Honduran sovereignty: who has jurisdiction?
By Burwell Stark
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?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...who_has_j.html

Obama condems Zalaya-like behavior

Small democratic nations allied to us (Israel, Honduras, Columbia) get
the shaft and thugs get a pat on the back.

My friend Hit & Run brings to our attention the latest example -- we
excoriate Honduras for the same thing that happened in Niger. But how
is Niger treated?

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. government voiced concern on
Wednesday over actions taken by Niger's President Mamadou Tandja to
extend his rule in the West African country.

"These decisions undermine Niger's efforts over the last ten years to
advance good governance and the rule of law," White House spokesman
Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

Tandja responded to the rejection by Niger's highest court of his plan
to seek at least another three years in power by sacking the judges
and naming a new Cabinet.

Maybe if the leaders of Honduras pretended they were going to
nationalize U.S. businesses located there,or entered into a discount
bananas program with the Kennedys like Chavez's discounted oil one,
they'd get better treatment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ike_behav.html