Legal Theory

* This version has been revised to reflect the 2003 repeal of Article 205(15) of the Honduran Constitution.  See endnote 44.  The author is indebted to Mr. Frank Walsh for bringing this oversight to his attention.

Introduction

Legal confusion has clouded the recent de facto change of government in Honduras. Some of this arises from the passionate political debate over President Manuel Zelaya and his de facto removal. Without entering that debate, this analysis addresses only questions of international law and related questions of law.

Introduction

Introduction

Presentación

El reciente cambio de facto de gobierno en Honduras se rodea por confusión jurídica. Algo de ella es consecuencia del debate político apasionado sobre el Presidente Manuel Zelaya y su destitución de facto. Sin entrar en ese debate, este análisis se dirige exclusivamente al derecho internacional y a las cuestiones jurídicas relacionadas.

Introduction

Legal confusion has clouded the recent de facto change of government in Honduras. Some of this arises from the passionate political debate over President Manuel Zelaya and his de facto removal. Without entering that debate, this analysis addresses only questions of international law and related questions of law.

Introduction

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides that foreign states shall be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts unless the suit falls within a specified statutory exception to immunity. There is currently a conflict among the federal circuit courts over whether suits against individual foreign officials are covered by the FSIA. If such suits are not covered by the FSIA, additional questions are raised concerning a possible common law immunity for foreign officials. This Insight describes both the conflict and the additional questions.

Background

On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled against the U.S. government in cases brought by foreign nationals challenging their detention at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military facility.[1] A five-justice majority in Boumediene v. Bush held that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA)[2] violated the U.S.

On March 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Medellin v. Texas,[1] a case in which a Mexican national on death row in Texas challenged his conviction on the basis that he was not afforded his right of consular notification under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the 2004 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Mexico v.

Introduction