Honduran sovereignty: who has jurisdiction?

American Thinker ^ | July 02, 2009 | Burwell Stark

[neverdem]

Does the Honduran government have the right to enforce its own Constitution? Isn't it a sovereign nation?

Webster's defines ‘sovereignty' as "supreme power, especially over a body politic; freedom from external control...especially, an autonomous state." Therefore, a simple definition of national sovereignty is the right of a legitimate nation-state to enforce its own laws and determine its own fate without influence, pressure or threat of force from an outside source.

Does Honduras have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce its Constitution, or does the rest of the world have a legitimate say in how Honduras self-governs? In order to answer this question one must first ask if Honduras is an autonomous nation, or is Honduras a dependent territory that must first seek permission prior to enforcing its laws. The answer to this question should help make clear the role of the world in Honduran internal affairs.

Honduras has a long and documented history. Once part of the Mayan empire, it was also the landing site of Columbus' final voyage. Shortly thereafter, Honduras became a part of the Spanish Empire in the new world. Honduras was granted independence from Spain in 1821, but did not become a true independent nation until after 1836. Though there have been various wars and military actions, Honduras has never been re-colonized since gaining their freedom from Spain, and has been operating under civilian rule with a new Constitution since the early 1980s. Interestingly, Honduras was one of the first 26 governments to sign the Declaration by United Nations in 1942; they did so as a recognized independent nation-state.

According to Honduran history, as well as (ironically) the history of the United Nations, Honduras as it exists today is an independent nation-state. Until last Sunday, no one at the U.N. or the Organization of American States (OAS) had any question of Honduran independence; recognized as de jure, it had a right to its own sovereignty.

With the issue of independence established, the question of whether Honduras has exclusive jurisdiction to enact and enforce its own laws will now be examined. As with national sovereignty, I believe that defining the term jurisdiction would be beneficial. Webster's defines ‘jurisdiction' as "the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law...the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate." To apply the definition to our example, jurisdiction means that Honduras has the exclusive right to administer its own laws.

As with sovereignty, there are many different theories on how a country's jurisdiction relates to other nation-states and international organizations, i.e. the U.N. and the OAS. These theories only matter when there is a conflict between a nation-state's laws and international laws, and they can be summarized under two basic views:

1. domestic and international law form a single legal system, and when they conflict, the nation-state's laws are subservient to international law (monism); and,

2. domestic and international law are separate legal systems, and in conflict the international law is subservient to the domestic (dualism). A good example of dualism is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. VI, paragraph 2) which states that the Constitution and all other U.S. statutes are the "supreme law of the land."

Prior to Sunday, Honduras was not known for having a monistic legal system. In other words, the Honduran Constitution and other federal statutes were and are the supreme law of the land and thus enforced above any international law. However, assuming for a moment that Honduras had a monist legal system, one could ask what international law was broken? Was the former president killed? Was there mass genocide? Were any other nations invaded or involved? The answer to all these questions is "no," and I am left asking on what legal grounds does any other nation-state or international organization have to base their demands for the restoration of Zelaya to the presidency?

On Wednesday, July 1, the OAS stated that the Honduran "coup leaders have three days to restore deposed President Manuel Zelaya to power." At this point one may ask "or what?" According to the OAS, if Honduras does not comply, then the OAS would "suspend Honduras in its rights and duties in [the OAS]." This follows a U.N. resolution, adopted June 30, to not recognize any government in Honduras but Zelaya's. Furthermore, the U.S. has indicated that the only possible resolution of the situation is to return Zelaya to power, and a State Department spokesperson said that the "U.S. was still reviewing whether to cut off aid to" Honduras.

Honduran independence has been established by history and recognized by the U.N. As an independent nation-state, Honduras has exclusive sovereignty within the limits of its jurisdiction, which are its borders. Honduras was experiencing a Constitutional crisis due to the illegal actions of its president, and the other two branches of government sought to resolve the crisis by removing the president. As a result, the U.N., the OAS and the United States have taken upon themselves to return the dictator in the making, and ally to Hugo Chavez, to power by threatening the country with lack of aid, oil and assistance. Yet the U.N., the OAS and the U.S. have no legal grounds to demand his return and have defied Honduran sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction. It is my fear that a dangerous precedent is being set, one that opens the door to interfering with a nation-state's government simply because its constitutional actions are disagreed with.

In closing, I will ask two remaining questions. Why Honduras? Why not North Korea or Iran where international law and human rights violations have long and detailed histories?

[neverdem]

More on the Honduran 'Military Impeachment'

[neverdem]

Hat tip for the link!

[free me]

Can we start a letter writing campaign to the Hondurans offering our support?

Is there an email address?

[TigersEye]

An excellent exegesis on sovereignty.

[DesertRhino]

At what point do we recognize that the America we loved is finally gone? New America is now clearly the enemy of individual liberty, at home and abroad. A new revolution will be required to restore our Constitution. Anytime this is spoken of on the radio or in print, it is ALWAYS followed by the words “a peaceful revolution of course”. The Tea parties were admonished above all to refrain from talk of insurection,,why?

Why is any call to rise up against the dictator always accompanied by stern warnings to do so peaceably?

There is only one plausible reason. In truth, if anyone advocated an insurrection against the government which has abandoned the constitution, the usurpers would likely not act like a government that recognized the right of the people to direct their own government. They in effect, would prove our case.

[DesertRhino]

In effect, the admonition is given *precisely* because we know we cannot speak freely anymore. The speech itself will result in repressive actions being taken against you.

Update the names and offenses, and read the declaration of independence. Convince them you intend to truly use it. You will face arrest.

It’s a shame to see what we are doing to Honduras.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[free me]

Insurrection means eath and bloodshed.

If you think to come after my family for disagreeing with you, I will gladly shoot you dead.

This is America, there is a system of laws and an address of grievances in place. This is not latin america.

Insurrection is for savages and tin pot dictators.

We have solved that problem.

[free me]

eath=death

and when I say you,I mean any insurrectionist, not the poster that I responded to!

[Tzimisce]

You’re dealing with libs.

Libs don’t care about any of this.

[livius]

Sadly, this Latin American country - like many of the non-Marxist ones - has a system of laws and was simply trying to enforce them. That doesn’t matter to Barry and the gang because they doesn’t like the outcome.

When Barry decides to come after us, our laws aren’t going to matter either.

[agere_contra]

Britain had a set of laws and a system for address of grievances: as good as any in the world and better than most.

Why then did Washington and his allies carry through an insurrection, knowing that it would mean death and bloodshed?

And here, today, you don’t have a matter of trifling taxation of colonists, taxes lower than in the mother country. Instead you are ruled by a Head of State who is the figurehead and proponent of merciless communism, who actively wishes harm to all who resist his pitiless ideology.

Already the Constitution is bent. It is becoming a tool for federal despotism (the intrastate commerce rules) and for murder (the right to Abortion, written so clearly in the Constitution - though our eyes cannot see it). The new Cap and Trade act will crush the middle classes and raise up compliant unions and apparatchniki. America teeters on the brink.

I pray that Carter-esque revulsion will restore Conservatism to America. Failing that, peaceful secession will separate red states from blue. But if secession cannot ocurr peacefully, then blood and death are at our doors.

[livius]

This is an excellent, lucid analysis.

They are trying to trample on Honduran sovereignty. But even if you accepted the jurisdiction of international law and institutions, there is no cause for complaint about anything Honduras has done; so why are Obama and the OAS complaining?

IMO, they’re trying to make a point. First of all, about how powerful they are; secondly, that there is now an unspoken “policy” for Latin America, namely, socialism for the entire region and treatment of the individual countries as simply administrative units for some vast unspoken Marxist American government that will control the entire continent.

[Rome2000]

A man holds a constitution of Honduras as demonstrators opposed to Honduras President Manuel Zelaya, protest in Tegucigalpa, Friday, June 26, 2009. President Manuel Zelaya is promoting a Sunday referendum on constitutional changes that has plunged the country into crisis by setting the president at odds with the military, the courts and the legislature that have branded the vote illegal. (Photo/Esteban Felix)

A demonstrator holds a banner of the late Argentine-born revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara during a show of support for ousted Honduras President Manuel Zelaya outside the Ministry of Foreign Relations in San Jose July 1, 2009. The Honduran interim government defied international pressure on Wednesday and vowed there was "no chance at all" of ousted President Zelaya returning to office

This is what the muzzie in chief wnats to bring to power in Honduras.

It is vital that Baraka Hussein not suceed.

A supporter of ousted President Manuel Zelaya walks past a line of Honduran army soldiers as the protest march heads towards the local offices of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Tegucigalpa, Wednesday, July 1, 2009. Honduras' interim leader, Roberto Micheletti, warned that the only way ousted President Manuel Zelaya will return to office is through a foreign invasion but a potential showdown was postponed when Zelaya delayed his plans to return to Honduras.

Hundreds (?)of Hondurans gather at Morazan Square in central Tegucigalpa to demonstrate against ousted president Manuel Zelaya and in demand of peace and democracy. An increasingly isolated Honduras braced for more protests with authorities threatening to immediately arrest Zelaya if he dares to return.

Looks like more than hundreds to me.

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya addresses a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. headquarters in New York June 30, 2009

Yeah, this guy looks like a real statesman.

Screw this communist son of a bitch and his comrades in the White House and the UN.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Liberalism knows but one law: “ALL RIGHT THEN WHO’S WITH ME??”
The mob rule. Thus the emphasis on democracy rather than law.

[free me]

You know what, it was late when I posted and I think
I mistook the point of the post.

If it comes down to it we may have to protect the nation.

[SunkenCiv]

Does the Honduran government have the right to enforce its own Constitution? Isn't it a sovereign nation?

Thanks neverdem.

"The United States doesn't dictate to other nations. I dictate to other nations."