Zelaya Or Micheletti
I’m finding the situation in Honduras at the moment to be an interesting one from a political theory point of view, because it raises the question of who should be considered to be the President? The one who was elected and then exiled, or the one who is in control of the country?
In the interests of standing up for democratic systems, I’d be inclined to suggest that President Zelaya has the most claim to be the legitimate premier, but frankly, without military intervention, how is he going to be able to take back power? Of course, were the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti to be recognised, it would just legitimise the use of military coup d’etats in place of civil constitutional structures, which is not really something that the world needs any more of.
Whether or not Zelaya has a democratic mandate, he is debarred from office by the realities of the situation in Tegucigalpa, so the only way that Honduras can be legitimately governed again is through the prompt holding of elections, with no army involvement. How likely is that to happen though?
I do not think that international law in general prescribes the systems of internal governance for each State – though military takeover as a system of ‘governance’ is in practice viewed dimly (and rightly so). The United Nations is not really enforcing all its resolutions (from the General Assembly or the Security Council) with blue helmets, though perhaps it should do so. I wonder whether Articles 21(3) and 29(2) should have force at international law? That would be of theoretical usefulness in resolving situations such as the recent ones in Iran and Honduras.
I meant to say Articles 21(3) and 29(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights