European countries have stepped up diplomatic efforts to explore the deployment of a new international force in southern Lebanon as the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) approaches its expiration at the end of the year, amid growing uncertainty over the future of the decades-old peacekeeping mission.

According to diplomatic sources cited by Asharq Al-Awsat, France, Italy and Spain have been discussing the contours of a potential replacement force, while Lebanon has expressed openness to any international initiative that would strengthen the Lebanese army's ability to carry out its security responsibilities along the southern border, particularly in areas still occupied by Israeli forces.

Hezbollah, however, has rejected the proposal outright, warning that any foreign force tasked with disarming the group would be viewed as an occupying force.

French President Emmanuel Macron recently informed Lebanese President Joseph Aoun that he would consult with several countries to determine their willingness to participate in such a mission. Aoun welcomed the initiative, saying Lebanon supports any international effort that would reinforce the Lebanese army and help preserve stability in the country's south.

Hezbollah moved quickly to oppose the idea. Lawmaker Hussein Hajj Hassan warned against any attempt to deploy foreign troops to Lebanon to disarm the group, saying that "any foreign military presence of this kind would be considered an occupation."

Diplomatic sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that any replacement mission would first require a formal request from the Lebanese government to the U.N. Security Council or another international body, along with a clear definition of the force's mandate.

While no international consensus has yet emerged, the sources said France, Italy and Spain have shown strong interest in participating. They added that the European Union could serve as the mission's political framework if the U.N. Security Council is unable to provide the legal umbrella.

The sources also pointed to the recently agreed Lebanon-Israel framework agreement, which calls for support from international partners to ensure that weapons remain exclusively under state control, saying the provision could provide a basis for advancing the proposal.

Israel, however, is opposed to the idea, arguing that UNIFIL failed to prevent Hezbollah from building up significant military capabilities in the border region, which was intended to remain free of armed groups.

Concern over the possible withdrawal of UNIFIL has also grown inside Lebanon.

On Monday, 86 members of parliament signed a letter addressed to the U.N. Security Council urging the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate and the expansion of its authority in southern Lebanon. The lawmakers described the peacekeeping force as a legal necessity for maintaining stability.

They argued that while UNIFIL has not fully achieved the objectives assigned to it since its establishment nearly five decades ago, that should prompt reforms rather than the end of its mission. Instead, they called for granting the force broader powers to enable it to fulfill its Security Council mandate more effectively.

The letter was signed by lawmakers from most parliamentary blocs as well as several independents. Members of the Lebanese Forces and Hezbollah declined to sign.

Legal and constitutional expert Said Malek said there are currently no serious indications that UNIFIL's mandate will be renewed before it expires.

If no new Security Council resolution is adopted, UNIFIL would be forced to leave Lebanon, leaving southern Lebanon with the continued presence of Israeli troops alongside Hezbollah and the Lebanese army, he said.

Malek said the Lebanese government is attempting to convince the international community to extend UNIFIL's mandate but acknowledged that the effort faces significant challenges.

If the mission cannot be renewed, he expects Beirut to request the creation of a replacement international force.

Such a force could be established under a U.N. Security Council resolution or as a European mission operating under the European Union, although Malek said Security Council authorization would remain the preferred option because it would provide stronger international legitimacy.

He said Lebanon would need to launch an extensive diplomatic campaign to prevent any permanent member of the Security Council from vetoing such a resolution.

According to Malek, success would require consensus among the Security Council's permanent members as well as an understanding between Lebanon and Israel, allowing for the deployment of a multinational force that could include troops from the United States, Britain, France or other countries.

The process, he said, would begin with a formal request from the Lebanese government, followed by efforts to secure broad international backing and avoid a veto.

Malek also addressed whether a replacement force could operate under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which grants peacekeeping missions broad enforcement powers, including the authority to use force.

He said such a mandate would require Lebanon to specifically request that the Security Council authorize the deployment under Chapter VII, but warned that such a resolution would almost certainly face strong political resistance and could be blocked by one or more permanent members exercising their veto power.

Given the current international climate, Malek said a Chapter VI mandate—which relies on the consent and cooperation of the parties involved—would be significantly easier to secure.

A Chapter VII mission would be empowered to enforce Security Council decisions and confront armed groups obstructing its operations, but Malek questioned whether sufficient international political will exists to pursue such an option.

"In my view, the current circumstances are not conducive to that," he said.