Today on CNN’s coverage of the “Crisis in Ukraine” at 3:31pm (Eastern Time), news anchor Brooke Baldwin made a very interesting comment. Baldwin stated, “Ukrainian officials believe 30,000 Russian troops are now there in that small peninsula about the size of Hawai‘i.” This is a very interesting comparison by CNN to make reference to Hawai‘i with the Crimean conflict, especially when it would appear that CNN has no knowledge, or do they, of Hawai‘i’s direct link to Crimea regarding Hawaiian neutrality and the correlation between the argument of Russian intervention and United States intervention in the Hawaiian Kingdom. CNN also reported that Russia warns U.S. that threatened sanctions will “boomerang.”

What is at the center of the Ukrainian crisis is “intervention,” and whether or not international law has been violated. The United States says yes, but Russia says no. The international law on intervention is clearly prohibitive, but there are exceptions according to Oppenheim, International Law, vol. 1, (7^th ed. 1948), p. 274. The two exceptions that appear to be in line with the Crimean conflict are, first, where restrictions on a treaty are not being complied with, and, second, the rights of citizens of the intervening State are being threatened.

Restrictive Treaty

The treaty that the United States consistently makes reference to as to why Russian actions in the Crimea is a violation of international law is the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and Russia. At the ceremonies in Kiev, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, declared, “We respect and honor the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” A State’s territorial integrity, however, is protected by international law and not just by a treaty. International law provides that “the territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable.” This treaty does not appear to be President Vladimir Putin’s justification for Russian action in the Crimea. Instead, Putin appears to refer to the treaty that centers on the Russian Naval Base at Sevastopol.

In the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia negotiated the fate of its military bases that were located outside of Russian territory. Russia’s Naval Base at Sevastopol in Crimea dates back to 1783 when the Russian Prince Grigory Potemkin founded the port city. In 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed a Partition Treaty whereby Russia would maintain its naval base after purchasing 81.7% of Ukraine’s naval ships for $526.5 million dollars as reported by RT News. This treaty was ratified in 1999 by both governments. The treaty allows the Russian Black Sea Fleet to remain in Crimea until 2042. Russia claims that the new government in Kiev is not legitimate and its anti-Russian rhetoric a threat to its Naval Base at Sevastopol and the maintenance of the 1997 Partition Treaty. According to international law, this would be a justification for intervention and it would appear that Putin is correct in that Russia is complying with international law.

At this stage, Russia has not deployed its troops into Ukraine even though the Russian Parliament authorized Putin the authority to do so. What has taken place in Crimea is not an invasion, but rather actions taken by Russian troops that were already stationed in Crimea at its Naval Base in Sevastopol. The 1997 Partition Treaty allows for 25,000 Russian troops, 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes on Crimean territory. It appears that Russia has used its military force in Crimea to ensure that its Naval Base will not be seized. Although, these troops did not have any Russian insignia in order to identify a chain of command, they are Russian citizens who wore military garb. Putin has stated that, “Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is ‘citizens’ defense groups,’ not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.” If Putin ordered the Russian Forces in Crimea to seize Ukrainian infrastructure and military facilities, it would be intervention, but by stating they are citizens defense groups, it is a clever way to sidestep intervention. But intervention would be justified if Russia feels that its 1997 Partition Treaty is being threatened, which would allow Russia to preemptively neutralize Ukrainian military posts in Crimea before they can attack the naval base.

Protection of Citizens

As reported by Aljazeera, “Unhappy with the outcome of the protests in the capital and alarmed at the rise of Ukrainian nationalist groups in Kiev, many ethnic Russians in Crimea, who make up almost 60 percent of the population here, have been protesting and calling for Russia to come to their aid—with some even going as far as demanding their neighbor immediately absorb the territory.” International law does not allow for citizens to have the authority to call for intervention, but the intervening State may feel it has a duty to intervene and will unilaterally do so. It is, however, a point of contention as to the extent of the threat to ethnic Russians, or if there is any threat at all to warrant Russian intervention.

What is lacking in the Crimean conflict is an impartial investigation into the crisis where legally relevant facts could be gathered and conclusions made in accordance with international law. For the Hawaiian crisis in 1893, President Benjamin Harrison refused to do an investigation that was called for by Queen Lili‘uokalani, because he was intent on annexing the Hawaiian Kingdom for military purposes. It was his successor in office, Grover Cleveland, that did the investigation in accordance with international law. In his message to Congress, Cleveland stated,

“The law of nations is founded upon reason and justice, and the rules of conduct governing individual relations between citizens or subjects of a civilized state are equally applicable as between enlightened nations. The considerations that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace. A man of true honor protects the unwritten word which binds his conscience more scrupulously, if possible, than he does the bond a breach of which subjects him to legal liabilities; and the United States in aiming to maintain itself as one of the most enlightened of nations would do its citizens gross injustice if it applied to its international relations any other than a high standard of honor and morality. On that ground the United States can not properly be put in the position of countenancing a wrong after its commission any more than in that of consenting to it in advance. On that ground it can not allow itself to refuse to redress an injury inflicted through an abuse of power by officers clothed with its authority and wearing its uniform; and on the same ground, if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States can not fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation.”

“These principles apply to the present case with irresistible force when the special conditions of the Queen’s surrender of her sovereignty are recalled. She surrendered not to the provisional government, but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such time as the facts could be considered by the United States. Furthermore, the provisional government acquiesced in her surrender in that manner and on those terms, not only by tacit consent, but through the positive acts of some members of that government who urged her peaceable submission, not merely to avoid bloodshed, but because she could place implicit reliance upon the justice of the United States, and that the whole subject would be finally considered at Washington.”

According to international law there is a recognized legal maxim, ex injuria jus non oritur, whereby a State cannot claim valid legal results from an illegal act committed against another State. The International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on Namibia (June 21, 1971), explained, “the principle ex injuria jus non oritur dictates that acts which are contrary to international law cannot become a source of legal acts for the wrongdoer… To grant recognition to illegal acts or situation will tend to perpetuate it and be benefitial to the state which has acted illegally.”

On March 4, 2014, CNN covered a speech by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Kiev, Ukraine. Kerry stated, “They would have you believe that ethnic Russians and Russian bases are threatened. They would have you believe the Kiev was trying to destabilize Crimea or that Russian actions were legal or legitimate because Crimean leaders invited intervention. And as everybody knows the soldiers in Crimea, at the instruction of their government, had stood their ground, had never fired a shot, never issued one provocation.”

Kerry accused Russia of doing exactly what the United States did to the Hawaiian Kingdom in January 1893. Unlike the Crimean dispute, however, the Hawaiian dispute was settled by U.S. President Grover Cleveland after he initiated an investigation into the overthrow of the Hawaiian government at the request of Queen Lili‘uokalani, Hawaiian Head of State, in March 1893. At the center of the investigation were the actions taken by U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary John Stevens and the commander of U.S. troops aboard the U.S.S. Boston anchored in Honolulu Harbor, Captain Gilbert Wiltse. The intervention occurred during President Benjamin Harrison’s administration. The President appointed James Blount as Special Commissioner who submitted reports between April and July 1893 to U.S. Secretary of State Walter Gresham. The investigation was concluded by Gresham on October 18, 1893. President Cleveland notified the Congress of the conclusion of the investigation by presidential message on December 18, 1893, while negotiations were still taking place with the Queen in Honolulu.

The investigation determined that the United States unlawfully intervened in the internal affairs of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and that its diplomat and troops were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Gresham recommended to President Cleveland that the Hawaiian government must be restored and compensation must be provided. This prompted executive mediation between President Cleveland and Queen Lili‘uokalani to settle the dispute and by exchange of notes an executive agreement, called the “Agreement of Restoration,” was concluded whereby the President committed to the restoration of the Hawaiian government and the Queen, thereafter, to grant amnesty to the insurgents. The President did not carry out the international agreement because of political wrangling in the Congress, and President Cleveland’s successor, William McKinley, unilaterally seized the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War on August 12, 1898. Hawai‘i has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation ever since.

Here follows Gresham’s report to President Cleveland regarding U.S. intervention in Hawai‘i that took place under President Benjamin Harrison’s administration.

Department of State,
Washington, October 18, 1893

The President:

The full and impartial reports submitted by the Hon. James H. Blount, your special commissioner to the Hawaiian Islands, established the following facts:

Queen Liliuokalani announced her intention on Saturday, January 14, 1893, to proclaim a new constitution, but the opposition of her ministers and other induced her to speedily change her purpose and make public announcement of that fact.

At a meeting in Honolulu, late on the afternoon of that day, a so-called committee of public safety, consisting of thirteen men, being all or nearly all who were present, was appointed “to consider the situation and devise ways and means for the maintenance of the public peace and the protection of life and property,” and at a meeting of this committee on the 15^th, or the forenoon of the 16^th of January, it was resolved amongst other things that a provisional government be created “to exist until terms of union with the United States of America have been negotiated and agreed upon.” At a mass meeting which assembled at 2 p.m. on the last named day, the Queen and her supporters were condemned and denounced, and the committee was continued and all its act approved.

Later the same afternoon the committee addressed a letter to John L. Stevens, the American minister at Honolulu, stating that the lives and property of the people were in peril and appealing to him and the United States forces at his command for assistance. This communication concluded “we are unable to protect ourselves without aid, and therefore hope for the protection of the United States forces.”  On receipt of this letter Mr. Stevens requested Capt. Wiltse, commander of the U.S.S. Boston, to land a force “for the protection of the United States legation, United States consulate, and to secure the safety of American life and property.” The well armed troops, accompanied by two gatling guns, were promptly landed and marched through the quiet streets of Honolulu to a public hall, previously secured by Mr. Stevens for their accommodation. This hall was just across the street form the government building, and in plain view of the Queen’s palace.  The reason for thus locating the military will presently appear. The governor of the Island immediately addressed to Mr. Stevens a communication protesting against the act as an unwarranted invasion of Hawaiian soil and reminding him that the proper authorities had never denied permission to the naval forces of the United States to land for drill or any other proper purpose.

About the same time the Queen’s minister of foreign affairs sent a note to Mr. Stevens asking why the troops had been landed and informing him that the proper authorities were able and willing to afford full protection to the American legation and all American interests in Honolulu. Only evasive replies were sent to these communications.

While there were no manifestations of excitement or alarm in the city, and the people were ignorant of the contemplated movements, the committee entered the Government building, after first ascertaining that it was unguarded, and read a proclamation declaring that the existing Government was overthrown and a Provisional Government established in its place, “to exist until terms of union with the United States of America have been negotiated and agreed upon.” No audience was present when the proclamation was read, but during the reading 40 to 50 men, some of them indifferently armed, entered the room. The executive and advisory councils mentioned in the proclamation at once addressed a communication to Mr. Stevens, informing him that the monarchy had been abrogated and a provisional government established. This communication concluded:

Such Provisional Government has been proclaimed, is now in possession of the Government departmental buildings, the archives, and the treasury, and is in control of the city.  We hereby request that you will, on behalf of the United States, recognize it as the existing de facto Government of the Hawaiian Islands and afford to it the moral support of your Government, and, if necessary, the support of American troops to assist in preserving the public peace.

On receipt of this communication, Mr. Stevens immediately recognized the new Government, and, in a letter addressed to Sanford B. Dole, its President, informed him that he had done so.  Mr. Dole replied:

Government Building,
Honolulu, January 17, 1893

Sir:  I acknowledge receipt of your valued communication of this day, recognizing the Hawaiian Provisional Government, and express deep appreciation of the same.

We have conferred with the ministers of the late Government, and have made demand upon the marshal to surrender the station house.  We are not actually yet in possession of the station house, but as night is approaching and our forces may be insufficient to maintain order, we request the immediate support of the United States forces, and would request that the commander of the United States forces take command of our military forces, so that they may act together for the protection of the city.

Respectfully, yours,

Sanford B. Dole,
Chaiman Executive Council.

His Excellency John L. Stevens,
United States Minister Resident.

Note of Mr. Stevens at the end of the above communication.

“The above request not complied with.”
                                                Stevens.

The station house was occupied by a well armed force, under the command of a resolute capable, officer. The same afternoon the Queen, her ministers, representatives of the Provisional Government, and other held a conference at the palace.  Refusing to recognize the new authority or surrender to it, she was informed that the Provisional Government had the support of the American minister, and, if necessary, would be maintained by the military force of the United States then present; that any demonstration on her part would precipitate a conflict with that force; that she could not, with hope of success, engage in war with the United States, and that resistance would result in a useless sacrifice of life. Mr. Damon, one of the chief leader of the movement, and afterwards vice-president of the Provisional Government, informed the Queen that she could surrender under protest and her case would be considered later at Washington. Believing that, under the circumstances, submission was a duty, and that her case would be fairly considered by the President of the United States, the Queen finally yielded and sent to the Provisional Government the paper, which reads:

“I, Lili‘uokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a provisional government of and for this Kingdom.

That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the provisional government.

Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.”

When this paper was prepared at the conclusion of the conference, and signed by the Queen and her ministers, a number of persons, including one or more representatives of the Provisional Government, who were still present and understood its contents, by their silence, at least, acquiesced in its statements, and, when it was carried to President Dole, he indorsed upon it, “Received from the hands of the late cabinet this 17^th day of January, 1893,” without challenging the truth of any of its assertions.  Indeed, it was not claimed on the 17^th day of January, or for some time thereafter, by any of the designated officers of the Provisional Government or any annexationist that the Queen surrendered otherwise than as stated in her protest.

In his dispatch to Mr. Foster of January 18, describing the so-called revolution, Mr. Stevens says:

The committee of public safety forthwith took possession of the Government building, archives, and treasury, and installed the Provisional Government at the head of the respective departments.  This being an accomplished fact, I promptly recognized the Provisional Government as the de facto government of the Hawaiian Islands.

In Secretary Foster’s communication of February 15 to the President, laying before him the treaty of annexation, with the view to obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate thereto, he says:

At the time the Provisional Government took possession of the Government building no troops or officers of the United States were present or took any part whatever in the proceedings.  No public recognition was accorded to the Provisional Government by the United States minister until after the Queen’s abdication, and when they were in effective possession of the Government building, the archives, the treasury, the barracks, the police station, and all the potential machinery of the Government.

Similar language is found in an official letter addressed to Secretary Foster on February 3 by the special commissioners sent to Washington by the Provisional Government to negotiate a treaty of annexation.

These statements are utterly at variance with the evidence, documentary and oral, contained in Mr. Blount’s reports. They are contradicted by declarations and letters of President Dole and other annexationists and by Mr. Stevens’s own verbal admissions to Mr. Blount. The Provisional Government was recognized when it had little other than a paper existence, and when the legitimate government was in full possession and control of the palace, the barracks, and the police station. Mr. Stevens’s well known hostility and the threatening presence of the force landed from the Boston was all that could then have excited serious apprehension in the minds of the Queen, her officers, and loyal supporters.

It is fair to say that Secretary Foster’s statements were based upon information which he had received from Mr. Stevens and the special commissioners, but I am unable to see that they were deceived. The troops were landed, not to protect American life and property, but to aid in overthrowing the existing government. Their very presence implied coercive measures against it.

In a statement given to Mr. Blount, by Admiral Skerret, the ranking naval officer at Honolulu, he says:

“If the troops were landed simply to protect American citizens and interests, they were badly stationed in Arion Hall, but if the intention was to aid the Provisional Government they were wisely stationed.”

This hall was so situated that the troops in it easily commanded the Government building, and the proclamation was real under the protection of American guns.  At an early stage of the movement, if not at the beginning, Mr. Stevens promised the annexationists that as soon as they obtained possession of the Government building and there read a proclamation of the character above referred to, he would at once recognize them as a de facto government, and support them by landing a force from our war ship then in the harbor, and he kept that promise.  This assurance was the inspiration on the movement, and without it the annexationists would not have exposed themselves to the consequences of failure.  They relied upon no military force of their own, for they had none worthy of the name.  The Provisional Government was established by the action of the American minister and the presence of the troops landed from the Boston, and its continued existence is due to the belief of the Hawaiians that if they made an effort to overthrow it, they would encounter the armed forces of the United States.

The earnest appeals to the American minister for military protection by the officers of that Government, after it had been recognized, show the utter absurdity of the claim that it was established by a successful revolution of the people of the Islands. Those appeals were a confession by the men who made them of their weakness and timidity. Courageous men, conscious of their strength and the justice of their cause, do not thus act.  It is not now claimed that a majority of the people, having the right to vote under the constitution of 1887, ever favored the existing authority or annexation to this or any other country. They earnestly desire that the government of their choice shall be restored and its independence respected.

Mr. Blount states that while at Honolulu he did not meet a single annexationist who expressed willingness to submit the question to a vote of the people, nor did he talk with one on that subject who did not insist that if the Islands were annexed suffrage should be so restricted as to give complete control to foreigners or whites. Representative annexationists have repeatedly made similar statements to the undersigned.

The Government of Hawaii surrendered its authority under a threat of war, until such time only as the Government of the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, should reinstate the constitutional sovereign, and the Provisional Government was created “to exist until terms of union with the United States of America have been negotiated and agreed upon.” A careful consideration of the fact will, I think, convince you that the treaty which was withdrawn from the Senate for further consideration should not be resubmitted for its action thereon.

Should not the great wrong done to a feeble but independent State by an abuse of the authority of the United States be undone by restoring the legitimate government? Anything short of that will not, I respectfully submit, satisfy the demands of justice.

Can the United States consistently insist that other nations shall respect the independence of Hawaii while not respecting it themselves? Our Government was the first to recognize the independence of the Islands and it should be the last to acquire sovereignty over them by force and fraud.

Respectfully submitted.
W.Q. Gresham.

With the world’s attention on Russia and the Crimean Peninsula, people may not know that the Hawaiian Kingdom’s neutrality was prompted by hostilities that erupted between Russia and the European Powers during the Crimean War (1854-56). The Hawaiian Kingdom was also an active participant during the war in the development of the international laws on neutrality.

Russia’s Black Sea Naval Fleet is based at Sevastopol Naval Base in Crimea, which gives Russian naval vessels access to the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, and further to the Atlantic Ocean. The two waterways that provide access from the Black Sea are Turkey’s Bosporus Straits and the Strait of the Dardanelles. Sevastopol Naval Base was also at the center of a war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in 1853 over this access after Russia insisted that the Ottoman Turks recognize Russia’s right in the Middle East in order to protect Russian Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman’s refused and war broke out. On March 28, 1854, France and Great Britain joined the war on the side of the Ottoman Turks in order to prevent Russia’s increase in power over the region.

Naval battles between Russia and the French and British also spilled over to the Pacific Ocean where all three countries had naval and merchant ships. Battles were not confined to Crimea and the Caucasus, but were also fought in the Japan Seas, the Okhotsk Seas and in the North Pacific Ocean, and there was concern in Hawai‘i that it could reach the Hawaiian Islands. Just eleven years since Great Britain and France recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State, King Kamehameha III, in Privy Council, declared the Hawaiian Kingdom to be a neutral State on May 16, 1854.

Prior to their impending involvement in the Crimean War, Great Britain and France each issued formal Declarations on March 28, 1854, and March 29, 1854, that declared neutral ships and goods would not be captured. Prior to this, international law did not afford protection for neutral ships carrying goods headed for the ports of countries who were at war. Under international law, these ships could be seized by either country’s naval vessels or by private ships that were commissioned by a country at war, which is called “privateering” and the goods seized were called “prizes.” The British and French diplomats that were posted in the Hawaiian Kingdom delivered both Declarations to the Hawaiian government.

On June 15, 1854, the Hawaiian Committee on the National Rights in regards to prizes had delivered its report during a meeting of the Privy Council in Honolulu. Robert C. Wyllie, Hawaiian Minister of Foreign Affairs, presented the committee report and the following resolution was passed and later made known to the countries engaged in the Crimean War.

“Resolved: That in the Ports of this neutral Kingdom, the privilege of Asylum is extended equally and impartially to the armed national vessels and prizes made by such vessels of all the belligerents, but no authority can be delegated by any of the Belligerents to try and declare lawful and transfer the property of such prizes within the King’s Jurisdiction; nor can the King’s Tribunals exercise any such jurisdiction, except in cases where His Majesty’s Neutral Jurisdiction and Sovereignty may have been violated by the Captain of any vessel within the bounds of that Jurisdiction.”

To broaden the international law of neutrality, the United States sought to get countries to agree thereby creating customary international law. On December 6, 1854, the U.S. diplomat assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom, David L. Gregg, sent the following dispatch to the Hawaiian government regarding the recognition of neutral rights. The correspondence stated,

“I have the honor to transmit to you a project of a declaration in relation to neutral rights which my Government has instructed me to submit to the consideration of the Government of Hawaii, and respectfully to request its approval and adoption. As you will perceive it affirms the principles that free ships make free goods, and that the property of neutrals, not contraband of war, found on board of Enemies ships, is not confiscable. These two principles have been adopted by Great Britain and France as rules of conduct towards all neutrals in the present European war; and it is pronounced that neither nation will refuse to recognize them as rules of international law, and to conform to them in all time to come. The Emperor of Russia has lately concluded a convention with the United States, embracing these principles as permanent, and immutable, and to be scrupulously observed towards all powers which accede to the same.”

On January 12, 1855, the U.S. diplomat also sent another dispatch to the Hawaiian government that contained a copy of the July 22, 1854 Convention between the United States of America and Russia embracing certain principles in regard to neutral rights. After careful review of the U.S. President’s request, King Kamehameha IV in Privy Council, passed the following resolution on March 26, 1855.

“Resolved: That the Declaration of accession to the principles of neutrality to which the President of the United States invites the King, is approved, and Mr. Wyllie is authorized to sign and seal the same and pass it officially to the Commissioner of the United States in reply to his dispatches of the 6th December and 12th January last.”

Following the Privy Council meeting on the same day, Robert C. Wyllie signed the Declaration of Accession to the Principles of Neutrality as requested by the United States President and delivered it to the U.S. diplomat David L. Gregg. The Declaration provided,

“And whereas His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, having considered the aforesaid invitation of the President of the United States, and the Rules established in the foregoing convention respecting the rights of neutrals during war, and having found such rules consistent with those proclaimed by Her Britannic Majesty in Her Declaration of the 28th March 1854, and by His Majesty the Emperor of the French in the Declaration of the 29th of the same month and year, as well as with Her Britannic Majesty’s order in Council of the 15th April same year, and with the peaceful and strictly neutral policy of this Kingdom as proclaimed by His late Majesty King Kamehameha III on the 11th May 1854, amplified and explained by Resolutions of His Privy Council of State of the 15th June and 17th July same year, His Majesty, by and with the advice of His Cabinet and Privy Council, has authorized the undersigned to declare in His name, as the undersigned now does declare that His Majesty accedes to the humane principles of the foregoing convention, in the sense of its III Article.”

On April 7, 1855, King Kamehameha IV opened the Legislative Assembly. In his speech he reiterated the Kingdom’s neutrality by stating:

“It is gratifying to me, on commencing my reign, to be able to inform you, that my relations with all the great Powers, between whom and myself exist treaties of amity, are of the most satisfactory nature. I have received from all of them, assurances that leave no room to doubt that my rights and sovereignty will be respected. My policy, as regards all foreign nations, being that of peace, impartiality and neutrality, in the spirit of the Proclamation by the late King, of the 16th May last, and of the Resolutions of the Privy Council of the 15th June and 17th July. I have given to the President of the United States, at his request, my solemn adhesion to the rule, and to the principles establishing the rights of neutrals during war, contained in the Convention between his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and the United States, concluded in Washington on the 22nd July last.”

The actions taken by the governments of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United States of America relating to the development of the principles of international law on neutrality provided the necessary pretext for the leading European maritime powers to meet in Paris, after the Crimean War, and enter into a joint declaration that provided the following four principles: first, privateering is, and remains, abolished; second, the neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; third, neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag; and, fourth, blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

The Declarations and the 1854 Russo-American Convention represented the first recognition of the right of neutral States to conduct free trade without any hindrance from war. Stricter guidelines for neutrality were later established in the 1871 Anglo-American Treaty made during the wake of the American Civil War, whereby both States agreed to the following rules.

“First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.

Second, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.”

Newer and stricter rules for the conduct of neutral States were expounded upon in the 1874 Brussels Conference, and later these principles were codified in the Fifth and Thirteenth Hague Conventions of 1907, governing the rights and duties of neutral States in Land and Maritime warfare.

Hawaiian neutrality was also stated in its treaties with Sweden/Norway (1852, Article XV), Spain (1863, Article XXVI), Germany (1879, Article VIII) and Italy (1869, Additional Article). Article XV of the Hawaiian Treaty with Sweden/Norway states,

“All vessels bearing the flag of Sweden and Norway in time of war shall receive every possible protection, short of actual hostility, within the ports and waters of His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands; and His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway engages to respect in time of war the neutral rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and to use his good offices with all other powers, having treaties with His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, to induce them to adopt the same policy towards the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

In 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands verified the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State. The Court stated, “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.” Under international law all States have sovereign equality. States have equal rights and duties and are co-equal members of the international community regardless of their economic, social and political differences. Sovereign equality means:

1. States are judicially equal;
2. Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
3. Each State has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
4. The territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable;
5. Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its own political, social, economic and cultural systems; and
6. Each State has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.

The claim of State continuity on the part of the Hawaiian Kingdom has to be opposed as against a claim by the United States as to its succession. Principles of succession may operate even in cases where continuity is not called into question, such as with the cession of a portion of territory from one State to another, or occasionally in case of unification. Continuity and succession are, in other words, not always mutually exclusive but might operate in tandem. It is evident, furthermore, that the principles of continuity and succession may not actually differ a great deal in terms of their effect.

It is generally held that there are three principles that have some bearing upon the issue of continuity. First, that the continuity of the State is not affected by changes in government even if of a revolutionary nature. Secondly, that continuity is not affected by territorial acquisition or loss, and finally, continuity is not affected by military occupation. Professor Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2006), p. 34, points out that, “There is a strong presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations, despite revolutionary changes in government, or despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government. Belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.”

Each of these principles reflects upon one of the key incidents of statehood—territory, government (legal order) and independence—making clear that the issue of continuity is essentially one concerned with the existence of States: unless one or more of the key constituents of Statehood are entirely and permanently lost, State identity will be retained. Their negative formulation, furthermore, implies that there exists a general presumption of continuity. According to Hall, A Treatise of International Law (1895), p. 22, a State retains its identity “so long as the corporate person undergoes no change which essentially modifies it from the point of view of its international relations, and with reference to them it is evident that no change is essential which leaves untouched the capacity of the state to give effect to its general legal obligations or to carry out its special contracts.”

If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains. It might be objected that formally speaking, the survival or otherwise of a State should be regarded as independent of the legitimacy of any claims to its territory on the part of other States. It is commonly recognized that a State does not cease to be such merely in virtue of the existence of legitimate claims over part or parts of its territory. Nevertheless, where those claims comprise the entire territory of the State, as they do in case of Hawai’i, and when they are accompanied by effective governance to the exclusion of the claimant, it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two questions.  The survival of the Hawaiian Kingdom is premised upon the “legal” basis of present or past United States claims to sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands.

To sum it up, any claim to State continuity will be dependent upon the establishment of two legal facts: first, that the State in question existed as a recognized entity for purposes of international law at some relevant point in history; and, secondly, that intervening events have not been such as to deprive it of that status.  It should be made very clear, however, that the issue is not simply one of “observable” or “tangible facts,” but more specifically of “legally relevant facts.”  It is not a case, in other words, simply of observing how power or control has been exercised in relation to persons or territory, but of determining the scope of “authority,” which is understood as “a legal entitlement to exercise power and control.” Authority differs from mere control by not only being essentially rule governed, but also in virtue of the fact that it is not always entirely dependent upon the exercise of that control.

Under international law, a State who claims to be the successor of another State, when not at war, must take place by cession. Professor Oppenheim, International Law (vol. 1, 1948), p. 499, explains that, “cession of State territory is the transfer of sovereignty over State territory by the owner-State to another State.” He further states that the “only form in which a cession can be effected is an agreement embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State (p. 500).” The United States only claim to have extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom is by a joint resolution of annexation passed by its Congress.

A joint resolution, however, is not a treaty or agreement between two States, but rather an agreement between the House of Representatives and the Senate in Washington, D.C. A joint resolution is a municipal law of the United States whose effect is limited to United States territory. The United States Supreme Court, The Apollon, 22 U.S. 362, 370 (1824), affirmatively stated, that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory” for it would be “at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations” In U.S. v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 332 (1937), the Court also stated that, “our Constitution, laws and policies have no extraterritorial operation.” And in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., (1936), the Court concluded, “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens; and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law…. [T]he court recognized, and in each of the cases cited [involving the exercise of the sovereign power of the United States] found, the warrant for its conclusions not in the provisions of the Constitution, but in the law of nations.”

If a joint resolution is limited to United States territory, how can a joint resolution annex a foreign State? Simply answered, it can’t and it didn’t.

When the House of Representatives and the Senate were debating the joint resolution in 1898, the Congressional record clearly showed that even the Representatives and Senators knew the limitation of congressional laws. On June 15, 1898, Congressman Thomas H. Ball (D-Texas) stated,

“The annexation of Hawai‘i by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unwise. If the first proposition be true, sworn to support the Constitution, we should inquire no further. I challenge not the advocates of Hawaiian annexation, but those who advocate annexation in the form now presented, to show warrant or authority in our organic law for such acquisition of territory. To do so will be not only to subvert the supreme law of the land but to strike down every precedent in our history. …Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully.”

And on June 20, 1898, Senator Augustus Bacon (D-Georgia) stated,

“That a joint resolution for the annexation of foreign territory was necessarily and essentially the subject matter of a treaty, and that it could not be accomplished legally and constitutionally by a statute or joint resolution. If Hawaii was to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method it can not be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation sufficiently to induce him to give his support to an unconstitutional measure.” Senator Bacon further explained, “Now, a statute is this: A Statute is a rule of conduct laid down by the legislative department, which has its effect upon all of those within the jurisdiction. In other words, a statute passed by the Congress of the United States is obligatory upon every person who is a citizen of the United States or a resident therein. A statute can not go outside the jurisdiction of the United States and be binding upon the subjects of another power. It takes the consent of the subjects of the other power, speaking or giving their consent through their duly authorized government, to be bound by a certain thing which is enacted in this country; and therein comes the necessity for a treaty.”

Nearly 100 years later, the United States Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel was befuddled by Congress’s annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by a joint resolution. In a 1988 memorandum titled “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea,” the Office of Legal Counsel addressed the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by joint resolution. Douglas Kmiec, Acting Assistant Attorney General, authored the memorandum for Abraham D. Sofaer, legal advisor to the U.S. State Department. After covering the limitation of Congressional authority and the objections made by members of the Congress, Kmiec concluded,

“Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable. … It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.”

The United States very own Attorney General’s office in 1988 clearly undermines the claim of sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands by the United States. If the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel is “unclear” as to the authority of Congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands, it surely cannot be considered as a “valid demonstration of legal title” by the United States to be the successor of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law. If the United States is not the successor, then the presumption of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as an independent State is maintained. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence is protected by international law even when it has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States since the Spanish-American War in 1898.