Dr. Keanu Sai does a Second Interview on Keep It Aloha Podcast
5
Category Archives: National
Major General Hara and Brigadier General Logan Denies 714,847 Native Hawaiians of Their Legal Right to Free Healthcare and Land under Hawaiian Law
After United States troops invaded and overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893, international law, at the time, required the United States, as the occupant, to maintain the status quo of the occupied State until a treaty of peace was agreed upon between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States. To maintain that status quo of the Hawaiian Kingdom was for the senior military commander of U.S. troops in Hawai‘i, Admiral Skerrett, Commander of the U.S.S. Boston, to take control of the Hawaiian Kingdom governmental apparatus, called a military government, and continue to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law until there is a treaty of peace. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-5 states:
The term “military government” as used in this manual is limited to and defined as the supreme authority exercised by an armed occupying force over the lands, properties, and inhabitants of an enemy, allied, or domestic territory. Military government is exercised when an armed force has occupied such territory, whether by force or agreement, and has substituted its authority for that of the sovereign or previous government. The right of control passes to the occupying force limited only by the rules of international law and established customs of war.
But Admiral Skerrett did not comply with international law and the insurgents were allowed to continue to pretend that they were the legitimate government, ever after President Cleveland told the Congress on December 18, 1893, that the “provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.” Five years later, in 1898, the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands in violation of Hawaiian State sovereignty and international law. According to U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10:
Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these. rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress.
After illegally annexing the Hawaiian Islands without a treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the United States began to unlawfully impose its laws throughout the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The imposition of the Occupying State’s laws over the territory of an Occupied State is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. This war crime had a devastating effect on the health of the native Hawaiian people who had universal healthcare, at no cost, at Queen’s Hospital, and native Hawaiian access to lands for their homes and businesses.
Queen’s Hospital was established in 1859 by King Kamehameha IV and Queen Emma under the 1859 Hospital Act. Its purpose was to provide universal health care, at no cost, for all native Hawaiians. Under its charter the Monarch would serve as President of a Board of Trustees comprised of ten persons appointed by the government and ten persons elected by the corporation’s shareholders.
The Hawaiian government appropriated funding for the maintenance of the hospital. “Native Hawaiians are admitted free of charge, while foreigners pay from seventy-five cents to two dollars a day, according to accommodations and attendance (Henry Witney, The Tourists’ Guide through the Hawaiian Islands Descriptive of Their Scenes and Scenery (1895), p. 21).” It wasn’t until the 1950’s and 1960’s that the Nordic countries followed what the Hawaiian Kingdom had already done with universal health care.
In 1909, the government’s interest in Queen’s Hospital was severed and native Hawaiians would no longer be admitted free of charge. The new Board of Trustees changed the 1859 charter where it stated, “for the treatment of indigent sick and disabled Hawaiians” to “for the treatment of sick and disabled persons.” Gradually native Hawaiians were denied health care unless they could pay. This led to a crisis of native Hawaiian health today. Queen’s Hospital, now called Queen’s Health Systems, currently exists on the islands of O‘ahu, Molokai, and Hawai‘i.
A report by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 2017 stated, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care (Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, p. 2).” Hawaiians should not have died due to “late or lack of health care” because Queen’s Hospital was an institution that provided health care at no cost.
Another right of native Hawaiians, under Hawaiian Kingdom law, was access to government land for a home and/or business. Under the 1850 Kuleana Act, which has not been repealed by the Hawaiian Legislature and remained a law in 1893, native Hawaiians can receive from the Minister of the Interior up to 50 acres in fee-simple at $.50 an acre. According to the inflation calculator, $.50 in 1893 would be $20 today. So, for a quarter acre for a home, a native Hawaiian need only to pay $5.
According to the U.S. Census of 2022, there are 714,847 native Hawaiians. The majority of native Hawaiians presently reside in the United States. The reason for native Hawaiians moving to the United States is attributed to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living.
On February 20, 2024, Hawai‘i News Now did a story “Hawaii’s high cost of living testing patience of residents, poll shows.” The report interviewed two native Hawaiians, Patricia Pele and Kahi Kaonohi.
Patricia Pele grew up on Molokai and wanted to pursue a career in the state after graduating from Chaminade, but ultimately chose to move.
She and her partner Nathan Estes previously rented a one-bedroom apartment in Aiea for $1,700 a month.
They now pay less than half that for a home in Dayton, Ohio.
“We have a four-bedroom house and our mortgage is a little bit less than $700 a month,” Estes said. “Two full baths, a covered garage with extra driveway space.”
Pele acknowledges she misses home and struggled to adjust, but financial flexibility outweighed being homesick.
“You’ll get happy in paradise, but you’ll also have to pay that price,” Pele said. “It’s unfortunate that it takes multi-generational income under one roof, multiple jobs. I think all my friends had at least two jobs if not three and that was with another spouse or significant other.”
For lifelong Windward Oahu native and musician Kahi Kaonohi, leaving the islands isn’t an option.
“Hawaii to me is my home and it’s a special place,” Kaonohi said. “I just feel that I have to do and my wife, we just have to do what we have to do to live here.”
Kaonohi and his wife have six kids and 10 grandchildren.
He says all but one of his children still live on Oahu and while he’s retired, they’re in the daily grind.
“Every day items that used to be $1.50 is now $4.75, how did that happen?,” Kaonohi said. “It’s still the same product. How did it go for four dollars more?”
According to U.S. News, “Cost of Living: How to Calculate How Much You Need,” it explains how to calculate the cost of living.
Simply add up all of your monthly fixed expenses, like rent or a mortgage payment, and your variable expenses, such as groceries and gas costs. Also factor in occasional but expected purchases, such as new tires. The resulting amount, assuming you aren’t going to debt every month, is your cost of living.
Under the American occupation, Hawai‘i’s economy is the combination of inflated high costs for housing, healthcare and groceries. To live comfortably in Honolulu, you will need an annual income of $200,000. The U.S. Census, in 2019, had the median household income at around $80,000. According to Payscale.com, the cost of living in Honolulu is 84% higher than the average in the United States, housing is 214% higher, utilities is 42% higher, and groceries is 50% higher. On O‘ahu, the median price for a home is $1,100,000 and the median price for an apartment is $510,000. These high costs for home purchasing forces people to rent. The average median monthly rent for all islands is $3,000.
Contributing to the high cost of groceries, Hawai‘i imports 85-90% of food. The money it costs to bring this food, by sea or air, to the Hawaiian Islands is passed on to the consumer. In other words, the cost of fuel and labor on the planes or ships that carry the food, in addition to the cost of producing the food itself, is included in the costs to the buyer of the food.
In 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom had the reverse where it produced over 90% of its own food for the Hawaiian economy. According to the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom, in 1891, exported 58% of its goods and imported 42%. The major articles for exports from 1862-1891 were sugar, molasses, rice, coffee, bananas, goat skins, hides, tallow, wool, betel leaves, sheep skins, guano, fruit, pineapples, vegetables, plants, and seeds. The major trading partners with the Hawaiian Kingdom from 1885 to 1893 were the United States, Great Britain, Germany, British Columbia, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan and France. The Hawaiian Kingdom had a healthy economy.
The failure for the United States to maintain this status quo during the American occupation is not only a gross violation of international law but it, consequently, placed the native Hawaiian population in a dire situation in their own country. In his memorandum, as Minister of the Interior, Dr. Keanu Sai states:
While the State of Hawai‘i has yet to transform itself into a Military Government and proclaim the provisional laws, as proclaimed by the Council of Regency, that brings Hawaiian Kingdom laws up to date, Hawaiian Kingdom laws as they were prior to January 17, 1893, continue to exist. The greatest dilemma for aboriginal Hawaiians today is having a home and health care. Average cost of a home today is $820,000.00. And health care insurance for a family of 4 is at $1,500 a month. According to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care.”
Under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are the recipients of free health care at Queen’s Hospital and its outlets across the islands. In its budget, the Hawaiian Legislative Assembly would allocate money to the Queen’s Hospital for the healthcare of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects. The United States stopped allocating moneys from its Territory of Hawai‘i Legislature in 1909. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are also able to acquire up to 50 acres of public lands at $20.00 per acre under the 1850 Kuleana Act. With the current rate of construction costs, which includes building material and labor, an aboriginal Hawaiian subject can build 3-bedroom, 1-bath home for $100,000.00.
Hawaiian Kingdom laws also provide for fishing rights that extend out to the first reef or where there is no reef, out to 1 mile, exclusively for all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens of the land divisions called ahupua‘a or ‘ili. From that point out to 12 nautical miles, all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens have exclusive access to economic activity, such as mining underwater resources and fishing. Once the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is acceded to by the Council of Regency, this exclusive access to economic activity will extend out to 200 miles called the Exclusive Economic Zone.
Major General Kenneth Hara and Brigadier General Stephen Logan denied all native Hawaiians their legal right to access free health care at Queen’s Hospital throughout the islands, and denied them their legal right to access government land to build a home or business, because they were both willfully derelict in their duty to establish a military government of Hawai‘i in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. Thus, becoming war criminals for the war crime by omission.
This duty to establish a military government is now on the shoulders of Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. He has until 12 noon on August 19, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government of Hawai‘i. The Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government will provide Colonel Kawakami guidance to do so. If Colonel Kawakami is derelict in his duty and consequently commits the war crime by omission, it will fall upon the next officer in the chain of command to perform. This will continue until someone in the Army National Guard performs their military duty.
Dr. Keanu Sai on Keep It Aloha Podcast
Dr. Keanu Sai Presented a History of the Kāʻei or Sash of Liloa at Bishop Museum on July 31st
The Bishop Museum invited Dr. Keanu Sai to present a history of the kāʻei or sash of Līloa who was King of Hawaiʻi Island in the fifteenth century. Here follows the speech that Dr. Sai gave yesterday at Bishop Museum in celebration of the Hawaiian Kingdom national holiday Restoration Day (Lā Hoʻihoʻi).
It is truly an honor for me to be here with you on this Hawaiian Kingdom national holiday of Restoration Day or Lā Ho‘iho‘i and share with you a bit of history of the kāʻei or sash of Līloa and its direct link as a royal emblem of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Ancient human society was comprised of tribes or bands that were either subsumed or grew into what anthropologists have come to call ancient States, which pre-dates the Westphalian States of the 17th century that was the genesis of current understanding of States under international law today.
Ancient States, which Hommon calls primary States, “are generally believed to have developed in six widely distributed regions of the world: Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, Mesoamerica, and Andean South America.” To these regions, Hommon and Kirch add the North Pacific and the emergence of the ancient Hawaiian State from the fifteenth century with “centralized, active leadership based on political power, delegation of such power through a formal bureaucracy, and territorial expansion by conquest warfare.”
According to Kirch, “the Hawaiians had invented divine kingship, a hallmark of archaic states.” Political science and law today distinguishes between the State and its government, but this distinction pertains to the Westphalian States that arose in Europe since 1648, and not the ancient States that Hommon and Kirch refer to.
When Captain James Cook arrived in the islands in 1778, he witnessed a phenomenon not seen in other parts of the Pacific he previously visited. What he observed was a society whose governmental structure was centralized, organized, and disciplined. He wrote, “I have no where in this Sea seen such a number of people assembled at one place.” Kirch concludes, the “combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria bolster the case that the late Hawaiian polities as encountered by Cook and other early European explorers fit conformably with the pattern of primary archaic states known for other regions of the world.”
Captain James King, who served under Cook, provides an eyewitness account of the Chiefs of that time. Captain King admired Hawaiian nobility and described their regal appearance. “These chiefs were men of strong and well-proportioned bodies, and of countenances remarkably pleasing. Kana‘ina especially, whose portrait Mr. Webber has drawn, was one of the finest men I ever saw. He was about six feet high, had regular and expressive features, with lively, dark eyes; his carriage was easy, firm, and graceful.”
Captain King also stated that Kana‘ina “was very inquisitive after our customs and manners; asked after our King; the nature of our government; our numbers; the method of building our ships; our houses; the produce of our country; whether we had wars; with whom; and on what occasions; and in what manner they were carried on; who was our God; many other questions of the same nature, which indicated an understanding of great comprehension.” I should also note that Kana‘ina is my fourth great grandfather who is also known along with another chief for causing the demise of Captain Cook.
Kana‘ina was a direct descendant of Līloa, King of Hawai‘i island in the 15th century. His father being Keawe ‘Opala and his grandfather being Alapa‘i Nui, both kings of Hawai‘i island. Since Pili Ka‘ea, progenitor of the line of Hawai‘i Island Kings, there were two royal emblems, the spittal-vessels called ipu kuha and the crown called the kahili.
Added to these royal emblems in the 15th century was the kā‘ei or sash of Līloa we see here this evening. Līloa ordered the making of the sash whom his son Umialiloa received when he ascended to the throne after defeating his half-brother, Hākau, in battle. The dimensions of the kā‘ei are 4.5 inches wide and 11 feet in length. As with feather capes and cloaks, the kāʻei consists of feathers tied to a netting of olona fiber. The read feathers of the ʻiʻiwi bird and the yellow of the ōʻō bird, along with rows of teeth, it creates an object that is still stunning to behold nearly six centuries after its creation. Carbon dating of feathers that naturally separated itself from the kāʻei ranged from 1406 to 1450 A.D.
The kāʻei eventually came into the possession of Kamehameha the Great, progenitor of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it can be seen adorned on him as seen on his statue that fronts Ali‘iolani Hale across from the palace.
In 1794, Kamehameha became a part of the British Empire where he continued to be king of a British protectorate. By 1810, Kamehameha consolidated the former kingdoms of Maui and Kauaʻi into one kingdom that came to be known as the Hawaiian Kingdom. After his death in 1819, the ipu kuha, the kahili and the kāʻei descended to Kamehameha II. And after the death of Kamehameha II in 1824 these royal emblems descended to Kamehameha III.
In 1840, Kamehameha III transformed the Hawaiian Kingdom into a constitutional monarchy while still owing allegiance to the British Crown. Based on claims by the British Consul Richard Charlton that the rights of British subjects were being violated by the Hawaiian government, a British warship, HBMS Carysfort, under the command of Captain Lord Paulet, entered Honolulu harbor on February 10, 1843. Paulet eventually seized control of the Hawaiian government on February 25th after threatening to level Honolulu with cannon fire. Kamehameha III was forced to surrender the kingdom but did so under written protest and pending the outcome of the mission of his diplomats that were dispatched to the United States and Europe the previous year to seek recognition of Hawaiian independence.
News of Paulet’s action reached Admiral Richard Thomas of the British Admiralty, and he sailed from the Chilean port of Valparaiso and arrived in Honolulu on July 25, 1843. After a meeting with Kamehameha III, Admiral Thomas determined that Charlton’s complaints did not warrant a British takeover and ordered the restoration of the Hawaiian government, which took place in a grand ceremony on July 31, 1843, at a place that has come to be known today as Thomas Square. At a thanksgiving service after the ceremony, Kamehameha III proclaimed before a large crowd, ua mau ke ea o ka ‘āina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness). The King’s statement became the national motto. July 31st also became a national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it is why we are here today at the Bishop Museum.
Kamehameha III’s diplomats eventually succeeded in achieving recognition of Hawaiian independence. On November 28, 1843, both Great Britain and France, at the Court of London, jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State. The United States followed the next year on July 6, 1844. In the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom was one of only forty-four independent States that comprised the family of nations. Today the United Nations is comprised of 196 independent States.
The Hawaiian Kingdom became one of the most progressive countries in the world with land reform, universal health care for native Hawaiians at no cost at Queen’s hospital, and universal education for the population at common schools, secondary schools and colleges. Dr. Sun Yat Sen, the father of modern China, and who received his education at Iolani College and Punahou between 1879 and 1883, told a reporter when he returned to Hawai‘i, “This is my Hawaii. Here I was brought up and educated; and it was here that I came to know what modern, civilized governments are like and what they mean.”
After the death of Kamehameha III on December 15, 1854, his wife, the Queen consort Kalama, inherited the kāʻei. When she passed away on September 20, 1870, her mother’s brother and adopted father, High Chief Charles Kana‘ina, father of King Lunalilo, inherited the kāʻei.
On March 13, 1877, Charles Kana‘ina died and probate proceeding ensued until 1882. At one of the auctions of the estate in 1877, Lucy Peabody, who would later become a Lady in Waiting to Queen Lili‘uokalani, stated that King Kālakaua retrieved the kāʻei before it could be auctioned. Thus, the kāʻei became a royal emblem of not just the Kamehameha Dynasty but also the Kālakaua Dynasty.
The following month, on April 10, 1877, Kālakaua received approval from the Nobles of the Legislative Assembly that Princess Lili‘uokalani would be his heir apparent. After the death of the King in 1891, Princess Lili‘uokalani became Queen Lili‘uokalani.
Preparing to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian independence, a dire situation would take place reminiscent of the British takeover in 1843. On January 16, 1893, U.S. resident Minister John Stevens ordered the landing of marines that eventually led to the takeover of the Hawaiian government the following day. Of note is that the Queen did not surrender to the insurgency but rather to the United States and called upon the President to investigate the actions taken by their resident Minister and the Admiral that landed of U.S. troops.
After President Cleveland conducted a presidential investigation he told the Congress on December 18, 1893, “And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself and act of war.”
President Cleveland also reported, “It has been the boast of our Government that it seeks to do justice in all things without regard to the strength or weakness of those with whom it deals. I mistake the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality, that there is one law for a strong nation and another for a weak one, and that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weak one of its territory. By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. President Cleveland concluded that “A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.”
The President entered into a treaty with the Queen to restore her to the office of Monarch, but because of political wrangling in the Congress and the lust for Pearl Harbor, the agreement was not carried out. Five years later, on July 7, 1898, at the height of the Spanish-American War, President McKinley signed into American law a joint resolution for annexing the Hawaiian Islands. In 1910, Queen Lili‘uokalani, with the kāʻei in her possession, provided it to the Bishop Museum.
However, the story of the kāʻei, being one of the royal emblems of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is not finished. ‘A‘ole pau.
According to international law, the United States military overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 did not affect the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. Nor did the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the Congress affect the Hawaiian State because a congressional joint resolution is a legislative act that can only operate within United States territory. In other words, American laws have no effect beyond the borders of the United States.
The United States could only have a acquired the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty by a treaty. There is no treaty. Only American laws being unlawfully imposed throughout Hawaiian territory. The United States could no more enact law annexing Hawai‘i in 1898 than it could enact a law today annexing Canada, Mexico or Cuba. It is absurd to think otherwise.
In 1997, the Hawaiian government was restored as a Regency under Hawaiian constitutional law and the legal doctrine of necessity. And in 1999, an international dispute was submitted for arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands called Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The United States and other countries established the Permanent Court in 1899 to resolve international disputes that States may have with each other, or disputes between a State and an international organization, or a dispute between a State and private entity. In other words, the Permanent Court is only authorized to create an arbitration tribunal if one of the parties to the dispute is a State under international law.
On the Permanent Court’s website it describes the case as “Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”
Before the Permanent Court could form the arbitration tribunal to resolve this dispute it had to confirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State since the nineteenth century despite the overthrow of its government in 1893 and despite the American annexation in 1898. The Permanent Court did just that and it also recognized that the Council of Regency is its government. And more importantly, the United States did not protest or object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In fact, the United States, through its embassy in the Netherlands, entered into an agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom so that it could have access to all records and pleadings of the case.
Today is not just to celebrate Restoration Day or La Ho‘iho‘i, but it is also to celebrate that a sequence of events has begun today for the State of Hawai‘i to begin to comply with the international law of occupation, which will eventually bring 131 years of an unlawful and prolonged occupation of a sovereign and independent State to an end.
Despite over a century of revisionist history, the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign State is grounded in the very same principles that the United States and every other State have relied on for their own legal existence. The Hawaiian Kingdom is a magnificent story of perseverance and continuity.
Mahalo.
Clarifying the Role and Function of the International Criminal Court regarding War Crimes Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom
There is confusion on the role and function of the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding the prosecution of war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom. What is its role on this subject?
The ICC was established in 2002 by a treaty called the Rome Statute. Although the United States participated in negotiations and signed the treaty that eventually established the court, President Bill Clinton did not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. President George W. Bush, in 2002, sent a diplomatic note to the United Nations Secretary-General that the United States intends not to ratify the treaty. There are currently 137 countries that signed the treaty, but there are 124 countries that are State Parties to the Rome Statute.
According to the Rome Statute, the 124 countries have committed to be the ones primarily responsible for the prosecution of war crimes called complementarity jurisdiction. Article 1 of the Rome Statute states that the ICC “shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.”
This principle of complementarity is implemented through Articles 17 and 53 of the Rome Statute. The principle states that the ICC will not accept a case if a State Party with jurisdiction over it is already investigating it or unless the State Party is unwilling or genuinely unable to proceed with an investigation. According to Human Rights Watch:
Under international law, states have a responsibility to investigate and appropriately prosecute (or extradite for prosecution) suspected perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other international crimes. The ICC does not shift this responsibility. It is a court of last resort. Under what is known as the “principle of complementarity,” the ICC may only exercise its jurisdiction when a country is either unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute these grave crimes.
On November 28, 2012, the Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the Rome Statute and deposited its instrument of accession with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York City the following month on December 12, 2012. Under the principle of complementarity and its responsibility to investigate war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) was established by proclamation of the Council of Regency on April 17, 2019. According to Article 2 of the proclamation:
The purpose of the Royal Commission shall be to investigate the consequences of the United States’ belligerent occupation, including with regard to international law, humanitarian law and human rights, and the allegations of war crimes committed in that context. The geographical scope and time span of the investigation will be sufficiently broad and be determined by the head of the Royal Commission.
The RCI has already conducted 18 war criminal investigations and published these war criminal reports on its website. The failure of the State of Hawai‘i to transform itself into a U.S. military government to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom has put a temporary hold on prosecutions. However, once the U.S. military government is established, prosecutions will begin. As a result, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands to investigate war crimes because the RCI has already initiated its investigative authority and published its war criminal reports.
Under the principle of complementarity, the other State Parties to the Rome Statute could initiate prosecution proceedings for those persons who were the subjects of the RCI war criminal reports when these individuals enter the territory of a State Party.
CLARIFICATION: At first glance, it would appear that Major General Hara can escape criminal culpability by not transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a U.S. military government. This is incorrect because MG Hara is not the subject of a war criminal report by the RCI yet. However, he will be the subject of a war criminal report if he does not delegate full authority to Brigadier General Stephen Logan who must establish the military government by 12 noon on July 31, 2024.
If MG Hara is derelict in the performance of his duties by not delegating authority to BG Logan, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of MG Hara’s war criminal report, BG Logan will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If BG Logan is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of BG Logan’s war criminal report, Colonel David Hatcher, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, and who is next in the chain of command below BG Logan, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
These chain of events will continue down the chain of command of the entire Hawai‘i Army National Guard, and possibly the Hawai‘i Air National Guard, until there is someone who sees the “writing on the wall” that he/she either performs their military duty or become a war criminal subject to prosecution.
Who Prosecutes Hawai‘i War Crimes?
War crimes in the Hawaiian Islands are violations of international humanitarian law during military occupation. There are war crimes under customary international law, and there are war crimes listed in the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court. In a legal opinion for the Hawaiian Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), Professor William Schabas, identified certain war crimes under customary international law being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom:
Usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, which is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures
Compulsory enlistment, which is military draft
Denationalization, which is the destruction of the national identity and national consciousness of the population
Pillage, which is the unlawful seizure of certain property for private use
Confiscation or destruction of property of the State or individuals
Deprivation of fair and regular trial, which is a court that operates without lawful authority
Deporting civilians of the occupied territory
Transferring populations into an occupied territory
The domestic courts of countries have primary responsibility to prosecute war crimes committed on its territory. If the State is occupied, it is the military government established by the occupant under the law of occupation that has the responsibility to prosecute war criminals. In addition to the military government, the occupying State could also establish an international tribunal for the prosecution of war criminals in occupied territories like the United States did when it occupied Germany and Japan during the Second World War. The International Criminal Court is the last resort to prosecuting war crimes.
Stemming from its duty to investigate war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands, the Council of Regency established the RCI on April 17, 2019. The RCI collects necessary evidence from reliable sources that are independent, impartial, and objective.
Where the collection of evidence constitutes a particular war crime—the criminal act, the RCI will then determine whether there is evidence that constitutes the intent needed to commit the crime, which is the mental state of mind of the perpetrator. For example, Professor Schabas states that the elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation are:
1. The perpetrator imposed or applied legislative or administrative measures of the occupying power going beyond those required by what is necessary for military purposes of the occupation.
2. The perpetrator was aware that the measures went beyond what was required for military purposes or the protection of fundamental human rights.
3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an occupation resulting from international armed conflict.
4. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of the armed conflict and subsequent occupation.
The first element is the criminal act, and the last three elements go to the state of mind of the perpetrator. With respect to the last two elements of the war crime, Professor Schabas states:
1. There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an armed conflict or its character as international or non-international;
2. In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the conflict as international or non-international;
3. There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with.”
If there is evidence that has met all of the elements of the war crime, the RCI will publish a war criminal report on its website. The next stage is to initiate the prosecution of the perpetrator by seeking a bill of indictment under Hawaiian Kingdom law. Unlike the United States, there is no grand jury that issues an indictment. Under Hawaiian law, the Prosecutor of the Crown must prepare a bill of indictment for the approval of a judge of the court that will prosecute the alleged perpetrator. After the bill of indictment is signed by the judge, an arrest warrant is issued to apprehend the perpetrator and to begin prosecution.
The current system of governance in Hawai‘i is a product of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty because it is a product of American legislation by the U.S. Congress. The State of Hawai‘i was established by the Congress in 1959 under the Statehood Act. Until the State of Hawai‘i is transformed into an American military government to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws under the law of occupation, prosecution of war criminals cannot take place. However, should any of the perpetrators identified in the RCI’s published war criminal reports travel to foreign countries they could be apprehended and tried by the courts of these countries under universal jurisdiction.
According to Human Rights Watch, “universal jurisdiction is the ability of the domestic judicial systems of a state to investigate and prosecute certain crimes, even if they were not committed on its territory, by one of its nationals, or against one of its nationals (i.e. crime beyond other bases of jurisdiction, such territoriality or active/passive personality.)” Under the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, every foreign national that traveled to the Hawaiian Islands is a victim of war crimes having been subjected to American laws and administrative measures.
The current illegal situation in the Hawaiian Islands does not diminish the RCI’s published war criminal reports on its website because there are no statutory limitations for the prosecution of war crimes. In 2022, Germany convicted a 97-year-old woman for Nazi war crimes committed during the Second World War. War crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Islands should not be taken lightly.
The Associated Press reported, “A German court on Tuesday convicted a 97-year-old woman of being an accessory to more than 10,000 murders for her role as a secretary to the SS commander of the Nazi’s Stutthof concentration camp during World War II.”
The Seat of Hawaiian Sovereignty Remains Undisturbed Despite the American Occupation
The bedrock of international law is the sovereignty of an independent State. Black’s Law dictionary defines sovereignty as the “supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.” For the purposes of international law, Wheaton explains:
Sovereignty is the supreme power by which any State is governed. This supreme power may be exercised either internally or externally. Internal sovereignty is that which is inherent in the people or any State, or vested in its ruler, by its municipal constitution or fundamental laws. This is the object of what has been called internal public law […], but which may be more properly be termed constitutional law. External sovereignty consists in the independence of one political society, in respect to all other political societies. It is by the exercise of this branch of sovereignty that the international relations of one political society are maintained, in peace and in war, with all other political societies. The law by which it is regulated has, therefore, been called external public law […], but may more properly be termed international law.
In the Island of Palmas arbitration, which was a dispute between the United States and the Netherlands, the arbitrator explained that “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.” And in the S.S. Lotus case, which was a dispute between France and Turkey, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated:
Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention [treaty].
The permissive rule under international law that allows one State to exercise authority over the territory of another State is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that mandates the occupant to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until there is a treaty of peace. For the past 131 years, there has been no permissive rule of international law that allows the United States to exercise any authority in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which makes the prolonged occupation illegal under international law.
As the arbitral tribunal, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, noted in its award, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.” The scope of Hawaiian sovereignty is sweeping. According to §6 of the Hawaiian Civil Code:
The laws are obligatory upon all persons, whether subjects of this kingdom, or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, while within the limits of this kingdom, except so far as exception is made by the laws of nations in respect to Ambassadors or others. The property of all such persons, while such property is within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom, is also subject to the laws.
Property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom includes both real estate and personal property. Hawaiian sovereignty over the population, whether Hawaiian subjects or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, is expressed in the Penal Code. Under Chapter VI—Treason, the statute, which is in line with international law, states:
1. Treason is hereby defined to be any plotting or attempt to dethrone or destroy the King, or the levying of war against the King’s government, or the adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort, the same being done by a person owing allegiance to this kingdom.
2. Allegiance is the obedience and fidelity due to the kingdom from those under its protection.
3. An alien, whether his native country be at war or at peace with this kingdom, owes allegiance to this kingdom during his residence therein, and during such residence, is capable of committing treason against this kingdom.
4. Ambassadors and other ministers of foreign states, and their alien secretaries, servants and members of their families, do not owe allegiance to this kingdom, though resident therein, and are not capable of committing treason against this kingdom.
When the Hawaiian Kingdom Government conditionally surrendered to the United States forces on January 17, 1893, the action taken did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty but merely relinquished control of Hawaiian sovereignty because of the American invasion and occupation. According to Benvenisti:
The foundation upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, whether through the actual or the threatened use of force, or in any way unauthorized by the sovereign. Effective control by foreign military force can never bring about by itself and valid transfer of sovereignty. Because occupation does not transfer sovereignty over the territory to the occupying power, international law must regulate the inter-relationships between the occupying force, the ousted government, and the local inhabitants for the duration of the occupation. […] Because occupation does not amount to sovereignty, the occupation is also limited in time and the occupant has only temporary managerial powers, for the period until a peaceful solution is reached. During that limited period, the occupant administers the territory on behalf of the sovereign. Thus the occupant’s status is conceived to be that of a trustee.
The occupant’s ‘managerial powers’ is exercised by a military government over the territory of the occupied State that the occupant is in effective control. The military government would need to be in effective control of the territory in order to effectively enforce the laws of the occupied State. Without effective control there can be no enforcement of the laws.
The Hawaiian government’s surrender that transferred effective control over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the American military did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty. U.S. Army FM 27-10 explicitly states, “Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty.”
The United States never possessed sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. It remained undisturbed for over a century, and in 1997 when the Hawaiian Kingdom government was restored as a Regency, Hawaiian sovereignty came to the forefront as the foundation for the existence of the Regency and the application of the law of occupation.
Restoration of Hawaiian sovereignty needs to be removed from the conversations because you cannot restore what was never taken. And restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom government also needs to be removed from the conversations because the government was already restored in 1997 as a Regency, in an acting capacity, until the Legislature can be reconvened to elect by ballot a lawful Regency according to Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution, as amended. The doctrine of necessity and Hawaiian constitutional law provides the legal basis for the Regency to serve in an acting role.
What should become a part of the conversation is the duty of the State of Hawai‘i Adjutant General to comply with the law of occupation by establishing a military government to temporarily administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as they were prior to the American invasion and also the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom proclaimed by the Council of Regency on October 10, 2014. These provisional laws shall be all Federal, State, and County laws that “do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to July 6, 1887, the international law of occupation and international humanitarian law, and if it be the case they shall be regarded as invalid and void.” The Minister of the Interior published a memorandum on the formula to be used in determining whether American laws can be considered provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Royal Order of Kamehameha I Calls Upon Major General Hara to Transform State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government
On June 15, 2024, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I sent a letter to State of Hawai‘i Adjutant General Major General Kenneth Hara to perform his duty of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. Here is a link to download the letter.
Aloha Major General Hara:
We the members of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I (including Na Wahine O Kamehameha), was established in the early 1900s to maintain a connection to our country, the Hawaiian Kingdom, despite the unlawful overthrow of our country’s government on January 17, 1893, by the United States.
Our people have suffered greatly in the aftermath of the overthrow, but we, as Native Hawaiian subjects, have survived. Our predecessors, who established the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, had a national consciousness of their country that we didn’t have because of the Americanization of these islands. We, today, were taught that our country no longer existed and that we are now American citizens. We now know that this is not true.
When the Government was restored in 1997, the Council of Regency embarked on a monumental task to ho‘oponopono (right the wrong) from a legal standpoint. Their success to get the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, to recognize the continued existence of our country and the Council of Regency as our government was no small task. When the Council of Regency returned from the Netherlands in 2000, they embarked on an educational campaign to restore the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of its people. This led to classes being taught on the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom at the University of Hawai‘i, High Schools, Middle Schools, Elementary Schools, and Preschools throughout the Hawaiian Islands.
In 2018, the Hawai‘i State Teachers Association was able to get their resolution passed at the annual conference of the National Education Association in Boston, Massachusetts. The resolution stated, “The NEA will publish an article that documents the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893, the prolonged illegal occupation of the United States in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the harmful effects that this occupation has had on the Hawaiian people and resources of the land.” The HSTA asked Dr. Keanu Sai to write three articles, which were published on the NEA website. Dr. Sai is the Chairman of the Council of Regency, and he led the legal team for the Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent of Court of Arbitration in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom.
Because of this educational campaign, we are now aware that our country still exists and, as a people, we must owe allegiance to the Hawaiian Kingdom as our predecessors did. This is not a choice, but an obligation as Hawaiian subjects. We also acknowledge that the Council of Regency is our government that was lawfully established under extraordinary circumstances, and we support its effort to bring compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i on behalf of the United States, which will eventually bring the American occupation to close. When this happens, our Legislative Assembly will be brought into session so that Hawaiian subjects can elect a Regency of our choosing. The Council of Regency is currently operating in an acting capacity that is allowed under Hawaiian law.
We have read the Minister of the Interior’s memorandum dated April 26, 2024 (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Memo_re_Rights_of_Hawaiians_(4.26.24).pdf), and the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for the State of Hawai‘i to transform into a Military Government (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/HK_Operational_Plan_of_Transition.pdf), and we support this plan. After watching Dr. Sai’s presentation to the Maui County Council on March 6, 2024 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A), we were made aware of your reluctance to carry out your duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government.
Because of the high cost of living brought here because of the unlawful American presence, the majority of Native Hawaiians now reside in the United States. The U.S. Census reported that in 2020, that of the total of 680,442 Native Hawaiians, 53 percent live in the United States. The driving factors that led to the move were not being able to afford a home and adequate health care. Dr. Sai, as the Minister of the Interior, clearly explains this in his memorandum where he states,
While the State of Hawai‘i has yet to transform itself into a Military Government and proclaim the provisional laws, as proclaimed by the Council of Regency, that brings Hawaiian Kingdom laws up to date, Hawaiian Kingdom laws as they were prior to January 17, 1893, continue to exist. The greatest dilemma for aboriginal Hawaiians today is having a home and health care. Average cost of a home today is $820,000.00. And health care insurance for a family of 4 is at $1,500 a month. According to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care.”
Under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are the recipients of free health care at Queen’s Hospital and its outlets across the islands. In its budget, the Hawaiian Legislative Assembly would allocate money to the Queen’s Hospital for the healthcare of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects. The United States stopped allocating moneys from its Territory of Hawai‘i Legislature in 1909. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are also able to acquire up to 50 acres of public lands at $20.00 per acre under the 1850 Kuleana Act. With the current rate of construction costs, which includes building material and labor, an aboriginal Hawaiian subject can build 3-bedroom, 1-bath home for $100,000.00.
Hawaiian Kingdom laws also provide for fishing rights that extend out to the first reef or where there is no reef, out to 1 mile, exclusively for all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens of the land divisions called ahupua‘a or ‘ili. From that point out to 12 nautical miles, all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens have exclusive access to economic activity, such as mining underwater resources and fishing. Once the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is acceded to by the Council of Regency, this exclusive access to economic activity will extend out to 200 miles called the Exclusive Economic Zone.
On behalf of the members of the Royal Order, I respectfully call upon you to carry out your duty to proclaim the transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government so that all Hawaiian subjects, and their families, would be able to exercise their rights secured to them under Hawaiian Kingdom law and protected by the international law of occupation. We urge you to work with the Council of Regency in making sure this transition is not only lawful but is done for the benefit of all Hawaiian subjects that are allowed under Hawaiian Kingdom law, the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.
International Law Journal Publishes Articles by the Head and Deputy Head of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Royal Commission of Inquiry
The International Review of Contemporary Law released its volume 6, no. 2, earlier this month. The theme of this journal is “77 Years of the United Nations Charter.” The Head, Dr. Keanu Sai, and Deputy Head, Professor Federico Lenzerini, of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that investigates war crimes and human rights violations committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, each had an article published in the journal.
Dr. Sai’s article is titled “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.” Dr. Sai’s article opened with:
At the United Nations World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect was unanimously adopted. The principle of the Responsibility to Protect has three pillars: (1) every State has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing; (2) the wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual States in meeting that responsibility; and (3) if a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter. In 2009, the General Assembly reaffirmed the three pillars of a State’s responsibility to protect their populations from war crimes and crimes against humanity. And in 2021, the General Assembly passed a resolution on “The responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” The third pillar, which may call into action State intervention, can become controversial.
Rule 158 of the International Committee of the Red Cross Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law specifies that “States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects.” This “rule that States must investigate war crimes and prosecute the suspects is set forth in numerous military manuals, with respect to grave breaches, but also more broadly with respect to war crimes in general.”
Determined to hold to account individuals who have committed war crimes and human rights violations throughout the Hawaiian Islands, being the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Council of Regency, by proclamation on 17 April 2019, established a Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) in similar fashion to the United States proposal of establishing a Commission of Inquiry after the First World War “to consider generally the relative culpability of the authors of the war and also the question of their culpability as to the violations of the laws and customs of war committed during its course.” The author serves as Head of the RCI and Professor Federico Lenzerini from the University of Siena, Italy, as its Deputy Head. This article will address the first pillar of the principle of Responsibility to Protect.
Professor Lenzerini’s article is titled “Military Occupation, Sovereignty, and the ex injuria jus non oritur Principle. Complying with the Supreme Imperative of Suppressing ‘Acts of Aggression or Other Breaches of the Peace’ à la carte?” After covering the Iraqi military occupation of Kuwait and the Russian military occupation of Ukraine, Professor Lenzerini’s article draws attention to the American military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Professor Lenzerini writes:
As a factual situation, the occupation of Hawai‘i by the US does not substantially differ from the examples provided in the previous section. Since the end of the XIX Century, however, almost no significant positions have been taken by the international community and its members against the illegality of the American annexation of the Hawaiian territory. Certainly, the level of military force used in order to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom was not even comparable to that employed in Kuwait, Donbass or even in Crimea. In terms of the illegality of the occupation, however, this circumstance is irrelevant, because, as seen in section 2 above, the rules of international humanitarian law regulating military occupation apply even when the latter does not meet any armed resistance by the troops or the people of the occupied territory. The only significant difference between the case of Hawai‘i and the other examples described in this article rests in the circumstance that the former occurred well before the establishment of the United Nations, and the resulting acquisition of sovereignty by the US over the Hawaiian territory was already consolidated at the time of their establishment. Is this circumstance sufficient to uphold the position according to which the occupation of Hawai‘i should be treated differently from the other cases? An attempt to provide an answer to this question will be carried out in the next section, through examining the possible arguments which may be used to either support or refute such a position.
In the next section, Professor Lenzerini undermines the argument that international law in 1893 allowed the occupying State, in this case the United States, to have acquired the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom because the United States exercised effective control over the territory. He wrote:
The main argument that could be used to deny the illegality of the US occupation of Hawai‘i rests in the doctrine of intertemporal law. According to this doctrine, the legality of a situation “must be appraised […] in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today”. In other words, a State can be considered responsible of a violation of international law—implying the determination of the consequent “secondary” obligation for that State to restore legality—only if its behaviour was prohibited by rules already in force at the time when it was held. In the event that one should ascertain that at the time of the occupation of Hawai‘i by the US international law did not yet prohibit the annexation of a foreign territory as a consequence of the occupation itself, the logical conclusion, in principle, would be that the legality of the annexation of Hawai‘i by the United States cannot reasonably be challenged. In reality even this conclusion could probably be disputed through using the argument of “continuing violations”, by virtue of the violations of international law which continue to be produced today as a consequence of the American occupation and of its perpetuation. In fact, it is a general principle of international law on State responsibility that “[t]he breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation”.
However, it appears that there is no need to rely on this argument, for the reason that also an intertemporal-law-based perspective confirms the illegality—under international law—of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the US. In fact, as regards in particular the topic of military occupation, the affirmation of the ex injuria jus non oritur rule predated the Stimson doctrine, because it was already consolidated as a principle of general international law since the XVIII Century. In fact, “[i]n the course of the nineteenth century, the concept of occupation as conquest was gradually abandoned in favour of a model of occupation based on the temporary control and administration of the occupied territory, the fate of which could be determined only by a peace treaty”, in other words, “the fundamental principle of occupation law accepted by mid-to-late 19th-century publicists was that an occupant could not alter the political order of territory”. Consistently, “[l]es États qui se font la guerre rompent entre eux les liens formés par le droit des gens en temps de paix; mais il ne dépend pas d’eux d’anéantir les faits sur lesquels repose ce droit des gens. Ils ne peuvent détruire ni la souveraineté des États, ni leur indépendance, ni la dépendance mutuelle des nations”. This was already confirmed by domestic and international practice contemporary to the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States. For instance, in 1915, in a judgment concerning the case of a person who was arrested in a part of Russian Poland occupied by Germany and deported to the German territory without the consent of Russian authorities, the Supreme Court of Germany held that an occupied enemy territory remained enemy and did not become national territory of the occupant as a result of the occupation.
Professor Lenzerini when on to state:
In light of the foregoing, it appears that the theories according to which the effective and consolidated occupation of a territory would determine the acquisition of sovereignty by the occupying power over that territory—although supported by eminent scholars—must be confuted. Consequently, under international law, “le transfert de souveraineté ne peut être considéré comme effectué judiquement que par l’entrée en vigueur du Traité qui le stipule et à dater du jour de cette mise en vigueur”, which means that “[t]he only form in which a cession [of territory] can be effected is an agreement embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State. Such treaty may be through the outcome of peaceable negotiations or of war.” This conclusion had been confirmed, among others, by the US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in 1928, holding that the fate of a territory subjected to military occupation had to be “determined at the treaty of peace.”
There is no treaty where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its territorial sovereignty to the United States. The American military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is now at 131 years.
CHANGE IN SCHEDULE: Dr. Keanu Sai to Present at FestPAC Tomorrow at 10:30am to 12:00 noon in the Kaua‘i Room 311
There’s been a change in schedule for Dr. Keanu Sai’s presentation at the Festival of the Pacific Culture and Arts held at the Hawai‘i Convention Center. Dr. Sai was previously scheduled to present on the American Occupation at 11:00am to 12:30pm in the Kaua‘i Room 311. It is now changed to 10:30am to 12 noon in the same Kaua‘i Room 311.
Dr. Keanu Sai to Present on the American Occupation at FestPAC on Thursday June 13 from 11am to 12:30pm at the Hawai‘i Convention Center Kaua‘i Room 311
Dr. Keanu Sai will do a presentation on the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom at the 13th Festival of Pacific Arts and Culture. Dr. Sai’s presentation will be on Thursday, June 13, 2024, from 11:00am to 12:30pm in the Kaua‘i Room 311 at the Hawai‘i Convention Center.
The Festival of Pacific Arts & Culture (FestPAC) is the world’s largest celebration of indigenous Pacific Islanders. The South Pacific Commission (now The Pacific Community – SPC) launched this dynamic showcase of arts and culture in 1972 to halt the erosion of traditional practices through ongoing cultural exchange. It is a vibrant and culturally enriching event celebrating the unique traditions, artistry, and diverse cultures of the Pacific region. FestPAC serves as a platform for Pacific Island nations to showcase their rich heritage and artistic talents.
The roots of FestPAC trace back to the 1970s when Pacific Island nations commenced discussion on the need to preserve and promote their unique cultural identities. The hope was to create a space where Pacific Islanders could convene to share their traditional arts, crafts, music, dance, and oral traditions with the world. This initiative was driven by the desire to strengthen cultural bonds among Pacific Island communities and foster a greater understanding of their cultures.
The inaugural Festival of Pacific Art and Culture took place in 1972 in Suva, Fiji. Over the years, FestPAC has evolved and grown in stature, becoming a highly anticipated event for both Pacific Islanders and visitors from around the world. The festival has not only preserved traditional arts and culture but has also served as a platform for contemporary Pacific Island artists to express their creativity and address contemporary issues.
One of the festival’s most important objectives is to promote cultural exchange and understanding among the participating nations. It provides an opportunity for artists and cultural practitioners to learn from each other, share stories, and forge lasting connections. FestPAC serves as a reminder of the common heritage that binds Pacific Island nations and highlights the importance of preserving and celebrating their heritage.
Since its inception, FestPAC has been hosted by different Pacific Island nations on a rotational basis. Each host country takes on the responsibility of organizing and hosting the festival, providing a unique opportunity to showcase their own culture and hospitality. Host nations have all played a pivotal role in the festival’s success. They have worked tirelessly to create a welcoming and vibrant atmosphere for artists and visitors alike, ensuring that FestPAC remains a foundation of cultural exchange and celebration in the Pacific.
Dr. Keanu Sai to Present at Kaua‘i Veterans Center Friday June 7
BREAKING NEWS: Police Officers Send Letter to Major General Hara to Comply with the Law of Occupation and Transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government
In an unprecedented move by 37 Police Officers, both active and retired across the Hawaiian Islands, they have collectively called upon the State of Hawai‘i Adjutant General Army Major General Kenneth Hara to comply with international law and the law of occupation.
International law requires that since the State of Hawai‘i is in effective control of 10,931 square miles of Hawaiian territory, and the federal government is in effective control of less than 500 square miles, it is the State of Hawai‘i that is responsible for transforming itself into a military government. Under the law of occupation, a military government is responsible for temporarily administering the laws of the occupied State, the Hawaiian Kingdom, until a peace treaty has been agreed upon between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States. The peace treaty will bring the occupation to an end. In the meantime, a military government will enforce the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it is only through effective control of territory that it can enforce Hawaiian laws.
On January 17, 1893, the insurgents, calling themselves the executive and advisory councils under the armed protection of U.S. Marines, only replaced the Queen, her Cabinet of 4 Ministers, and the Marshal. Everyone in the executive and judicial branches of government were told to stay in place and sign oaths of allegiance to the new regime. The civilian government name was changed from the Hawaiian Kingdom Government to the provisional government. On July 4, 1894, the name was changed to the Republic of Hawai‘i.
After the United States unlawfully annexed the Hawaiian Islands in 1898, the name of the government was changed to the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900. In 1959, the name was again changed to the State of Hawai‘i. The State of Hawai‘i is the civilian government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Under international law, this civilian government’s executive and judicial branches of government continue with the exception of the legislative branch. Major General Hara, who would be called the Military Governor, only replaces civilian Governor Josh Green. Major General Hara is the highest Army general officer in the State of Hawai‘i command structure.
According to the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, a duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the Service. In this case, MG Hara’s duty is imposed upon him by Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, and U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5000.1, which states it is the function of the Army in occupied territories abroad to provide for the establishment of a military government pending transfer of this responsibility to the Hawaiian Kingdom Government when the occupation comes to an end. The Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government explains this in full.
On May 29, 2024, these 37 Police Officers mailed a letter to Major General Hara, Deputy Adjutant General Brigadier General Stephen Logan, and Staff Judge Advocate Lloyd Phelps explaining why they have taken this position. The letter stated:
We hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. We are writing to you on behalf of a deeply concerned group of Active and Retired law enforcement officers throughout the Hawaiian Islands, about the current governance of Hawaii and its impact on the vested rights of Hawaiian subjects under Hawaiian Law.
As you are well aware, the historical transition of Hawai‘i from a sovereign kingdom to a U.S. state is fraught with significant legal and ethical issues. The overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 and its subsequent annexation by the United States in 1898 continue to be an illegal act. The Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as a Sovereign State by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, in Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom (https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/35/).
At the center of the dispute, as stated on the PCA’s website on the Larsen case, was the unlawful imposition of American laws over Lance Larsen, a Hawaiian subject, that led to an unfair trial and incarceration. It was a police officer, who believed that Hawai‘i was a part of the United States and that he was carrying out his lawful duties, that cited Mr. Larsen, which led to his incarceration. That police officer now knows otherwise and so do we. This is not the United States but rather the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State under international law.
It is deeply troubling that the State of Hawaii has not been transitioned into a military government as mandated by international law. This failure of transition places current police officers on duty that they may be held accountable for unlawfully enforcing American laws. This very issue was brought to the attention of the Maui County Corporation Counsel by Maui Police Chief John Pelletier in 2022. In their request to Chief Pelletier, which is attached, Detective Kamuela Mawae and Patrol Officer Scott McCalister, stated:
We are humbly requesting that either Chief John Pelletier or Deputy Chief Charles Hank III formally request legal services from Corporation Counsel to conduct a legal analysis of Hawai‘i’s current political status considering International Law and to assure us, and the rest of the Police Officers throughout the State of Hawai‘i, that we are not violating International Law by enforcing U.S. domestic laws within what the federal lawsuit calls the Hawaiian Kingdom that continues to exist as a nation state under international law despite its government being overthrown by the United States on 01/17/1893.
Police Chief Pelletier did make a formal request to Corporation Counsel, but they did not act upon the request, which did not settle the issue and the possible liability that Police Officers face.
Your failure to initiate such a transition may be construed as a violation of the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Convention, which outlines the obligations of occupying powers. Also, your actions, or lack thereof, deprive Hawaiian subjects of the protections and rights they are entitled to under Hawaiian Kingdom laws and international humanitarian law. According to the Geneva Convention, occupying powers are obligated to respect the laws in force in the occupied territory and protect the rights of its inhabitants. Failure to comply with these obligations constitutes a serious violation and can result in accountability for war crimes for individuals in positions of authority.
The absence of a military government perpetuates an unlawful governance structure that has deprived the rights of Hawaiian subjects which is now at 131 years. The unique status of these rights is explained at this blog article on the Council of Regency’s weblog titled “It’s About Law—Native Hawaiian Rights are at a Critical Point for the State of Hawai‘i to Comply with the Law of Occupation” (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/native-hawaiians-are-at-a-critical-point-for-the-state-of-hawaii-to-comply-with-the-law-of-occupation/). It is imperative that steps be taken to rectify these historical injustices and ensure the protection of the vested rights of Hawaiian subjects.
We also acknowledge that the Council of Regency is our government that was lawfully established under extraordinary circumstances, and we support its effort to bring compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i, on behalf of the United States, which will eventually bring the American occupation to a close. When this happens, our Legislative Assembly will be brought into session so that Hawaiian subjects can elect a Regency of our choosing. The Council of Regency is currently operating in an acting capacity that is allowed under Hawaiian law.
We urge you to work with the Council of Regency in making sure this transition is not only lawful but is done for the benefit of all Hawaiian subjects. Please consider the gravity of this situation and take immediate action to establish a military government in Hawaii. Such a measure would align with international law and demonstrate a commitment to justice, fairness, and the recognition of the rights of Native Hawaiians. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. We look forward to your prompt response and to any actions you will take to address these concerns.
The 37 names and ranks of Police Officers, that included both active and retired, is a very impressive list. The names are listed in order of rank, which includes a Police Chief, an Assistant Chief, a Deputy Chief, 2 Captains, 5 Lieutenants, 5 Detectives, 10 Sergeants, and 12 Officers. Alika Desha, a retired Honolulu Police Department Officer, signed the letter on behalf of the 36 named Police Officers. Desha was asked why did they send their letter to Major General Hara. He responded:
Having learned the truth about the illegal overthrow of Hawai‘i’s government and the continued illegal occupation of the United States in Hawai‘i has a profound impact on our Law Enforcement Officers enforcing US laws. Trying to get clarity with Corp Council on liability issues Officers face by enforcing laws of an invading country is like riding on a never ending merry go round.
There is a code of ethics that we as police officers understand that assist in guiding us throughout our life. Part of it says that it is our fundamental duty to serve mankind; to protect the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression or intimidation. An invading country thought that the truth can be hidden with cover-ups and decorations. But as time goes by, what is true is revealed, and what is fake fades away.
As Law Enforcement Officers we will continue to share the truth and fight the wrong.
The Police Departments trace their origin to May 4, 1847, when King Kamehameha III signed into law a Joint Resolution to amend “Act to Organize the Executive Departments of the of the Hawaiian Islands.” The highest ranking officer was the Marshal, who was also the Sheriff for the Island of O‘ahu. Upon the Marshal’s recommendation, the Governors of Hawai‘i Island, Maui, and Kaua‘i would appoint Sheriffs. Under the Sheriffs, the cadre of officers were called Constables.
CLARIFICATION: There is no Showdown between the U.S. Congress and Major General Hara’s Duty to Transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government
The purpose of this blog of the Council of Regency is to provide accurate information to inform the people of Hawai‘i about the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the steps the Council of Regency are taking to eventually bring the American occupation to an end. Misinformation will not be tolerated, especially on matters that have severe consequences for the population that resides within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
It has been asserted, as a comment on the recent blog article “It’s About Law—Native Hawaiian Rights are at a Critical Point for the State of Hawai‘i to Comply with the Law of Occupation,” that there is now a showdown between U.S. Army Major General Kenneth Hara’s duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government and the plenary power of the U.S. Congress. There exists no such thing.
The Congress is the legislative branch of the Government of the United States whose authority includes the enactment of laws and providing oversight of the executive branch. The term plenary power refers to the complete or absolute authority, which is frequently used to describe the commerce power of the Congress. Complete or absolute authority means that only the Congress has this power of enacting commercial laws.
Of the three branches of the U.S. Government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, only the executive branch can exercise its authority outside of U.S. territory through the Department of State and the Department of Defense. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (1936), U.S. Supreme Court explained:
Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.
On the subject of the limits of the Congress to enact laws, whether commercial laws or not, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Curtiss-Wright case, also stated:
Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens (see American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 213 U. S. 356), and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.
Because the Hawaiian Kingdom is foreign territory and cannot exist within the territory of the United States, Major General Hara’s duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government stem from him being a part of the executive branch, the U.S. Department of Defense. The presence of the United States can only be allowed under the strict guidelines and rules of the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, and not the plenary power of the Congress. The transformation into a military government will bring the United States into compliance with “treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.”
It’s About Law—Native Hawaiian Rights are at a Critical Point for the State of Hawai‘i to Comply with the Law of Occupation
On April 26, 2024, the Minister of the Interior published a memorandum addressing the effects of an illegal occupation by the United States since January 17, 1893, the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government on February 28, 1997, the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s recognition of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its government on November 8, 1999, exposure of the continuity of Hawaiian Kingdom Statehood since 2001, transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government, and the continuity of rights of Hawaiian subjects under Hawaiian Kingdom laws to land, healthcare, and fishing.
The Minister of the Interior’s purpose was to have the memorandum disseminated amongst the national population of the Hawaiian Kingdom so that they know certain rights they have under Hawaiian Kingdom law and to know the circumstances by which these rights can be exercised for their benefit. The exercising of these rights to land, healthcare, and fishing, would greatly enhance their lives and their families in Hawai‘i. Under the law of occupation, it is the responsibility of a Military Government that would ensure these rights can be exercised.
Now at 131 years of an illegal and prolonged occupation, the Hawaiian Kingdom is finally at the stage of actionable compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i, on behalf of the United States, setting the course to bring the American occupation to an end. This process begins when Army Major General Kenneth Hara, Director of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, proclaims that the State of Hawai‘i has been transformed into a Military Government so that it will begin to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom that existed prior to the occupation on January 17, 1893, and the provisional laws proclaimed by the Council of Regency in 2014, so that these nineteenth century laws can be brought up to date. The proclamation stated:
And, We do hereby proclaim that from the date of this proclamation all laws that have emanated from an unlawful legislature since the insurrection began on July 6, 1887 to the present, to include United States legislation, shall be the provisional laws of the Realm subject to ratification by the Legislative Assembly of the Hawaiian Kingdom once assembled, with the express proviso that these provisional laws do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to July 6, 1887, the international laws of occupation and international humanitarian law.
On August 1, 2023, the Minister of the Interior published a memorandum that provides the formula for determining which laws of the United States, State of Hawai‘i, and Counties, presently being imposed in the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, shall be considered the provisional laws.
Why is this important for Native Hawaiians who comprise the majority of the national population of the Hawaiian Kingdom called Hawaiian subjects? Because the greatest dilemma facing Native Hawaiians today is not having a home and not having adequate health care. According to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care.”
The cost of living under American control has placed Hawai‘i as the most expensive place in the United States to live. According to the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center in 2023, Hawai‘i has the highest cost of living in the United States with an index of 180.3. The national average index was at 100. The cost of living is calculated by combining the cost for groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, and health care. This reality forced Native Hawaiians to move to America, where they outnumber the population of Native Hawaiians in Hawai‘i. The U.S. Census report indicated that in 2020, there were a total of 680,442 Native Hawaiians, with 47 percent residing in Hawai‘i, and 53 percent residing in the United States.
The average cost of a home in Hawai‘i is $820,000.00, and health care insurance for a family of 4 is approximately at $1,500 a month. Under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, Native Hawaiians, who are called aboriginal Hawaiian subjects under Hawaiian law, are the recipients of free health care at Queen’s Hospital and at its outlets across the islands today. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are also able to acquire up to 50 acres of public lands at $20.00 per acre under the 1850 Kuleana Act, which has not been repealed. With the current rate of construction costs, which includes building material and labor, an aboriginal Hawaiian subject can build a 3 bedroom 1 bath home for $100,000.00, which is far less than the average cost of a home today.
Hawaiian Kingdom laws also provide for fishing rights that extend out to the first reef or where there is no reef, out to 1 mile, exclusively for all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens of the land divisions called ahupua‘a or ‘ili, such as the ahupua‘a of Waimanalo and the ‘ili of Kuli‘ou‘ou. This is an important Hawaiian law because, since the American presence, anyone can access and deplete these resources from the exclusive rights of the residents of the ahupua‘a or ‘ili.
From the first reef or from the one nautical mile marker point out to twelve nautical miles, all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens have exclusive access to economic activity, such as access to underwater resources and fishing. Once the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is acceded to by the Council of Regency, this exclusive access to economic activity will extend out to 200 miles called the Exclusive Economic Zone.
The 2024-2025 State of Hawai‘i $19.2 billion budget, gives MG Hara the resources to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government by reallocating monies in line with returning to the status quo ante of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its institutions as they were prior to the American occupation. In particular, MG Hara can immediately allocate monies to the Queen’s Hospital so that Native Hawaiians have access to free healthcare that has been secured under Hawaiian Kingdom law.
Since the restoration of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1997, the Council of Regency has been on a track of compelling the United States and the State of Hawai‘i to comply with the international law of occupation. Its three-phase strategic plan was framed in order to achieve this objective.
Phase I—verification of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a subject of international law. Phase II—exposure of Hawaiian Statehood within the framework of international law and the laws of occupation as it affects the realm of politics and economics at both the international and domestic levels. Phase III—restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a subject of international law. Phase III occurs when the American occupation comes to an end by a treaty of peace.
Critical to this strategy was to have a reputable international body recognize the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law, which is phase 1. Phase 1 was not seeking international recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a new State because recognition was already afforded in the nineteenth century. Rather, phase 1 was seeking the recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s “continuity” as a State and its laws. The Regency knew that international law clearly provided for the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence despite the illegal overthrow of its Government by the United States on January 17, 1893. What was needed, however, was to have an international body conclude, by an application of relevant international laws, that the Hawaiian State indeed “continues” to exist. Phase 1 would be a very complex legal situation to play out.
Because the State under international law is a legal entity, it needs a government to speak on its behalf no different than how a business corporation is a legal entity that needs a CEO and a Board of Directors to speak on its behalf. Without a physical body, the legal entity is silent but still legally exists. So, to get this matter before an international body, the Hawaiian Government had to first be in place in order to speak for the Hawaiian State. Another aspect to this, would be the legal competency for the Regency to be the lawful Government representing the Hawaiian State. This raises two issues, first the legal competency for the Regency to be established in accordance with Hawaiian Kingdom laws, and, second, whether the Regency needed diplomatic recognition to be the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Under international law, once recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State was achieved in the nineteenth century, it was also the recognition of its government being a constitutional monarchy. Any successor Head of State since the original recognition of King Kamehameha III, as the Head of State, would not require diplomatic recognition so long as the successor became the Head of State in accordance with the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The legal doctrines of recognition of new governments only arise “with extra-legal changes in government” of an existing State. Successors to King Kamehameha III were not established through “extra-legal changes,” but rather under the constitution and laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, “Where a new administration succeeds to power in accordance with a state’s constitutional processes, no issue of recognition or acceptance arises; continued recognition is assumed.”
Under Hawaiian law, the Council of Regency serves in the absence of the Executive Monarch. While the last Executive Monarch was Queen Lili‘uokalani, who died on November 11, 1917, the office of the Executive Monarch remained vacant under Hawaiian constitutional law. There was no legal requirement for the Council of Regency, being the successor in office to Queen Lili‘uokalani under Hawaiian constitutional law, to obtain recognition from the United States to be the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The United States’ recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State on July 6, 1844, was also a recognition of its government—a constitutional monarchy. Successors in office to King Kamehameha III, who at the time of international recognition was King of the Hawaiian Kingdom, did not require diplomatic recognition. These successors included King Kamehameha IV in 1854, King Kamehameha V in 1863, King Lunalilo in 1873, King Kalākaua in 1874, Queen Lili‘uokalani in 1891, and the Council of Regency in 1997.
If the successor arose out of a revolution, which comes about through “extra-legal changes in government,” it would need diplomatic recognition as the de facto government that replaced the previous form of government. This is why the insurgency, calling itself the provisional government, needed diplomatic recognition as a de facto government by resident U.S. Minister John Stevens on January 17, 1893, to have any semblance of legality under international law. President Grover Cleveland, after investigating the overthrow, told the Congress, by message, on December 18, 1893:
When our Minister recognized the provisional government the only basis upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of Safety had…declared it to exist. It was neither a government de facto [in fact] nor de jure [in law]. That it was not in such possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to recognition.
President Cleveland also undermined the status of the provisional government when he told the Congress, “the Government of the Queen…was undisputed and both the de facto and the de jure government.” In other words, they were not a successful revolution, and that the lawful government was the Hawaiian Kingdom as a constitutional monarchy. Instead, they were an insurgency and a puppet creation by the United States. On this note, the President told the Congress that the “provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.”
With the government in place since 1997, the legal complexities to achieve phase I were set and it played out at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) in The Hague, Netherlands. The PCA was established in 1899 by the United States and twenty-five other countries as an intergovernmental organization that provides a variety of dispute resolution services to the international community. In 1907, the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes was superseded by the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Presently, there are currently 122 countries that became contracting States to either the 1899 or the 1907 Conventions, which includes the United States.
On November 8, 1999, a dispute between Lance Paul Larsen, a Hawaiian subject, and the Hawaiian Kingdom was submitted to the PCA for settlement, which came to be known as Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. Larsen was alleging that the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by its Council of Regency, should be liable for allowing the unlawful imposition of American laws. He alleged that these laws denied him a fair trial, which led to his incarceration.
Before the PCA could establish an arbitration tribunal to resolve the dispute, it had to verify that the Hawaiian Kingdom “continues” to exist as a State under international law and that its government is the Council of Regency. It did, and on June 9, 2000, the PCA established the arbitration tribunal comprised of three arbitrators. With phase 1 completed, phase 2 was initiated, which began the exposure of Hawaiian Statehood during oral hearings at the PCA on December, 7, 8, and 11, 2000.
Phase 2 was continued at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, where for the past twenty-four years research, publications, and classroom instructions have begun to normalize the circumstance of the American occupation and the role of how the law of occupation will bring the American occupation to a close. This exposure phase will trigger compliance to the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i, but not the United States federal government.
The law of occupation obligates the entity of the occupying State, who is in effective control of a majority of the territory of the occupying State, to establish a military government to begin to administer the laws of the occupied State. When the United States occupied Japan from 1945 to 1952, General Douglas MacArthur served as the Military Governor overseeing the Japanese civilian government. The function of a military government is to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until there is a treaty of peace where the occupation will come to an end. When the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan came into force on April 28, 1952, the United States occupation of Japan came to an end.
In 1893, the United States did not establish a military government and it allowed their puppet governments, called the provisional government who later changed its name to the Republic of Hawai‘i on July 4, 1894, to impose its will on the population. After illegally annexing the Hawaiian Islands on July 7, 1898, the United States unlawfully imposed its own laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom through its puppets the Territory of Hawai‘i from 1900 to 1959, and the State of Hawai‘i from 1959 to the present. Under international law, all acts done by the United States are void and invalid because the United States does not have sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands.
President Cleveland also stated to the Congress that the overthrow of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was directly tied to an incident of war. He stated that by “an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown.” The overthrow of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom did not affect the sovereignty and legal order of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 regulates the actions taken by U.S. troops during the military occupation of a foreign State. Paragraph 358 states:
Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress.
Only the Hawaiian Kingdom has sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands and not the United States. International law does not allow two sovereignties to exist within one and the same State. In the S.S. Lotus case, which was a dispute between France and Turkey, the Permanent Court of International Justice explained:
Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention (treaty).
The permissive rule under international law that allows one State to exercise authority over the territory of another State is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, that mandates the occupant to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until there is a treaty of peace. For the past 131 years, there has been no permissive rule of international law that allows the United States to exercise any authority in the Hawaiian Kingdom. Instead, it imposed its will over the population of the Hawaiian Kingdom by unlawfully imposing its laws, which was at the center of the Larsen case. The PCA described the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration case on its website as:
Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
To bring compliance with the law of occupation and to allow the presence of the United States, by virtue of the permissive rule embodied in the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Convention, the State of Hawai‘i must be transformed into a Military Government. The determining factor as to what entity of the United States has the duty to become a Military Government is the “effectiveness” test. Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations clearly states, “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” In other words, an entity cannot enforce the laws of the occupied State without being in effective control of the territory of the occupied State.
In this situation, it is the State of Hawai‘i and not the federal government that is in effective control of the majority of Hawaiian Kingdom territory, where the latter is only in effective control of less then 500 square miles while the former is in effective control of 10,931 square miles.
The officer of the State of Hawai‘i that has the duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government is the Director of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense U.S. Army Major General Kenneth Hara. Governor Josh Green is a civilian, and he has no direct link to the United States Department of Defense whose Directive no. 5100.01 explicitly states that one of the functions of the Army in “[occupied] territories abroad [is to] provide for the establishment of a military government pending transfer of this responsibility to other authority.”
Like General MacArthur, MG Hara would serve as the Military Governor. His actions, though, are constrained by international law and the law of occupation. International law also provides for the sharing of authority between the Military Governor and the Council of Regency. MG Hara does not have absolute authority. On this topic of shared authority, Professor Federico Lenzerini, in his legal opinion, explains:
Despite the fact that the occupation inherently configures as a situation unilaterally imposed by the occupying power—any kind of consent of the ousted government being totally absent—there still is some space for “cooperation” between the occupying and the occupied government—in the specific case of Hawai’i between the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties and the Council of Regency. Before trying to specify the characteristics of such a cooperation, it is however important to reiterate that, under international humanitarian law, the last word concerning any acts relating to the administration of the occupied territory is with the occupying power. In other words, “occupation law would allow for a vertical, but not a horizontal, sharing of authority […] [in the sense that] this power sharing should not affect the ultimate authority of the occupier over the occupied territory”. This vertical sharing of authority would reflect “the hierarchical relationship between the occupying power and the local authorities, the former maintaining a form of control over the latter through a top-down approach in the allocation of responsibilities”.
The Council of Regency has provided MG Hara an Operational Plan, with essential and implied tasks, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government.
While the State of Hawai‘i has yet to transform itself into a Military Government and proclaim the provisional laws proclaimed by the Council of Regency, Hawaiian Kingdom laws as they were prior to January 17, 1893, continue to exist. Because of phase 2 there is a growing awareness among Native Hawaiians on not only the circumstances of the American occupation but also the denial of their rights secured under Hawaiian Kingdom law, which the American presence took away from them and their families.
MG Hara’s delay in proclaiming the establishment of the Military Government of Hawai‘i has now a direct impact on the rights of Native Hawaiian families and their ability to exercise and benefit from these rights under Hawaiian Kingdom law. According to international law, the enforcement of the law of occupation is with MG Hara, but the pressure placed upon MG Hara to enforce Hawaiian Kingdom laws are with Native Hawaiians whose rights are being denied by his inaction. In other words, MG Hara’s reluctance to carry out his duty can now be directly tied to Native Hawaiians lack of a home and adequate healthcare.