The Atlantic Council blog has just published a great piece of analysis from Azza Maghur who takes a legal perspective to developments in Libya. Although it comes from a pro-HoR perspective which dismisses the importance of the Nov 6, 2014 Supreme Court decision, Maghur sheds light on how the GNC's obfuscatory tactics are actually self defeating. He also makes the crucial point that any UNSMIL brokered must be given the stamp of international legitimacy and be approved by the UN to be binding and meaningful. I hope the players are paying attention to Maghur's suggestion, quoted below.
Notably, this UNSMIL-facilitated political agreement is not an international agreement; it is a contract between Libyan parties—including institutions and individuals—to be facilitated and implemented under UN auspices. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) could further strengthen the document by adopting it or endorsing it under a Chapter VII resolution, as the situation profoundly affects international peace and security. Article 58 provides the option for the GNA to request a UNSC resolution endorsing the agreement. The Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) presence in Libya, the continued flood of immigrants from Libyan shores to Europe, and the stream of UN and EU resolutions related to Libya should elevate this agreement to the international level. A contract under Libyan laws alone would give spoilers yet another opportunity to create obstacles for Libya’s political stabilization and prevent a return to the democratization process. Given the negative effects of civil war on Libyan institutions, Libyan courts cannot manage such a vital and sensitive document on its own; given the international implications, the agreement should not be limited to its jurisdiction.Elevating the agreement to that of an international document would also protect it from legal challenges before Libyan courts under political motives. The Libyan Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over international agreements or international resolutions, nor the jurisdiction to interpret them in accordance with the law (No. 6/1968 related to the reorganization of the Supreme Court). National legal steps would still buttress its terms, however, alongside international adoption of the agreement.You can read the full hard hitting article here.