Writing for VICE news and drawing on some explanations and historical parallels from me, Kayla Ruble explains very clearly the differences between sovereignty and legal recognition in Libya in the wake of the passing of the October 20th deadline. She also points out the Western countries and Western diplomats are likely to just continue with the policy momentum they have even though that is unlikely to yield any solution or even exert the right kind of pressure and incentive structure to change the calculus.
"The message from the agreement is very clear. The legitimacy of the institutions will come only from the agreement," he continued. "So if the agreement is adopted or supported by the House of Representatives they will, of course, be in the legitimacy." Leon did not specify further, only saying that if the HoR or any other group proposed a unilateral solution that was not in line with a national agreement to the UN-brokered deal, he was under the impression "that this will not be recognized by the international community." As Libya expert Jason Pack explained, the status of questionable sovereignty has not gone through a dramatic change in the days since the deal was rejected. "This is just the final step in making it super clear that the HoR is not legally sovereign, which is different than whether we recognize it as a government and the font of sovereignty in the Libyan system, which we appear to still do," said Pack.In fact, he said that there is no legal jurisprudence in Libya that demands the international community recognize the HoR as the country's official governing body. "There is no legally sovereign government and according to international law there should be no recognized government, but the West still implicitly recognizes HoR," he said.To read the whole of this fact filled and super informative article click here.