Abstract
ABSTRACTWhen a host state rejects the international refugee law regime, yet faces an unprecedented number of refugees, how does the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) execute its mandate to provide international protection to these refugees? This paper seeks to attend to this pertinent issue by focusing on the role and practice of UNHCR in the context of the large-scale Syrian influx to Lebanon. This country insists that it is not a country of asylum, and flatly rejects ratification of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. In proportion to both its geographical and population size, however, Lebanon hosts the highest number of refugees in the world. This paper argues that Lebanon’s recent policies aiming to decrease the number of Syrians in the country, by reducing access to territory and encouraging return to Syria, have heavily affected UNHCR’s own ability to execute its international protection mandate. The article seeks to explore this issue further by, on the one hand, examining UNHCR’s policies to recognise Syrians in Lebanon as refugees under international law, and, on the other, exploring its practice when it comes to registration of Syrian refugees, and the meaning of these practices for refugee protection in Lebanon.
Highlights
When a host state rejects the international refugee law regime, yet faces an unprecedented number of refugees, how does the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) execute its mandate to provide international protection to these refugees? This article seeks to attend to this pertinent issue by focusing on the role and practice of UNHCR in the context of the large-scale Syrian influx to Lebanon
On the one hand, that the Lebanese government refers to individuals who fled from Syria to Lebanon after March 2011 as ‘displaced’, and, on the other, that: ‘the United Nations characterises the flight of civilians from Syria as a “refugee movement”, and considers that most of these Syrians are seeking international protection and are likely to meet the refugee definition’
We can’t attack these! And remove their international protection, when we don’t for anyone else’.111. This approach parallels UNHCR’s justification elsewhere that providing short-term protection to excludable people is inevitable under the prima facie refugee status determination approach: ‘The humanitarian imperative of preserving life dictates that admission to safety and material assistance has to take precedence over the need to identify those who do not deserve refugee status’
Summary
When a host state rejects the international refugee law regime, yet faces an unprecedented number of refugees, how does the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) execute its mandate to provide international protection to these refugees? This article seeks to attend to this pertinent issue by focusing on the role and practice of UNHCR in the context of the large-scale Syrian influx to Lebanon. The introductory part considers Lebanon’s relation to the international refugee regime, including efforts to formalise UNHCR’s presence in the country It briefly outlines UNHCR’s involvement in providing protection and assistance to Syrian refugees in Lebanon since 2011. The second part examines UNHCR’s consideration of Syrians as refugees under international law It discusses the politics around UNHCR’s usage of the term ‘refugee’ in Lebanon, as well as its reluctance to declare prima facie refugee status for Syrians, and its characterisation of the flight of civilians from Syria as a ‘refugee movement’. It draws on an analysis of historical and contemporary legal materials and policies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
