Lebanon between framework agreements and proxy instability: post-war resilience in a hybrid state

Introduction Externally supported security frameworks in Lebanon often fail to translate formal state commitments into enforceable arrangements. This article examines this implementation gap through the concept of hybrid sovereignty, distinguishing institutional resilience from effective state authority over coercion and security policy. Methods The study employs a structured, focused historical comparison of the 17 May 1983 Lebanon–Israel Agreement and contemporary arrangements encompassing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, the November 2024 cessation-of-hostilities arrangement, and the June 2026 Trilateral Framework. Drawing on agreement texts, United Nations reporting, academic scholarship and contemporary reporting, it evaluates five dimensions: agreement scope, state and Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) capacity, domestic legitimacy and armed pluralism, external influence and veto power, and verification and enforcement. Results The 1983 agreement failed amid fragmented authority, insufficient domestic legitimacy, direct Syrian veto power and weak enforcement. Contemporary arrangements benefit from more developed monitoring mechanisms and a more established LAF, but remain constrained by Hezbollah’s armed autonomy, domestic divisions, indirect Iranian influence and Israeli military action. Frameworks can reduce escalation, support official deployment and facilitate negotiations without necessarily establishing exclusive state authority. Discussion Lebanon illustrates resilience without effective sovereignty: institutions endure through accommodation and bargaining while coercive authority remains divided. The viability of security frameworks depends on gradual, reciprocal and verifiable implementation that expands state authority while linking Lebanese measures to credible Israeli restraint and phased redeployment. External sponsorship and monitoring can support this process but cannot substitute for domestic legitimacy, effective coercive capacity and sustained political backing.