Abstract

This paper will analyse the enforcement, or lack of enforcement, of domestic and international human rights laws on the Kafala System in Lebanon, and its impact on migrant workers. The issue stems from migrant domestic workers in Lebanon being constrained by the Kafala System, which is essentially a binding framework that ties a worker’s residency to their employer, instead of being considered under the standard domestic labour laws. In order to  completely assess the matter, this paper will go through various articles of Lebanese domestic law, like the Lebanese Penal Code, and international human rights law, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The paper will then focus on the discrimination faced by female workers, as women make up 99% of the domestic workers in Lebanon. This topic is of importance because there exists legal instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women that protect women. The overall aim of this research is to draw attention to the blatant disregard of migrant domestic workers’ human rights in Lebanon, that is brought through the unjust and inhumane Kafala System.

Introduction

Since the Kafala System originated in the early twentieth century, it has raised major concerns about human rights, and even more so in the twenty-first century, where it has been  referred to as a modern form of slavery (Amnesty International, 2019). To those unaware of the Kafala System, it may seem  like an extreme comparison; however, this research paper will not only describe and explain this exploitative system but will also analyse how the system contradicts with Lebanon’s  domestic law and international law obligations. This system is applied in many countries  around the world including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, but this paper will solely focus on the  Kafala System in Lebanon. The Kafala System finds its legal validity in Lebanon through  Article 7 of the Lebanese Labour Laws, which excludes all migrant domestic workers from basic worker protections like minimum wage and long working hours. 

The first section will discuss how the Kafala System works in general, and then specifically how it operates in Lebanon. It will give examples of the callous treatment meted out to the migrant domestic workers and how they are set up to be indentured servants by the restrictions placed on them by the Kafala System. It also explains Article 7 and how it restricts migrant domestic workers’ rights in Lebanon, which ends up being one of the main reasons why the Kafala System exists. 

The following section explores the effects of the Lebanese government’s lack of  enforcement of the Penal Code on workers under the Kafala system. Then, it goes on to show how the Lebanese Labour Code and the lack of enforcement on the Lebanese anti-trafficking laws both contribute to mistreatment of migrant domestic workers. Finally, it will show how these claims are supported by specific cases that were used as tests for how the Penal Code could enforce law against slavery-like conditions.  

The next two sections explore how the Kafala System in Lebanon contradicts domestic and international law. The sections will be used to support the arguments made earlier by giving specific examples of laws that the Kafala System in Lebanon goes against. First, it goes through the laws that Lebanon is completely tied to and how it is being violated; for example, Penal Code Article 569, which governs the unlawful deprivation of liberty, and is broken by an employer locking a worker inside a home “regardless of the identity of the victim.” Then it  dives into larger legal restrictions that mainly includes international violations like Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) being breached when workers are unable to willingly leave due to actions like  confinement and passport confiscation by their employers.  

Lastly, the fifth section dives into the differences between traditional workers’ rights law in Lebanon versus the Kafala System and the effects of the Kafala System through a gender aspect, given the majority of the workforce is overwhelmingly made up of women. When looking at the differences, it becomes clear that this isn’t a problem of a lack of legal codes, because there are many that specifically target areas of trafficking that can be applied to the Kafala System, but a lack of ways to enforce it. With this knowledge, the rest of the section develops the argument further with examples of women who have been victims to the Kafala System and how their  testimonies have turned into unsuccessful legal cases, as they were dismissed or reflected in court. 

This paper aims to demonstrate how the Lebanese Kafala System goes against laws that are supposed to protect human rights at all levels, which in turn creates a network that uses  migrant domestic workers by oppressing their rights. This will be proven through an  explanation of what the Kafala System is in Lebanon, how there is a lack of enforcement on it and through comparisons of restrictions made through the Kafala System to laws that Lebanon is subject to on a domestic and international scale. Then only adding to the examples of  discrimination, there will also be arguments and studies on the differences of treatment women face compared to men under the Kafala System, which shows how there is even more bias in an already very highly discriminatory system. All this information will ultimately go into exploring the question: what are the effects of the government’s enforcement/non-enforcement of human rights laws in Lebanon for the workers under the Kafala System?

What is the Kafala System?

The Kafala System is a sponsorship system that gives migrant workers in the Middle East employment and residency under a given kafeel, or sponsor. Under this sponsorship, migrant workers are dependent on sponsors (which in most cases are employers) for legal  status, residency and employment. Because the workers’ legal status is tied to the sponsor, the system creates a relationship in which employers hold a more significant position over migrant workers (Robinson, 2020). This can affect workers’ ability to live and work in the given country, as well as limit their abilities to leave and/or change employment or employers.  

The Kafala System is primarily still in effect in the Arab States of the Gulf and those part of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). This includes Qatar, Omar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It is also in effect in countries that are not part of the GCC, like Jordan and Lebanon. Although the Kafala System is still present throughout the Middle East, it differs in structure and/or application between certain regions. In Lebanon specifically, the system applies to tens of thousands of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) who are recruited by agencies for employment. These migrant  workers are often promised a higher standard of life for themselves and their family; however, once employed, their residency and employment become closely tied to the sponsors (Rak, 2020). According to Lebanon’s Labour Ministry, the country is home to some 250,000 MDWs under the Kafala System, which places them in dangerous working conditions noticeably similar to indentured servitude and, at its worst, modern slavery (Majzoub, 2022). Article 7 of the Labour Law in Lebanon specifically excludes domestic workers, meaning they are not protected from long working hours, working without breaks or even minimum wage, and in fact, they are often denied wages (Chaar, 2020). Domestic workers, 99% of whom are migrants, are very limited in  protection under the Lebanese Labour Law because of their exclusion from certain labour laws, as well as their ties to their employers under the Kafala System (UN News, 2021). 

The exclusion of migrant domestic workers from protections under the Lebanese labour laws and penal codes, along with their dependency on employers for legal status and  employment, leaves the workers in a vulnerable position. The Kafala System structure creates a power imbalance between workers and their employers regarding their employment, work  conditions, residency etc. Because of the lack of legal enforcement and legal exclusions, workers under the Kafala System lack protection available to others and are severely limited in their basic rights. This is important when looking at how the Lebanese government enforces the labour laws and penal codes versus how the migrant domestic workers experience the law under the Kafala System within Lebanon.

Enforcement Gap Between Domestic Law and Kafala

The Lebanese legal system is a civil law system influenced by the French Napoleonic Code, as well as shaped by Ottoman legal traditions and religious laws that, all together, govern personal status. This blend of influences creates a unique structure, in which there is a secular judiciary that operates along with religious courts for matters such as marriage and inheritance. In addition, the political structure utilises a confessional power-sharing model (the National Pact), in which major state positions are assigned to different religious denominations, which influences judicial appointments and decisions. This intricate framework creates a system in which the enforcement and interpretation of laws can vary greatly for different groups within the country. 

The key contradiction with regard to the Kafala System in Lebanon is that while some of the actions that allow the employer to exert a significant level of control over migrant domestic workers can be in breach of the laws of a criminal nature, and the enforcement of such laws in cases where the victim is a migrant domestic worker is traditionally ineffective. This raises a critical point regarding the difference between having certain legal protections in place  and enforcing such legal protections. Trafficking of Persons Under Law No. 164 of 2011, as defined in Article 586 of the Lebanese Penal Code, means exploiting a person’s vulnerability or position for the purposes of forced labour, slavery-like practices, servitude and any kind of exploitation (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2011). As a result, such acts as withholding payment, confiscation of identification  papers, restriction of movement or making it impossible for a migrant domestic worker to leave the household can serve as means of exercising coercive control by the employer.

In Lebanon, a similar example is provided by Article 569 of the Penal Code, which criminalises unlawful deprivation of freedom. According to the Human Rights Watch’s investigation of the Lebanese legal system, in a study of 114 judicial decisions concerning migrant domestic workers, there was not a single decision in which an employer was charged with depriving a worker of freedom through locking the domestic worker up in the home, confiscation of the worker’s passport, denial of food or overwork (Houry, 2010). It is significant that, according to the investigation, at least nine out of 114 cases included in the study involved complaints to the police or investigating judge about these kinds of abuses made by migrant domestic workers (Houry, 2010). In particular, in one of the cases, a Kenyan domestic worker complained to the police about being locked in the house when she tried to leave, and her  employer admitted to doing so during the police investigation. Instead of charging the employer with deprivation of freedom under Article 569 of the Penal Code, the prosecutor asked the police to get a written undertaking from the employer to fill out the necessary papers for the worker, pay her salary and not to retaliate against her (Houry, 2010). In this way, a reaction of the government can change the situation of potential crime into an employment dispute. This issue is even more important in regard to the Kafala System because, due to the dependency of a worker on an employer, not only financial but also legal and practical risks are involved in the worker’s attempt to leave the workplace. 

The issue of unpaid salaries further illustrates this point. Unpaid salaries turned out to be one of the most common reasons for migrant domestic workers to leave the employment of their employers, but in general, the workers needed to file a lawsuit to claim their unpaid salary (Houry, 2010). The lack of inclusion of domestic workers in the Lebanese Labour Law deprived them of even a slight chance to use the regular labour-protection mechanism. Thus, Article 7 of the 1946 Labour Law explicitly states that domestic workers are exempted from the Labour Law Code, which includes protections concerning the minimum wage, working hours, weekly rest and overtime. The United Nations organisation similarly noted that Article 7 exempts domestic workers, both Lebanese and migrant, from the protection granted to other workers, such as statutory minimum wage, daily and weekly rest, paid annual leave and paid public holidays (NHRCLB, 2025). This provision is significant because it not only deprives domestic workers of protection following the abuse but actually creates conditions for exploitation in the first place. 

This leads to a situation where the legal system in question is marked by a significant  enforcement gap. On one hand, the Lebanese criminal law offers tools which would allow for dealing with issues of trafficking, forced labour and illegal deprivation of liberty, and the Lebanese Labour Law creates some labour protections (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2011). On the other hand, migrant domestic workers constitute an entirely different category of individuals from the legal and political point of view since they are not covered by the Labour Law and are tied to their employers through the Kafala System (Majzoub, 2022). As one can see from the information provided by the Human Rights Watch, the authorities have always been more inclined towards treating migrant domestic workers as immigrants or as parties to labour disputes rather than as victims of the crimes committed against them by their employers (Houry, 2010). Thus, one comes to an interesting conclusion: the state has its laws prohibiting coercion while at the same time having a system that facilitates coercion and makes it hard to resist. Consequently, the impact of the Lebanese Penal Code enforcement on the lives of migrant domestic workers in the Kafala System is much broader than just an issue of whether employers are being prosecuted or not. The selective or  insufficient enforcement of the code in question can lead to the situation where the Kafala System operates side-by-side with the domestic criminal law. In addition, human rights are universal, and the protections given to citizens are the rights that should be given to every individual.

International Violations

The Kafala System has not only been recorded to be breaking domestic laws but also international law. The Kafala System has been seen to violate international law through forced labour, slavery-like practices, discrimination, sexual exploitation and criminalising victims. As a result, many treaties have been signed by Lebanon, such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 29, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), UN Trafficking (Palermo) Protocol, ICCPR, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); however, these have gone unimplemented. Forced labour and slavery-like practices are some of the few violations that have been normalised under the Kafala System in Lebanon.

Lebanon has ratified many treaties over the past decades, such as the ILO Convention No. 29, which was ratified by Lebanon in 1977 (ILO, 2024). According to the ILO Convention No. 29, migrant domestic workers under the Kafala System are vulnerable to practices including passport confiscation, non-payment of wages, deprivation of liberty, excessive recruitment fees and physical or sexual abuse (ILO, 2024). The ILO states that these conditions can amount to forced labour, which is prohibited by Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention (ILO, 2024). Additionally, the ICESCR Articles 6 and 7 call for the right to freely choose work. On the contrary, due to Kafala’s single-sponsor tie, it removes the right to free choice and access to mandatory conditions (ILO, 2024). This has also brought concerns from Palermo’s Protocols, specifically Articles 5 and 6, which require Lebanon to protect the victims and punish the exploiters (ILO, 2024). Moreover, the ICCPR Article 8 prohibits slavery, servitude and forced labour in all forms, which include passport confiscation, confinement and the inability to leave (ILO, 2024). They have also raised concerns about the violations of Article 9, which gives the right to liberty and security (ILO, 2024). Due to this situation, the UN Human Rights Committee has specifically criticised passport confiscation, forced  confinement, excessive working hours, unpaid wages, and physical and sexual abuse of migrant domestic workers, and has called on Lebanon to abolish the Kafala System (ILO, 2024). 

Discrimination and sexual exploitation have been documented at an all-time high in Lebanon due to the Kafala System (ILO, 2024). The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has found that the Kafala System gives employers excessive control over migrant domestic workers, who are mainly women from Africa and Asia, which, in turn, exposes them to abusive conditions (ILO, 2024). Additionally, the CEDAW Committee has also criticised the Kafala System because of its particular impact on female migrant domestic workers (ILO, 2024). They have recommended its abolition and stronger protection against exploitation and abuse (ILO, 2024). Additionally, sexual exploitation has been recorded at an all-time high to female migrant  domestic workers in Lebanon due to the Kafala System (ILO, 2024). According to the Sigrid Rausing Trust, 68% of female migrant domestic workers have experienced sexual harassment in  Lebanon (ILO, 2024). This is considered an international violation under multiple treaties and conventions. For instance, Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (ILO, 2024). Additionally, Article 26 calls for equal protection of the law; however, excluding workers from protective statutes denies it (ILO, 2024). 

Most importantly, victim criminalisation has become a common occurrence due to the legal system. Many criminals who were convicted of sexual assault were set free after a short period of time in prison. This causes many migrant domestic workers to believe the law is against them instead of  protecting then. For instance, many marital rape cases are excused due to gaps in the Penal Code. One of these gaps includes Article 503 of the Lebanese Penal Code which punishes non spousal rape; however, it leaves out marital rape. These cases raise crucial concerns on  Lebanon’s victim criminalisation. These gaps in Lebanon’s Penal Codes pass through domestic law but not international law. Article 2 of the ICCPR calls for the right to an effective remedy, which is not currently the case since victims are being criminalised, and criminals are being set free. This shows how Lebanon’s legal system still has gaps and loopholes that need to be fixed in order to protect the human rights of migrant domestic workers.  

In summary, the Kafala System in Lebanon has threatened the lives of female domestic migrant workers by allowing forced labour, slavery-like practices, discrimination, sexual exploitation and criminalising victims. In truth, being able to see and understand these problems are the first steps to finding a permanent solution.

Workers’ Rights Law, Gender and the Kafala System

It is pertinent to note that the issue of the application of workers’ rights law on women, in contrast with men, in domestic work in Lebanon is a tricky situation in which the most crucial legal distinction is not about genders but rather between citizens of Lebanon and the reported 250,000 migrant domestic workers who fall under the jurisdiction of the Kafala sponsorship system (Human Rights Watch, 2020). This system makes a worker’s residency and legality dependent on the employer who employs them and creates a situation in which these people are exploited. These practices have been harshly criticised by international organisations and human rights movements, with the International Labour Organisation reporting that 72% of MDWs are  subjected to abuse and 40% face wage theft (Foreign Labour Market Reform in Lebanon, 2026). Although Lebanese women experience a great deal of legal and social discrimination in their country, migrant domestic workers are in an even more legal grey zone. Being deprived of the protection guaranteed by the Lebanese Labour Code since 1946, they have no legal rights except those determined by the Kafala sponsorship system and the 2009 Standard Unified Contract, which protects employers (NHRCLB, 2025). 

The implementation of the Lebanese Penal Code, especially its laws against human trafficking included in Article 164, concerning the labourers involved in the Kafala System, is clearly demonstrated through the existence of a huge gap between the strong legislative measures and their poor implementation. This legislation was amended in 2011 and criminalised all types of trafficking, including slavery, forced labour and other conditions resembling those of slavery, with penalties ranging from five to 15 years of  imprisonment (Mulvey & Flyte, 2025). The implementation of the law has, however, been proven to be lacking, according to legal experts and activists. The International Labour Organisation found that, despite the complaints brought forward by workers, the police and judicial bodies are incapable of responding adequately (ILO, 2024). The Human Rights Watch found that the Lebanese judiciary does not enforce accountability for the violations committed by the employers, with criminal cases lasting for an average of 24 months and civil cases regarding unpaid wages ranging between 21 and 54 months (Human Rights Watch, 2020). 

The absence of proper enforcement can be evidenced from the case of Lensa Lelisa, an Ethiopian maid who suffered abuses and later retracted her statements upon returning to work. There are grave concerns regarding the intimidation of the complainants and the absence of  proper protection for the victims. The 2016 deportation of Sujana Rana and Roja Limbu, two Nepalese domestic workers who were known activists for workers’ rights, shows that the government deliberately suppresses any efforts to campaign for workers (Human Rights Watch, 2020). In 2014, when the application for the domestic workers’ union was denied, the government demonstrated its efforts to curtail migrant workers’ rights (Human Rights Watch, 2020). 

Nevertheless, there may now be a significant change taking place in the form of judicial precedence where the question is asked as to whether the government can apply the Penal Code where there is political will. In this regard, the case of Meseret Hailu, an Ethiopian MDW, is the first criminal complaint filed in Lebanon involving allegations of slavery and slave trading based on the Lebanese anti-trafficking law (Legal Action Worldwide, 2025). Filing her complaint in October 2020, Hailu accused her former employer of slavery, slave trading, torture, and racial and gender discrimination, thus calling for prosecution and monetary compensation for years of  exploitation (Mulvey & Flyte, 2025). In a legal battle that took place, involving a premature closure of the case and then its reopening in March 2025 through the intervention of Mount Lebanon Public Prosecutor, Hailu testified in person before the court in May 2025 (Legal Action Worldwide, 2025). However, the Hailu case proved how much the Lebanese legal system was still reluctant to hold employers accountable for their acts. In November 2025, a reviewing judge dismissed  the criminal case in spite of the Public Prosecutor’s recommendation to allow the case to go to trial (Legal Action Worldwide, 2025). The dismissal prevented the prosecution of the victim’s employer and recruitment agent. It was yet another confirmation of the long-time impunity enjoyed by employers mistreating and exploiting the domestic workers according to the Kafala System (Legal Action Worldwide, 2025). As the legal  representative of Hailu, Legal Action Worldwide appealed against the decision of the judge and asked a panel of three judges to reconsider the case and accept the charge. 

The government’s efforts towards introducing reforms have been met with similar obstruction. In September 2020, the caretaker Minister of Labour unveiled a new standard unified contract for migrant domestic workers which would have put an end to the Kafala System and granted them the right to retain their passports and resign without needing the consent of their employers (Business and Human Rights Centre, 2020). But, after a complaint filed by the Syndicate of the Owners of  Recruitment Agencies against the government regarding severe damage to their interests, the State Council (Shura Council), the highest administrative court in Lebanon, suspended the execution of the contract without considering the rights of the migrant domestic workers (Business and Human Rights Centre, 2020). It is clear that one of the major issues facing the enforcement of the new contract is the economic interests of those benefitting from the exploitative system; as activists have warned, without an enforcement mechanism, the new contract would be only ink on paper (Business and Human Rights Centre, 2020). The implications of enforcement of the Lebanese Penal Code among the workers operating within the Kafala System, therefore, can be defined by an overwhelming gap between its implementation and the situation whereby, despite the presence of laws against trafficking, the courts have not been able to prosecute any form of violations. Additionally, there is suppression of rights activism for these workers, as well as hindrances to reforms by economic actors. Even in light of the fact that the Meseret Hailu case has clearly proved that the Lebanese Penal Code’s anti-slavery clauses can be used as means of contesting the legality of the Kafala System, the final dismissal of the case is an example of how impunity continues to prevail, leaving the migrant domestic workers, who are mostly women, with no legal way of combating exploitation. 

The relation between the domestic workers’ rights and the lack of enforcement of those rights is clearly demonstrated through multiple case studies that exemplify the inaction of Lebanese authorities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the research shows that although the Lebanese government has laws that are supposed to protect migrant domestic workers, these laws are often not properly enforced. The Lebanese Penal Code includes laws against human trafficking, forced labour, slavery-like conditions and the unlawful restriction of a person’s freedom. However, workers under the Kafala System still face abuse, unpaid wages, long working hours, passport confiscation and restrictions on movement. The weak enforcement of these laws makes it difficult for workers to receive justice. Employers are often not held responsible for their actions, while workers may be afraid to report abuse because their legal status depends on their employer. The Meseret Hailu case also shows that although the Penal Code can be used to challenge serious abuse, workers can still struggle to have their cases properly investigated and prosecuted. Therefore, the main problem is not only the existence of the Kafala System, but also the gap between Lebanese laws and their enforcement. Stronger enforcement, better protection for victims and reform of the Kafala System are necessary to protect the rights and freedom of migrant domestic  workers in Lebanon.

Amnesty (2020) “Lebanon: Blow to Migrant Domestic Worker Rights”, Amnesty [online]. <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/10/lebanon-blow-to-migrant-domestic-worker-rights/>

Business and Human Rights Centre (2020) “Lebanon: First Criminal Case against Recruiters Could  Set a Legal Remedy Precedent for Migrant Domestic Workers – Business and Human Rights  Centre”, Business and Human Rights Centre [online]. <https://www.business-humanrights.org/de/neuste-meldungen/first-criminal-case-in-lebanon-against-sponsor-and-recruiter-could-set-a-precedence-for-legal-remedy-for-migrant-domestic-workers/>

Chaar, H. (2020) Protecting Domestic Workers in Lebanon How to Amend the Labour Code to Better  Protect Domestic Migrant Workers in Lebanon?, International Labour Association Policy Brief.

CLDH Lebanon (2015) “Lebanon’s Domestic Workers Move to Protect Rights”, CLDH Lebanon [online]. <https://www.cldh-lebanon.org/OurBlog/Artical/1321>

Foreign Labour Market Reform in Lebanon (2026) “Foreign Labour Market Reform in Lebanon”, LCPS [online]. <https://www.lcps-lebanon.org/en/articles/details/6024/monitor-%7C-foreign-labour%20market-reform-in-lebanon>

Houry, N. (2010) “Without Protection”, Human Rights Watch [online]. <https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/09/16/without-protection/how-lebanese-justice-system-fails-migrant-domestic-workers>

Human Rights Watch (2020) “Lebanon: Blow to Migrant Domestic Worker Rights”, Human Rights Watch [online]. <https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/30/lebanon-blow-migrant-domestic-worker-rights>

International Labour Organization (2024) Providing Care through the Social and Solidarity  Economy: Lebanon – An Assessment Summary, ILO Brief.

KAFA (Enough) Violence and Exploitation (2025) Legal Analysis Paper on Non-Payment of  Wages to Migrant Domestic Workers, KAFA.

Legal Action Worldwide (2025) “Historic Testimony by Enslaved Ethiopian Migrant Worker  Exposes Abuse in Lebanon’s Kafala System”, Legal Action Worldwide [online]. <https://legalactionworldwide.org/press-release-historic-testimony-by-enslaved-ethiopian-migrant-worker-exposes-abuse-in-lebanons-kafala-system/>

Legal Action Worldwide (2025) “Lebanese Judge Dismisses Slavery Case – Blocking Justice for Migrant Worker”, Legal Action Worldwide [online]. <https://legalactionworldwide.org/lebanese-judge-dismisses-slavery-case-blocking-path-to-justice-for-migrant-worker/>

Majzoub, A. (2022) “Lebanon’s Abusive Kafala (Sponsorship) System”, Human Rights Watch [online]. <https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/04/lebanons-abusive-kafala-sponsorship-system>

Mulvey, A. and Flyte, T. (2025) “Lebanon’s Fight Against Trafficking: How One Judge’s Decision  Could Help Preserve the Country’s Standing”, Opinio Juris [online]. <https://opiniojuris.org/2025/09/15/lebanons-fight-against-trafficking-how-one-judges-decision-could-help-preserve-the-countrys-standing/>

New Arab (2020) “Rights Groups Slam Lebanon’s Block of New Worker Contract”, The New Arab [online]. <https://www.newarab.com/news/rights-groups-slam-lebanons-block-new-worker-contract>

NHRCLB (2025) “The Case of Meseret Hailu and the Reclassification of Domestic Work as Modern Day Slavery in Lebanon”, National Human Rights Commission – Lebanon [online]. <https://nhrclb.org/en/archives/3396>

Rak, P. (2020) “Modern Day Slavery: The Kafala System in Lebanon”, Harvard International Review [online]. <https://hir.harvard.edu/modern-day-slavery-the-kafala-system-in-lebanon/amp/>

Robinson, K. (2020) “What Is the Kafala System?”, Council on Foreign Relations [online]. <https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/what-kafala-system>

UN News (2021) “Lebanon Crises Increase Suffering of Migrant Domestic Workers”, UN News [online]. <https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/12/1108332>

US Department of State Office of Language Services (2011) “Law on Criminalizing Trafficking in Persons”, Warnath Group [pdf]. <https://www.warnathgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lebanon-TIP-Law-2011.pdf>