Honduras (catch all)

[jmm99]

not mentioned in post #24 that I can find; nor in the quote from that post with your unanchored comment:

from tequila

Quote:
Since we live in a period of interventionism, non-interventionist principles are interpreted and implemented in a very different manner than the drafters intended - or, are simply ignored, as appears to be the present case.

Seems a bit odd to call diplomacy "intervention."

Post #24 certainly does contain basic international legal principles, adopted by the UN and OAS, prohibiting intervention in the internal affairs of a member by international organizations, groups of states or a state.

Whether "diplomacy" (which covers a broad spectrum) constitutes intervention or not depends on the specific reduction to practice of that "diplomacy". I did not attempt in post #24 to define or illustrate what (if any) "diplomatic" programs would or would not constitute intervention.

You are more than free to do so.

PS: The very fact that the event (Ms Clinton: "evolved into a coup"; Pres. Obama: "illegal") is being discussed in terms of violations of Honduran law (as opposed to international law violations affecting other states), proves my point in what you quoted - that the prohibitions against intervention "are simply ignored, as appears to be the present case."