Procedural (in)justice: unpacking the role of humanitarian aid targeting in shaping host–refugee relations in Lebanon

This article argues that perceptions of injustice in humanitarian aid are shaped not only by who receives aid (distributive justice) but also by how those decisions are made (procedural justice). Horizontal inequalities are recognised as drivers of conflict, yet their analytical application to host–refugee dynamics within humanitarian aid contexts remains underexplored. While existing scholarship predominantly examines resource distribution outcomes, this article argues that a comprehensive understanding necessitates a dual focus encompassing both the outcomes and the processes of aid targeting. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork in Majdal Anjar, Lebanon, exploring Syrian and Lebanese perceptions of humanitarian aid in Lebanon, the article demonstrates how the process of targeting, often overlooked, significantly shapes perceptions of injustice and fuels inter-communal tensions, potentially exacerbating conflict. This study demonstrates that opaque eligibility criteria, limited opportunities for voice and inconsistent application of targeting rules reinforced rigid host–refugee boundaries, intensified perceptions of unfairness and redirected blame from institutions to refugees. This necessitates a shift towards integrating procedural justice into the analysis of horizontal inequalities, particularly in protracted refugee situations where perceptions of fairness in aid distribution become fundamental.