STL: The Price for Justice

Five months after the release of the first indictments, Lebanon’s political parties remain divided about the funding of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (“STL”). The Lebanese government has not yet paid the STL dues of 33 million USD for 2011. International pressure is increasing, most lately the USA and Russia have been warning of possible sanctions. The dynamics reflect Lebanon’s struggle of finding truth and delivering justice, while managing external intervention and internal friction.
Comment by *Martin Wählisch in Beirut
Lebanon’s political parties remain divided over STL funding
Despite the continuing preparations for the trial, Lebanon’s political parties are still trying to seek consensus on the STL budget. The Cabinet could not yet agree to the Tribunal’s funding. “We are always in support of international resolutions,” President Michel Sleiman recently re-emphasised, but “the tribunal needs to restore its credibility.” Prime Minister Mikati contiously reiterates that Lebanon will “respect international decisions and obligations.” “I am currently examining the best approach to tackle the issue of STL funding so that it runs smoothly and successfully,” he stressed recently in an interview with the Daily Star.
International Interventions
Internationally, Lebanon has been under intense pressure to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 1757, which established the Tribunal. US Ambassador Maura Connelly warned that Lebanon could face “serious consequences” should it fail to pay its share of the Tribunal’s funding. United States Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman warned that “harsh decisions” would be taken against Lebanon. Moscow has been likewise urging the Lebanese government to pay its STL fees. The STL “will continue regardless of Hezbollah’s refusal,” the Russian Ambassador to Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin, stated.
Between Obligations of International Law and Internal Stability
Legally, Lebanon is in a difficult situation. According to the STL’s 2007 founding text, Lebanon is responsible for 49 percent of the court’s annual finances. Though the agreement to the hybrid Tribunal was never approved by the Lebanese Parliament, the STL Statute was endorsed by a binding UN Security Council decision under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Under this framework of international law, any Lebanese government has to adhere to the resolution.
A discussed option to avoid any payments from the Lebanese side has been to declare illiquidity. Indeed, the country has one of the highest debts in the world, with debt-to-GDP at 135 percent in 2011. Nevertheless, a lack of financial capacities does not release a state from its obligations. An idea to bypass the cabinet and parliament has been to use a presidential decree, but such a move could spark even more tensions between the confessional groups.
Another option has been to refuse a renewal of the STL agreement, which legally ends after three-years in March 2012. Still, the Security Council could once again act under Chapter VII and extend the term of the Tribunal. Another scenario is a collapse of the government, as in January 2011. So far, Nasrallah ruled out the possibility of President Mikati’s resignation, even if the dispute over the payment of Lebanon’s share to the court’s funding continues.
Sanctions by the Security Council are legally possible, but unlikely as they would destabilise the country and the already-shaken region. The unpredictable and protracted developments in Syria will also have a potential impact on the Tribunal’s work. Except for travel bans and asset freezes on certain persons indicted by an international tribunal, the Security Council has been rather reluctant to sanction states directly for difficulties in truth and justice processes. The loss of trust by the Lebanese society in international institutions could increase even more. A July 2011 poll of the Beirut Center for Research and Information revealed that 63.5 % of Lebanese interviewed did not hold the STL to be credible. Only 36.8% in total believed in the independence of the STL.
Most promisingly, President Sleiman and the new Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rahi have been trying to reactivate the National Dialogue to contain inter-Lebanese conflicts, and address core issues facing all communities. This process is ongoing and has made significant progress in bringing Maronite Christian leaders of both political factions together for discussions. The debate in Lebanon over the STL shows that the differences are not against justice, but about the means of achieving it. In the light of the Arab spring, the developments in Lebanon will be an indicator for truth and justice processes in the region.
 
*Martin Wählisch, an international lawyer based in Beirut, is a research scholar of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University Beirut and the Institute for Global, Law, Justice and Policy at New York Law School.