The on-going crises in Lebanon – including the economic collapse, Beirut Port blast and COVID-19 pandemic – are challenging to so many. For displaced persons, however, the impacts of these overlapping crises hit particularly hard; they are undoubtedly disproportionately affected and their limbo risks becoming permanent. However, we’ve seen time and again how rigid human rights protection systems may soften the blow to these affected communities. In this short contribution, I will focus on how, in our thinking about tomorrow’s refugee protection, we should not forget Lebanon’s past.
Lebanon’s crises coincide with the 70th anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention, a legal instrument that together with its 1967 Protocol has long been seen as central to global refugee protection. Despite this recognition, the relevance and utility of the Convention has increasingly been called into question, not infrequently by state actors seeking to limit their obligations towards refugees. International refugee law is thus, in a sense, also in a state of crisis – a crisis made much worse by the number of mobility-related restrictions being imposed globally in response to the pandemic.
At the end of 2020, 149 states were party to the 1951 Convention, its 1967 Protocol, or both. Forty-four members of the United Nations, however, were not party to any of these core instruments. Lebanon is one of these non-signatory states, but its close relationship with the international system of refugee protection should not be underestimated or forgotten. It was precisely in the aftermath of crisis – the Second World War – that Lebanon engaged itself in the establishment of the international refugee regime.
Unlike many other States in the region, Lebanon actively contributed to developing the very core features of today’s system of refugee protection. While Lebanon’s adherence to international human rights norms is variable and debatable, its broad engagement with the development of such legal regimes warrants mention. First, it was one of only 20 States that formed the committee appointed by the UN General Assembly in 1946 to lay the basis for the International Refugee Organization (IRO). Following this, in 1949, Lebanon participated in creating the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and, later, UNHCR’s Statute. In addition, between 1946 and 1951, Lebanon participated in drafting parts of the 1951 Refugee Convention. In the end, however, it decided not to ratify this key instrument.
Lebanon also has an important history of participating in creating some of the earliest international human rights instruments. Through a leading Lebanese figure, Dr. Charles Malik, who chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights for two consecutive terms (1951–1952), Lebanon was a member of the eight-person drafting committee for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Today we see Lebanon’s close relationship with the UN human rights system reflected in the preamble to the Lebanese Constitution, which states that:
Lebanon is also a founding and active member of the United Nations Organization and abides by its covenants and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government shall embody these principles in all fields and areas without exception.
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out an individual right to ‘seek and enjoy’ protection from persecution. Its twin principle of non-refoulement is embedded in a number of international human rights law instruments and prohibits the removal of individuals to a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both of these principles are under stark pressure in times of crises. In many signatory and non-signatory states alike, limiting refugees’ access to asylum has arguably become an increasingly common political aim. In times like these, we may need to remind ourselves of Lebanon’s special guardianship of these instruments.
As the old adage nonetheless goes, in every crisis lies an opportunity. So what will come next for Lebanon’s engagement with global refugee protection? There is of course a risk that governments around the world become increasingly nationalistic amid fears about borders and mobility. But we may also see a more optimistic turn of events. At the height of the Second World War few could imagine the development of a protection regime of the kind that materialized not long after. Sometime in the future there will be that post-crises momentum again, and when that time comes, Lebanon not only has a solid history of engaging with human rights norms, but also already has one foot in in several key forums.
Just like Lebanon participated in the history of global refugee protection, it is already well-placed to carve out the features of tomorrow’s refugee protection. Since the early 1960s, Lebanon has been a member of UNHCR’s Executive Committee (ExCom) which is tasked with advising the High Commissioner ‘in the exercise of his functions under the Statute of his Office’ and with approving the High Commissioner’s assistance programs. By engaging here, Lebanon actively contributes to developing the substance of refugee law by means of drafting the annual conclusions that interpret this Convention. The ExCom conclusions, adopted in plenary by consensus, are highly relevant by expressing an international consensus on legal issues concerning refugees.
Lebanon also participates in other high-level forums setting the standards of tomorrow’s refugee protection: first, in the UN General Assembly negotiations leading to the towards the adoption of the 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants– which sets out principles that would guide the global response to refugee displacement – second, in the UN General Assembly negotiations leading to the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) in December 2018, and third, in the first Global Refugee Forum in late 2019 where pledges were made to put the GCR into action. Importantly, as is noted in GCR Article 5, the GCR is ‘grounded in the international refugee protection regime, centered on the cardinal principle of non-refoulement, and at the core of which is the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol’.
In thinking about tomorrow’s refugee protection, we may thus look to the past and find inspiring examples of a Lebanese engagement. In all of these arenas, Lebanon had – and still has – the opportunity of developing the meaning and content of key concepts of international refugee law. The assumption of refugee protection being superior in signatory states when compared to non-signatories may be widespread and entrenched, but the Lebanese example shows more than anything else that these issues are far more complex than they may seem at first sight.