Landmark judgments: No safe return to Lebanon and Syria  

 Guest post by Maja Janmyr and Nora Milch. Maja Janmyr is a professor of international migration law at the University of Oslo and an associate fellow at the American University of Beirut. Her work in Lebanon focuses on how refugees and other migrants engage with and mobilize legal norms and institutions, and how international refugee law is interpreted and implemented on the ground. She is author of numerous academic and non-academic works, including the graphic novel Cardboard Camp: Stories of Sudanese Refugees in Lebanon. Nora Milch is a PhD research fellow at the Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, University of Oslo. Her doctoral project studies the bordering of irregular migration from Lebanon to Cyprus. 

Amid the ongoing escalation of violence between Hezbollah and Israel, Cyprus is preparing for a possible influx of both Lebanese nationals and Syrian refugees seeking to escape the conflict. How will Cyprus – and the broader EU – approach these arrivals? Citing an overstretched capacity – and in a bid to deny asylum to those who arrive – Cyprus has joined the ranks of EU countries pushing for return to so-called safe zones in third countries. We argue that two new landmark judgements, however, fundamentally change how EU countries may approach returns to both Lebanon and Syria. 

Recent years have witnessed a surge in calls among EU Member States to declare certain areas of a third country as ‘safe’ for return. Many of these efforts have focused on Syria; Denmark, for example, has revoked residency permits previously given to Syrian refugees based on the premise that certain provinces, such as Latakia, are safe for return. Similar approaches have been taken by states neighboring Syria, like Turkey and Lebanon. In May of this year, these efforts culminated in the announcement of a controversial one-billion-euro migration deal between the EU and Lebanon, coupled with a promise by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to explore ‘a more structured approach to voluntary returns to Syria’. 

One key rationale for the negotiation of this migration deal was the increase in the number of Syrian refugees arriving to Cyprus from Lebanon. Seeking to avoid marginalization in Lebanon as well as a looming risk of deportation to Syria, refugees embark on dangerous and irregular journeys to reach European shores. Cyprus has now recorded the highest number of asylum applications in the EU, relative to its population size, with Cypriot President stating that the island had reached its limit, and could ‘no longer cope with this flow of refugees’. In a move to put pressure on the EU to declare parts of Syria ‘safe’, Cyprus has halted the processing of all asylum applications submitted by Syrian nationals. And what’s more, alarming reports have surfaced about Syrians returned by Cyprus to Lebanon being chain-refouled back to Syria.  

With Israel expanding its warfare in Lebanon, Cyprus is now preparing for a possible influx of both Lebanese nationals and of Syrian refugees who have sought shelter in Lebanon. How will these arrivals be approached? We argue that two new landmark judgments from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will significantly shape how arrivals from, and returns to, Syria and Lebanon can be lawfully approached.  

Landmark judgments 

Two new judgments fundamentally influence how we may approach the question of safe returns to Lebanon and Syria. First, on October 4, 2024, the CJEU ruled that Member States cannot designate a third country as a ‘safe country of origin’ for only parts of its territory. If certain parts of a country do not meet the essential criteria to be classified as ‘safe’, then EU member states may not label that country as ‘safe’. Thus, the designation of a third country as a safe country of origin must cover the country’s entire territory.  

Second, on October 8, 2024, the ECHR condemned Cyprus for returning to Lebanon two Syrian refugees who had arrived via boat. It ruled that this illegal pushback had been done without examining their asylum claims, and without making any individual or contextual assessments of the situation in Lebanon or of the risk of refoulement. The Court unanimously ruled that Cyprus had violated the European Convention of Human Rights’ Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens).  

The Court rejected the government’s argument that Lebanon is a safe third country. It ruled that the applicants’ refoulement to Lebanon put them at risk of indirect refoulement to Syria and in living conditions in Lebanon that amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. It did not accept that a readmission agreement between Cyprus and Lebanon ensures protection against human rights violations, including refoulement to Syria. In its examination, the Court specifically referred to a report by Human Rights Watch from September 2024 that uncovered the systematic mistreatment of refugees in Cyprus in collaboration with the Lebanese authorities.  

No safety in Lebanon and Syria 

These landmark judgments will limit how the return of Syrian refugees from EU countries to Syria and Lebanon can take place. They may also impact any discussions of any return of Lebanese nationals who now may wish to seek asylum for reasons relating to the on-going escalation of violence between Israel and Hezbollah. The surge in Israeli airstrikes across Lebanon has deeply amplified the precarity of both Lebanese nationals and Syrian refugees in the country.  

One quarter of Lebanese territory is now under Israeli military displacement orders, and an estimated 1.2 million people – one fifth of the population – are displaced. In less than two weeks, more than 250,000 people have crossed into Syria. Seventy percent of them are Syrians who had sought refuge in Lebanon. But for many, returning home is also not a safe option – UNHCR chief Filippo Grandi has emphasized that the returns take place in a context of ‘extreme duress because of the airstrikes’. 

In this context, it is uncertain how Cyprus and the EU will respond to an expected increase in arrivals. Not long ago did the Cypriot Deputy Migration Minister stress that ‘the state’s capacity to host additional migrants is overstretched.’ More recently, Cypriot officials stated that they ‘will not close the door’ to people arriving from Lebanon who are ‘in need and danger’. What remains certain, however, is that neither Lebanon nor Syria can under any circumstances be considered a safe third country or a safe country of origin, respectively.  

Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or post a comment here or on Facebook. You can also tweet us.