Security & Defense
04 March 2026
Lebanon put to the test of the monopoly of force
C
Cyril D. BADAOUI
IIEG Expert
The decision of the Lebanese Council of Ministers of March 2, 2026 (Annex 1) prohibiting any security or military activity of a non-state armed actor and instructing the legitimate Lebanese armed forces to take possession of its weapons constitutes a pivotal moment for the Lebanese state. In a regional context marked by tensions involving Iran, the United States and several conflicts in the Middle East, this decision reaffirms the state monopoly on legitimate violence and national sovereignty. The article analyzes the relevant constitutional foundations, international law and international humanitarian law, assesses the geopolitical implications and highlights the strategic importance of Lebanon's active neutrality and relations with the Gulf States.
Introduction
Lebanon is going through a critical phase of institutional restructuring. The prolonged coexistence of non-state armed actors weakens the authority of the Council of Ministers and undermines the ability of the state to exercise its monopoly on legitimate violence. The decision of March 2, 2026 aims to prohibit any autonomous military activity of these actors and to entrust the Lebanese army and the internal security forces with the resumption of their weapons, in compliance with national law and international obligations. This decision comes in an unstable regional context, characterized by the growing influence of Iran and the proliferation of armed actors, which expose Lebanon to the risk of proxy conflicts. This study examines the institutional and legal implications of this decision, emphasizing the importance of restoring state monopoly and guaranteeing strategic neutrality.I. Monopoly of legitimate violence: doctrinal and constitutional foundations
1. Doctrinal Foundations Max Weber defines the modern state as “the human community which successfully claims a monopoly on legitimate physical violence in a given territory” ¹. This conceptualization remains central in political science and public law for understanding the legitimacy of the State in the face of militias. Hans Kelsen emphasizes that the unity of coercive power is an essential element for maintaining the internal legal order². The absence of exclusive control over the armed force creates risks of anomie and fragmentation of authority.2. Lebanese constitutional foundations
The Preamble of the Lebanese Constitution enshrines national sovereignty. The Council of Ministers holds executive power and determines defense policy. The monopoly of armed force is exercised by the Lebanese armed forces, in accordance with the national defense law. Any parallel armed structure weakens decision-making cohesion and compromises the unity of the State.II. Public international law and international obligations
1. State Responsibility
According to the Montevideo Convention and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (Nicaragua case, 1986), a State is responsible for acts committed from its territory by non-State entities if it exercises effective control or if these acts violate international law⁴.2. Security Council Resolutions
Lebanon is bound by United Nations Security Council resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1701 (2006), which: Call for the disarmament of militias; Urge the government to fully exercise its authority throughout the territory; Underline the need to prevent any use of Lebanese territory for regional conflicts.3. International humanitarian law (IHL)
IHL applies whenever there is an armed conflict, including when it involves non-state actors. According to Additional Protocol II to the 1977 Geneva Conventions and the jurisprudence of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): Non-state armed groups must comply with IHL and cannot carry out military operations in the territory of a sovereign state without legitimate authorization. The State must protect the civilian population and ensure proportionality and distinction in all military action. The decision of March 3, 2026 is part of this legal framework: it seeks to restore the primacy of the State over armed force and to prevent potential violations of IHL.III. Regional context: Iranian tensions and conflicts in the Middle East
Rivalries involving Iran and its regional allies exacerbate the risks of conflict projection onto Lebanese territory. Strategic analyzes highlight that the coexistence of autonomous armed actors increases the risk of escalation. Indeed, the allies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Lebanon joined it in the war between Israel and the United States, after the assassination of the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On the night of Sunday March 1 to Monday March 2, Lebanese Hezbollah claimed its first salvos of drones and missiles towards Israel since the ceasefire agreement concluded between Lebanon and the Jewish state in November 2024, which offered a golden alibi to Israel to bomb Lebanon during the night from Sunday to Monday, causing around thirty deaths and hundreds of injured⁷. Strategic neutrality therefore appears to be a measure of national protection and stability.IV. Strategic neutrality and national interest
Active neutrality, inspired by the Swiss and Austrian models, consists of not taking sides in regional conflicts while maintaining balanced diplomatic and economic relations. For Lebanon, this implies:- The dissociation of regional conflict axes;
- The consolidation of reliable state institutions;
- Maintaining credibility with strategic partners, notably the Gulf States.
V. Relations with the Gulf States: strategic and economic dimension
The support of the Gulf States for Lebanon is based on:- Direct financial aid and investments;
- Integration of the diaspora into economic flows;
- Diplomatic support in instances
VI. Implementation and institutional challenges
The success of this decision will depend on: Internal political cohesion; The operational capacity of the Lebanese Armed Forces; The clear legal framework, respecting constitutional law, public international law and IHL; Measured international support. Gradual implementation helps reduce the risks of internal and external escalation and strengthens the legitimacy of the State.Conclusion
The decision of March 3, 2026 represents a major institutional turning point. The restoration of the monopoly on legitimate violence constitutes a precondition for the sovereignty, strategic neutrality and economic and diplomatic stability of Lebanon. This decision is also essential to ensure respect for public international law and IHL, while consolidating Lebanon's credibility with its regional and international allies. Notes and references:- Weber, The Scientist and the Politician, 1919.
- Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law, 1934.
- Rotberg, When States Fail: Causes and Consequences, Princeton University Press, 2004.
- ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986, ICJ Rep. 14.
- International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Commentary to the Geneva Conventions, 2016.
- Byman, Deadly Connections: States That Sponsor Terrorism, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- https://lemonde.fr/international/article/2026/03/02/en-tirant-des- missiles-sur-israel-le-hezbollah-precipite-de-nouveau-le-liban-dans-la- war_6669238_3210.html
- Fauchille, Neutrality and international law, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, 1938.
- Collier, The Bottom Billion, Oxford University Press, 2007.