Position paper published ahead of the “International Conference in Support of Lebanon’s People and Sovereignty” to be held in Paris on the 24 of October 2024.

The latest escalation in hostilities along Lebanon’s southern border is giving rise to emerging needs that can only be met through a universal and inclusive social protection system. The ongoing armed conflict is yet another crisis in a plethora of crises that people in Lebanon are left to withstand with minimal government support. This infographic demonstrates that a rights-based and inclusive universal social protection system is necessary in providing protection against risks and life shocks, whether these are linked to illness, changes in employment, natural or man-made disasters as well as armed conflicts. A universal social protection system is particularly important in meeting the unique challenges that groups living in vulnerability, women and children in particular, face during armed conflict. In February 2024, Lebanon launched its first-ever National Social Protection Strategy. This development is a milestone in achieving social justice in the country and in establishing a new social contract, with social rights being its main pillars. While the strategy is an important development, more remains to be done to secure a universal, inclusive, and rights-based social protection system that caters to the existing and emerging needs of all people in Lebanon.

Each year, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group (WB) convene a meeting in a selected country, bringing together government officials, academics, and civil society organisations to evaluate the performance of the IMF and WB and deliberate on future prospects. This position paper looks back on these annual meetings, including main axes of discussion and the response form civil society groups.

This essay argues against privileging “the family” as a unit of analysis or social formation in need of protection in the aftermath of war. Research approaches that foreground the family as a war and postwar unit of analysis too often overlook the fact that “crisis” is typically the regular shape of individual and familial life for the poor, working classes, and non-citizens in times of relative peace. The working and poor classes, whether in family units or outside of them, are less likely to be considered worthy of state protection and support before, during, or after war. Indeed, the males among them are the most likely to be compelled to serve in war. The poor and working classes are more likely to depend on overwork, whether they live in or outside families, and to experience poor housing, violence, illness, and early death. Research that focuses on family dynamics as people suffer and cope with the outcomes of war and displacement can easily miss less visible and more powerful systems and locations that dramatically shape options before, during and after war.