absence of full consensus.

Lebanon’s mission at the United Nations must remain active; constantly advocating, day and night, especially for a special peace mission. There is an imminent threat to Lebanon’s stability and future.

Her position reflects a broader shift in international law toward prioritizing human security over rigid adherence to procedural norms. In this context, inaction can be seen as a form of complicity, particularly when early intervention could prevent greater harm.

Lebanon’s historical legacy and future role

Elias concluded by invoking Lebanon’s historical contribution to international human rights. The country played a significant role in drafting the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), with prominent figures such as Lebanese philosopher, diplomat, educator, and political thinker, Charles Habib Malik, working alongside United States (US) First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt.

This legacy, she argued, should inspire Lebanon to reclaim a proactive role on the global stage; not as a passive recipient of aid, but as a contributor to the principles of peace and human dignity. She thus called for renewed diplomatic engagement, urging Lebanon’s mission at the UN to actively build coalitions and advocate for the country “to become a charter of peace for the world.”