Lebanon's latest assault on Syrian refugees could not be more illegal under principles, standards and rules of international humanitarian law. While Lebanon has consistently refused to join the 147 countries that have signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, it is nonetheless bound to honor its provisions under international customary law, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention against Torture.
As required by the binding international legal norm of non-refoulement, Lebanon is obligated not to return individuals to a situation where they would be at risk of persecution or serious human rights abuses. This same international law of non-refoulement prohibits Lebanon from rejecting Syria refugees fleeing for their lives and asylum-seekers at the border. At a bare minimum Lebanon is required to permit entry to Syrian refugees seeking asylum while they investigate whether they need to be protected as refugees. It refuses this obligation as well.
According to Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, a refugee is a national of that country who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.
The Lebanese government accordingly is obligated to grant refugees fleeing Syria the right not to be forcibly returned, or refouled (Article 33). Lebanon, in gross violation of international humanitarian law also rejects the rights of Syrian refugees not to be bared entry or expelled, except under certain strictly defined conditions (Article 32), exemption from penalties for illegal entry into Lebanon, the right to work (Article 17), the right to housing (Article 21), the right to education (Article 22), the right to public relief and assistance (Article 23), the right to freedom of religion and free access to courts (Articles 4 and 16), freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26), and the right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
More than 50 Lebanese municipalities have also been targeting Syrian refugees with illegal Zionist and South African apartheid type curfews which restrict refugees' movements and contribute to a climate of discriminatory and retaliatory practices against Syrians generally. Such curfews violate international human rights law and are even illegal under Lebanese law. Despite broad international criticism, many municipal police, and several local vigilante groups, continue to enforce the illegal curfews despite the fact that as far back as April of 2013, then interior minister Marwan Charbel declared was there was no legal basis for the curfews, and that local municipalities did not have the right to infringe on the authority of state-wide security forces by imposing them. The British-based NGO Legal Agenda has also publicly denounced the curfews, calling them a form of collective punishment and a violation of human rights. Less than six months ago the Norwegian Refugee Council, to its great credit, issued a fact sheet for lawyers about the curfews, advising that they had no basis in Lebanese law.
Nadim Houry, the brilliant and indefatigable deputy Middle East Director for Human Rights Watch, has noted that: "These curfews are just contributing to an increasingly hostile environment for Syrian refugees in the country. The Lebanese authorities have presented no evidence that curfews for Syrian refugees are necessary for public order or security in Lebanon."
The simple fact of the matter is that anyone lawfully present in a country has the right to freedom of movement. This principle is enshrined in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Lebanon has ratified. Only under very limited circumstances, not present in this case, can restrictions to movement be enacted, and they must be enacted in law and required "to protect national security, public order, public health, or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others."
Furthermore the restriction of movement must be proportionate, including in judging the areas it applies to, the time, the number of people affected, and the impact it has on their lives, in comparison with the aims of the law. Lebanon has no such law.
As Human Rights Watch has argued, restrictions on rights cannot be imposed on a discriminatory basis, including by nationality. This is a fundamental principle of human rights law that applies even during emergencies. The prohibition on discrimination against Syrians as opposed for example against Americans in Lebanon means any difference in treatment on the grounds of nationality must be very strictly justified. Lebanon has not and frankly cannot meet this burden of proof.
Lebanon's Legal and Brotherly obligations
Lebanon's international obligations to Syrian refugees fleeing the carnage next door include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Lebanon must cease blocking Syrians and Palestinians escaping the conflict in Syria from accessing the territory of Lebanon under the principle of non-refoulement, a customary norm of international law binding on all states. Visa requirements that result in rejection at the border are amongst the prohibited measures.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
