Do negotiations constitute a violation of the Lebanese Constitution, or does portraying them as such amount to political misinformation?
1. Who has the authority to negotiate?
Negotiation and communication with foreign states fall within the executive authority exercised primarily by the Council of Ministers.
The Council of Ministers is responsible for setting general policy, while “fundamental issues,” including war & peace, require a two-thirds majority.
Article 65 of the Lebanese Constitution
The President negotiates international treaties in coordination with the Prime Minister.
Article 52 of the Constitution
The Lebanese Constitution doesn’t contain any provision that prohibits communication with a specific state.
Therefore, diplomatic communication in itself doesn’t constitute a constitutional violation and falls within the competence of the executive authority, primarily exercised by the Council of Ministers.
2. Can this negotiation be legally challenged?
Legally, no.
In administrative law, certain executive acts are classified as “acts of government” performed in the exercise of political and diplomatic functions, and are not subject to judicial review.
In contrast, these differ from acts performed by the executive in its administrative function, which remain subject to judicial oversight.
Sagi Sinno – Legal expert & researcher in public international law
These acts of government include:
Decisions related to international relations (negotiations, treaties)
Matters related to war & peace
Actions governing the relationship between constitutional authorities
The Lebanese State Council considers that:
“A governmental act is, by its nature, exempt from the requirement of legality. Therefore, the State Council has no authority to review its legality, whether internally or externally.”
Decision No. 74, 16/11/1995
Sagi Sinno – Legal expert & researcher in public international law
Framing diplomatic communication as a constitutional violation is often part of misleading discourse.
The Constitution allows the executive authority to engage in negotiations as part of its political role, even with states considered hostile.
Much of the current debate reflects political interpretations being presented as legal facts.
