Dozens of agreements, treaties, protocols, memorandums, programs, and contracts—as well as joint bodies and councils, including the well-known "Higher Syrian-Lebanese Council"—have shaped Lebanon's complex relationship with Syria over the past decades. While some of these agreements predate the Assad regime’s rise to power 54 years ago, the majority were forged during its rule. These agreements have often fueled internal divisions within Lebanon, persisting as a source of contention even today.

Though many of these agreements ostensibly served diplomatic, political, economic, and trade purposes in line with the intricate dynamics between the two nations—alternately portrayed as "brothers" or adversaries—some, like the infamous "Treaty of Brotherhood, Cooperation, and Coordination," have been used to legitimize the Syrian military presence in Lebanon. This occupation marked a turning point, extinguishing any hopes of Lebanon emerging as an independent republic, a sovereign state open to the world, and a genuine democracy in the full political, legal, and existential sense.

But what will become of these treaties and the joint councils between Lebanon and Syria in the wake of the Assad regime's fall in Syria? Could the sweeping transformations underway in Syria pave the way for dismantling the remnants of Syrian tutelage and achieving justice for the victims of Assad’s regime in both countries?

Are the Treaties Still Binding?

Diala Shehadeh, a former lawyer at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and an expert in international law, told Al-Modon that, from a legal perspective, all agreements between Lebanon and Syria remain valid and enforceable until they are officially terminated, revoked, or amended by either state.

"Ultimately, these are consensual contracts between two governments," she explained. "Thus, it is up to the future Syrian government to decide whether it wishes to maintain, amend, or terminate some of these agreements."

Which Agreements Should Lebanon Revise?

When asked which agreements Lebanon should prioritize for amendment or termination, Shehadeh noted that while the agreements ostensibly aim to foster economic, agricultural, judicial, and security cooperation between the two countries, their implementation during the Assad regime failed to serve Lebanon’s interests.

"Over the past decades, under the Assad family's rule, these agreements were either poorly implemented or implemented in ways that did not benefit the Lebanese state. Moreover, Lebanon has not exerted sufficient effort to ensure these agreements were properly executed for their intended purposes," she stated.

"It is now in Lebanon’s interest to cooperate with the upcoming Syrian government to review these agreements—either by ensuring their proper implementation or by amending and improving them," she added.

Extradition of War Criminals: Lebanon’s Legal Dilemma

Turning to judicial cooperation agreements, particularly the controversial issue of extraditing war criminals, debates have surfaced about Lebanon’s obligation to extradite individuals wanted by Syria’s future government under the judicial cooperation treaties signed decades ago. One such agreement, dating back to 1951, mandates the exchange of information and judicial cooperation, including the extradition of suspects.

According to Shehadeh, Lebanon faces two choices if it wishes to provide refuge to individuals accused of crimes in Syria: it can either prosecute them under Lebanese law, which allows for the trial of individuals for crimes committed abroad, or it can extradite them to Syria upon the request of a legitimate Syrian government. She explained that any extradition must adhere to strict protocols to ensure the suspects are wanted for criminal, not political, offenses and that such requests are not politically motivated but based on substantial evidence of serious criminal acts in Syria.

Shehadeh highlighted a troubling trend in Lebanon’s use of its judiciary, arguing that since the Syrian revolution, Lebanon has often employed its military court to prosecute individuals opposing the Assad regime—Syrians and sometimes even Lebanese.

"These individuals, whether engaged in armed conflict or nonviolent activities such as journalism, were often prosecuted despite Lebanon’s international obligations, which do not criminalize the right to self-determination unless it involves violations of the laws of war."

She emphasized the need for Lebanon to reconsider this policy in light of its international obligations and to foster better relations with Syria’s post-Assad government.

The Fate of Syrian Prisoners in Lebanon

Regarding Syrian detainees in Lebanese prisons, Shehadeh outlined two potential paths: Lebanon could either cooperate with Syria’s transitional government to hand over detainees for prosecution—particularly for crimes committed in Syria—or pursue a general amnesty for those held without due process or for extended periods.

"Following the election of a new Lebanese president, an amnesty process could address various issues of unequal judicial treatment and prolonged detention without fair trials," she suggested.

Shehadeh also encouraged Syria’s transitional authorities to act swiftly in requesting the extradition of Syrian detainees in Lebanon, particularly those accused of crimes committed in Syria.

Justice for Lebanese Victims

The Syrian revolution’s success has sparked celebrations in Lebanon, with many expressing hope that Assad’s fall could lead to justice for Lebanese victims of his regime. These include those killed, disappeared, or targeted in political assassinations carried out with Syrian complicity during Lebanon’s civil war and afterward.

"Political assassinations and other crimes remain unresolved," Shehadeh noted. "While the statute of limitations may apply to some crimes, enforced disappearances are ongoing crimes under international law and are therefore not subject to prescription."

She emphasized the importance of Lebanon applying international standards to these grave crimes and forming a commission to investigate offenses allegedly ordered or carried out by the former Syrian regime against Lebanese citizens.

Shehadeh concluded by expressing optimism for a new chapter in Lebanese-Syrian relations.

"A new Syrian government committed to accountability could not only hold the Assad regime accountable for crimes committed in Syria but also address crimes committed in Lebanon—a neighboring state and former victim of Assad’s policies. Many Lebanese hope this historic change in Syria will have positive repercussions for relations between the two countries," she said.