As war once again reshapes daily life in Lebanon, suspending legal, judicial, and contractual deadlines is meant to protect those who can no longer access courts or meet their obligations under exceptional circumstances. But when lease agreements are excluded from this protection, the result can be the opposite, placing tenants at risk of eviction and further exacerbating an already intensifying housing crisis.
This commentary examines two recent draft laws on the suspension of deadlines and the differences between them, particularly in how they approach rental contracts. It shows how what might appear as a technical detail carries real consequences for people trying to hold on to a place to live amid displacement, rising rents, and shrinking incomes.
At a time when more than one million people have been displaced, housing is not a secondary issue. Any attempt to protect rights in these conditions cannot overlook the realities and daily struggles of people on the ground.
Without including lease agreements within the scope of protection, these measures will fail to deliver justice. Protecting rights in times of war must also mean protecting the right to housing. Otherwise, the law risks leaving people to face the crisis on their own.
Read the full Commentary in Arabic.
Enacting a law to extend rental contract deadlines: An insufficient measure to safeguard the right to housing
The Lebanese government’s new law suspends legal, judicial, and contractual deadlines to protect citizens’ rights during the Israeli aggression. However, concerns persist about its long-term effectiveness, especially regarding housing security and old rental ...