With the renewal of its mandate approaching, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) finds itself at the center of growing political tensions and increasingly opposition from local communities. These challenges are putting the mission’s future in jeopardy, along with the broader enforcement of international resolutions, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 1701. This comes at a time when Lebanon still needs UNIFIL to help implement the ceasefire agreement.

According to informed sources, there is currently no indication that the United States intends to amend UNIFIL’s mandate. Meanwhile, France is firmly backing Lebanon’s call for a straightforward renewal.

However, beyond the realm of diplomacy, UNIFIL is contending with rising hostility on the ground, particularly from the Shiite population in southern Lebanon. The mission is now subject to near-daily acts of aggression and protests that frequently disrupt its movements and significantly hinder its ability to carry out its assigned duties. This escalating opposition raises a critical question: Could these repeated assaults ultimately jeopardize UNIFIL’s mandate renewal or trigger changes to its scope of operations?

Professor Antonios Abou Kasm, an international attorney and professor of international law at the Lebanese University, underscores the vital role UNIFIL plays.

"UNIFIL is a peacekeeping force with a preventive and monitoring mandate aimed at safeguarding international peace and security in southern Lebanon," he told Kataeb.org. "It also plays a crucial role in supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces."

Operating in an active conflict zone, UNIFIL is exposed to repeated violations. That’s why the UN Security Council, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, emphasized in Resolutions 2650 (2022) and 2695 (2023) the need to “ensure full respect for UNIFIL’s freedom of movement." This principle is outlined in the Status of Forces Agreement between Lebanon and the United Nations, as well as in the mission’s official mandate and rules of engagement. Accordingly, UNIFIL does not require prior authorization to carry out its operations, whether through announced or unannounced patrols.

Abou Kasm noted that the repeated attacks on UNIFIL only reinforce the importance of its continued presence.

“These incidents are proof that international peace and security have yet to be achieved as stipulated by Resolution 1701,” he said. “Israeli strikes on UNIFIL, along with politically motivated attacks by certain local residents, do not justify ending the mission’s mandate. UNIFIL was established by the Security Council at the request of the Lebanese government, and its mandate can only be terminated either by the Council itself or upon the request of the Lebanese government.”

Still, what would be the implications if UNIFIL’s mission were terminated? How would such a decision affect the implementation of international resolutions, especially Resolution 1701?

Abou Kasm described the scenario of UNIFIL’s withdrawal as exceptional and potentially catastrophic. 

“Ending the mission could have serious repercussions at many levels,” he warned. “It would deal a fatal blow to Resolution 1701, strip away all security guarantees, and expose Lebanon’s borders to all forms of violations of its internal and external sovereignty.”

Abu Kasm added that eliminating UNIFIL’s oversight role would also bring an end to its documentation of Israeli violations, dismantle the framework of the Blue Line, and leave the Lebanese Armed Forces to face threats without the protection or legitimacy of international cover. A withdrawal would effectively turn southern Lebanon into an open war zone, paving the way for a potential Israeli invasion aimed at establishing a buffer zone.

He also emphasized that UNIFIL forms the backbone of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, which was designed to implement and reinforce Resolution 1701. According to the latest version of the agreement, signed on November 27, 2024, UNIFIL is tasked with restructuring and strengthening the monitoring mechanism into a five-party format, led by the United States and France in coordination with Israel and Lebanon. UNIFIL also hosts this mechanism and is responsible for monitoring compliance, verifying violations, and assisting in implementation.

Under Paragraph 9 of the agreement, UNIFIL is tasked with strengthening the mechanism's efficiency through its organizational role and its ongoing efforts to improve its operations. Furthermore, Paragraph 10 requires both Israel and Lebanon to notify UNIFIL of any alleged violations.

“Terminating UNIFIL’s mandate would amount to a de facto amendment of Resolution 1701 and the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement that stems from it,” Abou Kasm concluded. “Without UNIFIL, Resolution 1701 becomes ineffective. The international body entrusted with oversight would no longer exist, leaving the burden of enforcing international resolutions entirely on the Lebanese government without any support or international backing. If such a withdrawal were to occur, it would signal a punitive measure by the U.S. and its allies against the Lebanese government.”