Jibran Al Khoury

Master’s degree in International Affairs and Diplomacy

The content of the ceasefire agreement announced by the United States administration raises a set of structural issues that affect contractual balance and the concept of sovereignty in international law. The text appears closer to a procedural framework for managing the conflict than to a legal instrument for resolving it, with an accompanying ambiguity that remains open to interpretation and could in practice tilt in favor of one party over another.

In this context, the following observations can be made:

1. The text contains no explicit reference to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territory to the internationally recognized borders. Although this omission may fall within the logic of deferring contentious issues to later negotiation stages, it raises a legitimate question as to whether this postponement is merely a negotiation technique, or whether it opens the door to entrenching de facto realities that are not legally settled, especially in the absence of clear guarantees to address this issue within a defined timeframe.

2. The text links the extension of the ceasefire to Lebanon demonstrating its effective ability to enforce its sovereignty. However, this condition is formulated in vague language that lacks specific legal criteria or a clear reference authority for evaluation, which makes it open to differing political or security interpretations. This could transform this provision from a regulatory tool into a means of pressure used to justify not extending the ceasefire or resuming operations.

3. The text grants Israel the right to take measures against planned or imminent attacks, a formulation that goes beyond the more restrictive traditional interpretations of the right of self-defense within the framework of the United Nations Charter. Although the concept of an imminent threat exists in certain international jurisprudence, its inclusion in such a broad manner within a ceasefire agreement creates a wide margin of interpretation that could, in practice, undermine the principle of de-escalation by leaving the door open to the use of force based on unilateral assessments.

4. The text refers the issue of land border demarcation to later negotiations, reflecting an approach that separates field-level de-escalation from final legal solutions. While this approach is not necessarily inconsistent with the general framework established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, it reintroduces a legally grounded issue into the realm of political negotiation, which may tie it to broader power balances that go beyond the question of borders itself.

5. The text shows a clear disparity in the nature of obligations imposed on each party. It places specific and measurable positive obligations on the Lebanese state (such as preventing attacks and enforcing control), while Israel’s obligations remain of a negative nature (refraining from offensive operations), while also retaining a broad exception under the label of self-defense. This imbalance results in an uneven legal structure, even if it does not in itself constitute a direct violation of international law rules.

Overall, the text reflects a phased approach aimed more at containing escalation than at addressing it in a fundamental way, as it defers core sovereign issues, foremost among them withdrawal and border demarcation, to later negotiation tracks whose outcomes are not guaranteed.

Accordingly, there is a need for Lebanon to adopt a more assertive and clearer negotiating position, based on linking any ceasefire arrangements to explicit guarantees concerning sovereignty, primarily the issue of full withdrawal to internationally recognized borders, and the establishment of clear and time-bound implementation mechanisms.

The absence of such conditions entrenches an imbalance in the contractual framework and may lead to the consolidation of a fragile field reality managed through security arrangements rather than resolved legally, in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of lasting stability.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.