Recent clashes along the Lebanese-Syrian border have brought United Nations Security Council Resolution 1680 back into the spotlight. But what exactly is this resolution, and what does it stipulate?

In 2006, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1680, which supports the outcomes of Lebanon’s national dialogue. The resolution calls for the demarcation of the Lebanese-Syrian border, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, and the prevention of arms transfers, among other issues that remain unresolved to this day.

The implementation of this resolution is seen as crucial to easing border-related tensions. International law expert and Lebanese University professor Antonios Abu Kasm told the Kataeb.org website that the significance of Resolution 1680 lies in its role in ensuring Lebanese sovereignty. Abu Kasm pointed out that the resolution not only reiterates the need for full implementation of Resolution 1559 but also strongly encourages Syria to respond positively to Lebanon’s request to define their shared border, particularly in areas where the boundary remains uncertain or disputed. The resolution also commends Lebanon for taking action against arms smuggling into the country, urging Syria to do the same. Furthermore, it calls for continued efforts to dismantle all militias in Lebanon—both local and foreign—and restore full Lebanese government control over the entire territory.

“Notably, UN Security Council Resolution 1701, in paragraphs eight and ten, commends the implementation of Resolution 1680 with regard to demarcating the Lebanese-Syrian border, asserting state authority over all Lebanese territory, and addressing militias and arms smuggling,” Abu Kasm explained.

He went on to emphasize that the failure to effectively control the border is exacerbated by the lack of clear demarcation and regulations, as well as the ongoing presence of military bases along the border.

“Border demarcation is critical for ensuring security and halting the smuggling of weapons and contraband. Therefore, implementing Resolution 1680 is essential to safeguarding Lebanon's sovereignty and establishing a legally regulated relationship between Lebanon and Syria under international law,” Abu Kasm said. “Syria is bound by both Resolutions 1680 and 1701, particularly regarding the demarcation and control of the Lebanese-Syrian border, as the responsibility for implementing these resolutions rests with both countries.”

He also clarified that it is impossible for one country alone to implement the provisions of these resolutions.

Abu Kasm explained that the failure to implement Resolution 1680 thus far is due to the reliance on the political will of Lebanon and Syria, along with the support of countries backing both the old and current Syrian regimes, as well as states supporting military groups operating along the border.

“On the Lebanese side, the army has made tremendous efforts to secure the border, which the UN Secretary-General has repeatedly acknowledged in his reports. However, there are two major issues. First, the previous regime linked border demarcation to the issue of the Shebaa Farms, which Syria appears unwilling to concede, despite official Syrian statements confirming Lebanese sovereignty over the territory. Second, controlling the border on the Syrian side is complicated by the fact that armed groups have been given legitimate tasks, as they have pledged allegiance to the new Syrian regime.”

“On the Lebanese side, the length of the shared border, which spans over 350 kilometers, along with the challenging terrain, requires tens of thousands of Lebanese soldiers to cover the entire border and address security breaches.”

In response to a question about Lebanon’s role if Syria refuses to demarcate the border, Abu Kasm said the Lebanese government should request that the UN hold Syria accountable for implementing Resolutions 1680 and 1701 if bilateral diplomacy between the two countries fails.

“There is nothing preventing the Lebanese government from approaching the Security Council to request a resolution and establish an international commission to demarcate the border, as was done with the Iraq-Kuwait border in 1991,” he said.

In a related issue, after violent confrontations between Syrian government forces and remnants of the former regime, the number of Syrians entering northern Lebanon has surged. Approximately 10,000 Syrians, mostly from the coastal city of Tartus, have crossed into Lebanon.

So, is there a plan in place to address this issue while Lebanese authorities continue to call on the international community to support their return?

Abu Kasm stressed that what is happening is not displacement, explaining that displacement occurs within a single country’s borders. He argued that referring to this situation as “displacement” is a grave mistake by Lebanese officials.

“This is Syrian migration, largely illegal, as it occurs through unauthorized border crossings,” he explained.

“Coordination on border protection between the two countries is necessary, but more importantly, there needs to be a decision to facilitate the return of Syrian refugees and migrants who have been in Lebanon since 2011, especially since there is no justification for their continued presence in Lebanon,” he noted. “The Lebanese government must intensify its efforts and unify its position toward the international community and organizations to encourage their return. This can be achieved by supporting reconstruction efforts in Syria and pushing for the lifting of sanctions on the Syrian government. Domestically, Lebanon should not view Syrian migration—particularly as it becomes more integrated—as a security benefit in the face of Hezbollah's weapons. This mindset deviates from the logic of the state, where security stability is not based on a balance of fear between military organizations and militias, but on the exercise of state authority over all, applying the same standards equally.”