On October 20, 2023, the Council of Regency, as the government of the occupied State, initiated the process to terminate the 1884 Supplemental Convention (“Pearl Harbor Convention”). Secretary of State Antony Blinken received the notice of termination from the Council of Regency on October 26, 2023, at 05:47 hours, which consequently triggered the tolling of twelve months. According to the terms of the Pearl Harbor Convention, the treaty will be terminated on October 26, 2024, 05:47 hours.

The Pearl Harbor Convention extended the duration of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty an additional seven years until 1894, unless either the United States or the Hawaiian Kingdom gives notice to the other of its intention to terminate the treaty and convention. According to Article I:

The High Contracting Parties agree, that the time fixed for the duration of the said Convention, shall be definitely extended for a term of seven years from the date of the exchange of ratifications hereof, and further, until the expiration of twelve months after either of the High Contracting Parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same, each of the High Contracting Parties being at liberty to give such notice to the other at the end of the said term of seven years or at any time thereafter.

As a condition for the extension of the commercial treaty, the United States sought exclusive access to Pearl Harbor. Article II of the Pearl Harbor Convention provides:

His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands grants to the Government of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River, in the Island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair station for the use of vessels of the United States, and to that end the United States may improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other things needful to the purpose aforesaid.

According to Article 1, the Pearl Harbor Convention came into effect in 1887 after ratifications were exchanged in Washington, D.C., and would last for seven years and further until “either of the High Contracting Parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same,” where termination would commence twelve months after the notification is received by the other High Contracting Party. Although the Hawaiian government was unlawfully overthrown by the United States on 17 January 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law continued to exist.

After the Hawaiian government was overthrown by the United States in 1893, the United States did nothing with Pearl Harbor until 1908 when the United States Congress allocated monies to build a naval station instead of a “coaling and repair station.” This violated the terms of the Pearl Harbor Convention as well as violating the Hawaiian Kingdom’s neutrality under international law.

The Pearl Harbor Convention has a direct nexus to the presence of the U.S. military component commands of the Indo-Pacific Command that has military installations and firing ranges outside of the perimeter of Pearl Harbor. Component commands of the Indo-Pacific Command include: United States Army Pacific, United States Marine Corps Forces Hawai‘i, and United States Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam.

A note of the Hawaiian Kingdom attached to the Pearl Harbor Convention stated, “that Hawaiian Sovereignty and jurisdiction were not impaired that the Hawaiian Government was not bound to furnish land for any purpose and that the privilege to be granted should be coterminous with the Treaty.” Coterminous is defined as “having the same boundaries,” which is limited to Pearl Harbor.

The unlawful presence of the United States military has transformed the Hawaiian Kingdom from a neutral State into a military target by its adversaries, which first occurred on 7 December 7, 1941 when Japan’s military forces attacked U.S. military targets. The high probability of military attacks by other countries, such as North Korea, China, and Russia continue due to the rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific region. In 1990, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Risks and Hazards—A State by State Guide listed 6 targets for nuclear attack that would effectively annihilate the entire Island of O‘ahu. The presence of the United States military places the civilian population of the Hawaiian Kingdom into perilous danger.

The component commanders—General Charles A. Flynn, Commander U.S. Army Pacific, Lieutenant General William M. Jurney, Commander U.S. Marine Corps Forces Hawai‘i, Captain Mark Sohaney, USN, Commander U.S. Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, and Colonel Monica Gramling, Deputy Commander U.S. Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, were notified by Dr. David Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry:

In light of the termination of the Pearl Harbor Convention, all Title 10 military forces of the four component commands of the Indo-Pacific Command—Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, shall forthwith cease and desist any and all military exercises, to include utilizing live fire ranges across the islands, and anywhere within 200 nautical miles from the low water mark of the shoreline of the islands that constitute the Hawaiian Kingdom’s territorial sea and its exclusive economic zone, and to complete the withdrawal from the Hawaiian Islands by 26 October 2024.

The Staff Judge Advocates of the Indo-Pacific Command and the 25th Infantry Division were also included with the notifications. In his letters, Dr. Sai restated from the Council of Regency’s proclamation terminating the Pearl Harbor Convention:

And, We do require that when the United States has received this notice of termination, it shall, prior to the expiration of twelve months in accordance with Article I of the 1884 Supplemental Convention, remove all movable property at its military facilities throughout the Hawaiian Islands, including unexploded munitions, and fuel, with the exception of real property attached to the land or erected on it, including manmade objects, such as buildings, homes, structures, roads, sewers, and fences, to include on other properties that have been or are currently under its supervision and command.

Dr. Sai stated that the reasoning for notifying the component commands was because it was unclear whether the State Department notified Indo-Pacific Command of the termination of the Pearl Harbor Convention. Dr. Sai also stated that it did not appear that U.S. troops were beginning to be withdrawn. In his letters to the commanders of the component commands, Dr. Sai addressed the war crimes of confiscation or destruction of property:

Military installations and target ranges beyond Pearl Harbor were unlawfully confiscated by the United States from the Hawaiian Kingdom public lands and the estates of private persons in violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation. Live fire at these target ranges constitute destruction of property. According to Professor William Schabas, renowned expert on international criminal law, war crimes and human rights, in his legal opinion on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, there are five elements of the war crime of confiscation or destruction of property.

Following the end of hostilities during the Second World War, the war crimes tribunals in Nuremburg and Tokyo, “marked a clear recognition by the international community that all members of the chain of command who participate or acquiesce in war crimes must bear individual criminal responsibility.” Command responsibility arises when the military superior during an occupation of a foreign State fails to exercise sufficient control and accountability for his/her subordinates’ in the commission of war crimes. And a “non-military commander is [also] responsible for omissions which lead to the commission of crimes.” The doctrine of command responsibility arises when a superior, by omission, fails to control or punish those under his/her command.

Dereliction of the performance of a duty arises when a commander took no action to prevent, stop, or punish. Confiscation and destruction of property are war crimes and commanders of the four component commands have a duty to stop the further commission of these and other war crimes. Dereliction of the performance of a duty is also a war crime of omission.

The presence of United States troops under the Indo-Pacific Command have no legal basis within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. As such, their conduct and actions would come under the purview of the Royal Commission of Inquiry in its investigation of war crimes. A particular war crime, under customary international law, is the destruction of property, which would apply to target ranges and the contamination of the Island of O‘ahu’s aquifers. According to Professor William Schabas, renowned expert in international criminal law and war crimes, in his legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry:

The actus reus consists of an act of confiscation or destruction of property in an occupied territory, be it that belonging to the State or individuals. The mens rea requires that the perpetrator act with intent to confiscate or destroy the property and with knowledge that the owner of the property was the State or an individual.

The letters to the component commanders of the Indo-Pacific Command constitute evidence that they “have knowledge that the owner of the property was the State or an individual.”

On October 1, 2024, Major General Kenneth Hara retired as Adjutant General of the Hawai‘i National Guard. At first glance, his willful failure to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation, which is the war crime by omission, is now a problem for someone else. On the contrary, he exacerbated the situation.

MG Hara, tasked his Staff Judge Advocate, also called JAG, Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, to investigate the information on the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom that Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, provided to MG Hara at their meeting on April 13, 2023, at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo. LTC Phelps was unable to refute the fact of the American occupation, which led MG Hara to admit, on July 27, 2023, that Hawai‘i is an occupied State. Subsequently, the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez, instructed MG Hara and the Deputy Adjutant General, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, to ignore Dr. Sai. It was also revealed later to Dr. Sai, that the Attorney General also instructed MG Hara to not request of her a legal opinion to answer the question:

Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?

His failure to perform his duty and abide by Army regulations, as the most senior officer in the Army National Guard, led to him being the subject of the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s (RCI) War Criminal Report no. 24-0001. The report provides the evidential basis for the commission of the war crime, which is an international crime. It is commonly stated in the U.S. Army, that there are regulations for everything that regulate military life.

MG Hara’s conduct and omission to establish a military government comes squarely under U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual, para. 18.22.1, which states, “Any person who commits an act that constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. International law imposes duties and liabilities on individuals as well as States, and individuals may be punished for violations of international law.” The Commission’s report is the evidence to punish MG Hara, and there is no statute of limitation for the war crime by omission. In other words, he will be punished because there is no time limit to prosecute unless he dies. Germany prosecuted a 97-year-old woman for committing Nazi war crimes in 2022.

Paragraph 18.22.1 directs MG Hara’s punishment to be done by a court martial. Although the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not have any “war crime” offenses, prosecutions can be made by a military court for war crimes that are also offenses under the UCMJ. In the case of prosecuting MG Hara, the willful failure to establish a military government, which is a violation of Army regulations, would be to prosecute him under UCMJ’s §892 Article 92(1), being the failure to obey a regulation, and Article 92(3), being dereliction in the performance of duties.

MG Hara’s cowardly conduct appeared to have established a leadership trait that was followed by his chain of command in the Army National Guard to their detriment. Because MG Hara committed a war crime and subject to be punished by a court martial, BG Logan was supposed to assume command under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11. This Army regulation states that the “senior officer, WO [warrant officer], cadet, NCO [non-commissioned officer], or junior enlisted Soldier among troops at the scene of an emergency will assume temporary command and control of the Soldiers present.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an emergency as “A sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity. Emergency is an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action without time for full deliberation.” A scenario of this sort, in battle, would be where a platoon’s leadership was killed by the enemy that left only soldiers of the rank of Private alive. The regulation would require the most senior enlisted Private to assume command of the platoon until relieved by a more senior soldier. The criteria would be which of the Privates had the longest time in the Army. Failure to assume command in an emergency is an offense under UCMJ Article 92(1) and 92(3). The regulation to assume command is para. 2-11—Emergency command, Army Regulation 600-20.

When BG Logan was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0002, it became the duty of Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, to assume command. When Colonel Kawakami was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0003, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Werner, Commander of 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, to assume command. When LTC Werner was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0004, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Bingham Tuisamataele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, to assume command. When LTC Tuisamataele, Jr. was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0005, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, to assume command. When LTC Jacobs was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0006, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, to assume command. When LTC Balsis was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0007, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, Executive Officer, 29th Infantry Brigade, to assume command.

LTC Rosner was spared, for now, being the subject of a war criminal report, because Senator Cross Makani Crabbe did what MG Hara did not have the courage to do. Senator Crabbe made a formal request of Attorney General Lopez, as a member of the State of Hawai‘i legislature under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-2, for a legal opinion answering the question:

Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?

This act by Senator Crabbe has temporarily protected LTC Rosner from incurring criminal culpability for not establishing a military government as those before him did. LTC Rosner, however, is faced with the performance of his duty of assuming command under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11. What would prevent him from assuming command is that the Hawaiian Kingdom is not an occupied State under international law. If this were the case, surely the Attorney General Lopez could settle this matter by providing a legal opinion that the “State of Hawai‘i [is] within the territory of the United States” and not “within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

What the Attorney General faces, however, is that under customary international law, as explained by the legal opinions of Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, is that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an occupied State, which places the State of Hawai‘i “within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” The Attorney General’s silence, in fact, reinforces what customary international law already concludes, and that the RCI’s war criminal reports are authorized and valid. Dr. Sai, as Head of the RCI, explained this to LTC Rosner in his letter dated September 23, 2024.

The severity of the consequences of the conduct of MG Hara, as a war criminal, cannot be underestimated. LTC Rosner will assume command and then perform the duty of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Time is not on the side of LTC Rosner to perform his Army duties.

Today, October 11, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner regarding his military duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government in light of Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s request for a legal opinion from Attorney General Anne Lopez. Here is a link to the letter.

In my letter to you dated September 23, 2024, I apprised you of Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s formal request, under §28-3 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, of Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion on this question:

Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?

I also explained in that letter the presumption of continuity of a State, under customary international law, despite its government being overthrown by military force. Case in point was that the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003, during the Second Gulf War, did not affect the continuity of the Iraqi State. Thereafter, United States forces established a military government by taking over the Iraqi civilian government, later to be called the Coalition Provisional Authority. Having been deployed to Iraq during the Second Gulf War you would know this.

When the Hawaiian Kingdom government was unlawfully overthrown by United States forces, the Hawaiian State continued to exist despite the failure of United States troops to establish a military government, to administer the laws of the occupied State, until a treaty of peace is established. Unlike Iraq, there is neither military government nor a treaty of peace that would have brought the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom to an end. The illegality of the overthrow was acknowledged by President Grover Cleveland in his message to the United States Congress on December 18, 1893. In his message, President Cleveland concluded:

The lawful Government of Hawaii was overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a shot by a process every step of which, it may safely be asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its success upon the agency of the United States acting through its diplomatic and naval representatives.

But for the notorious predilections of the United States Minister for annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should be called the Committee of Annexation, would never have existed.

But for the landing of United States forces upon the false pretexts respecting the danger to life and property the committee would never have exposed themselves to the pains and penalties of treason by undertaking the subversion of the Queen’s Government.

But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in position to afford all needed protection and support the committee would never have proclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the Government building.

And finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Steven’s recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the Queen and her Government would never have yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States.

The continuity of Hawaiian Statehood is a matter of customary international law and not the domestic laws of the United States. In 1999, the Permanent Court of Arbitration recognized that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a State under customary international law. This provided the basis for the establishment of the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. Furthermore, the continuity of Hawaiian Statehood under customary international law was explained in two legal opinions, one by Professor Matthew Craven and the other by Professor Federico Lenzerini. In addition, war crimes that are being committed, by the imposition of American municipal laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is also a matter of customary international law. This is explained by the legal opinion of Professor William Schabas.

Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice identifies five sources of international law: (a) treaties between States; (b) customary international law derived from the practice of States; (c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law; (d) judicial decisions; and (e) the writings of “the most highly qualified publicists.” These writings by these academics are from “the most highly qualified publicists,” and are, therefore, a source of customary international law.

According to Professor Shaw, “[b]ecause of the lack of supreme authorities and institutions in the international legal order, the responsibility is all the greater upon publicists of the various nations to inject an element of coherence and order into the subject as well as to question the direction and purposes of the rules.” Thus, “academic writings are regarded as law-determining agencies, dealing with the verification of alleged rules.” As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in the Paquette Habana case:

International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is (emphasis added).

As a source of international law, the legal opinions establish a shift in the burden of proof. The presumption of State continuity shifts the burden of proof as to what is to be proven and by whom to rebut this presumption. Like the presumption of innocence, the accused does not prove their innocence, but rather the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that person’s guilt. Likewise, the Hawaiian Kingdom need not prove its continued existence, but rather, the Attorney General must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom had been extinguished as a State under international law. Such proof would make the State of Hawai‘i legitimate. 

In other words, the Attorney General need not prove the State of Hawai‘i lawfully exists, but rather, it must prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exists, as a State, under the rules of international law as evidenced by the legal opinions of Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini. Evidence of a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, by the United States would be an international treaty, particularly a peace treaty, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom would have ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States. Examples of foreign States ceding sovereign territory to the United States, by a peace treaty, include the 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.

In this case, there is no such treaty. There only exists a congressional joint resolution of annexation, purporting to have annexed a foreign State in 1898. This is an American municipal law limited in its effect to the territory of the United States. As the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), concluded in its 1988 legal opinion, “[i]t is unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution,” and “[t]here is a serious question whether Congress has the authority either to assert jurisdiction over an expanded territorial sea for purposes of international law or to assert the United States’s sovereignty over it,” because only the President “has the authority to assert the United States’s sovereignty over the extended territorial sea.” This legal opinion also stated that “[o]nly by means of treaties […] can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.”

Absent the evidence of a treaty, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, as an occupied State with its sovereignty intact, despite the prolonged nature of the American occupation. Therefore, to restate paragraph 358, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, “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 (emphasis added).”

Do not wait for the Attorney General to provide Senator Crabbe with a legal opinion because, under customary international law, there is the presumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, continues to exist. Moreover, the Attorney General does not have the same legal status as Professor Craven, Professor Lenzerini or Professor Schabas, under international law, because she is not a source of international law. Her only offer of proof, that the State of Hawai‘i is lawful, is to provide a treaty of cession where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States.

Senator Crabbe’s letter begins with the presumption that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Unless the Attorney General can provide rebuttable evidence, in her legal opinion, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States, then Senator Crabbe’s presumption remains as a matter of customary international law. The military duty to establish a military government is obligatory because the State of Hawai‘i is not within territorial boundaries of the United States.

More importantly, LTC Phelps was unable to refute the information and evidence I provided MG Hara at our meeting at the Grand Naniloa Hotel on April 13, 2023. Then MG Hara acknowledged to a mutual friend, on July 27, 2023, that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State. Subsequently, Attorney General Lopez interfered with MG Hara’s military duty by instructing him to ignore me.

From a legal standpoint, the Attorney General has been silenced by Senator Crabbe’s letter. Consequently, since MG  Hara failed, as the Head of the Department of Defense to perform, as Senator Crabbe did, which resulted in the failure to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government, then MG Hara, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner, Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr., Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis, have all been made the subject of war criminal reports for the war crime by omission. As a result, you are, now, the most senior officer in the Army National Guard.

I strongly urge you to reach out to Lieutenant Colonel Phelps, as the Staff Judge Advocate, on this matter of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government, by developing an Operations Order from the Hawaiian Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. The Council of Regency is prepared to meet with you on this matter because, as Professor Lenzerini explains in his legal opinion, “the working relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State,” is paramount. I am enclosing my curriculum vitae.

International law comprises a body of rules by custom or treaty that govern the relations and conduct of sovereign and independent States in their relations with each other. At the core of international law is the sovereign equality among States despite the physical size of the different States. So, despite the difference in the size of their territory, the sovereignty of the United States is equal to the sovereignty of Luxemburg, which is the size of the Island of O‘ahu.

Because of this equality, there is no higher order or institution above the States, and there is no legislative body. International law is comprised of customary law that the States recognize as binding, and treaties that bind the States when they become a contracting party to the treaty. However, provisions in a treaty can become customary law when all States, which include States that did not sign the treaty, recognize its binding nature. Examples include the provisions in the 1907 Hague Regulations and 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention that regulate warfare and belligerent occupations.

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 1928 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 1927 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].

As section 358, United States Army Field Manual 27-10 that regulates warfare and occupation of a foreign State’s territory, states:

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.

Because sovereignty remains vested in the Hawaiian Kingdom, even during a prolonged occupation, not only does this render the State of Hawai‘i as unlawful, but it also renders the sovereignty movement moot.

Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice identifies five sources of international law: (a) treaties between States; (b) customary international law derived from the practice of States; (c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law; (d) judicial decisions and the (e) writings of “the most highly qualified publicists.”

International judicial decisions and the writings of scholars are regarded as law-determining and not law making. According to Professor Malcolm Shaw, a British subject, “Because of the lack of supreme authorities and institutions in the international legal order, the responsibility is all the greater upon publicists of the various nations to inject an element of coherence and order into the subject as well as to question the direction and purposes of the rules.” The United States Supreme Court understood the significance of the writings of scholars in international law. In the 1900 Paquete Habana case, the Supreme Court stated:

International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.

The significance of the legal opinion by Professor Matthew Craven, a British subject, on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, the legal opinion by Professor Federico Lenzerini, an Italian citizen, on the legitimacy of the Council of Regency, and the legal opinion by Professor William Schabas, a Canadian citizen, on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom under the American occupation since 1893, are that all three legal opinions are written by publicists who are scholars and professors in international law. As such, these three legal opinions constitute one of the five sources of international law. As the Supreme Court stated, “the works of jurists and commentators [is considered] trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.”

The continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency, as its temporary government, does not rely on a person’s support or belief. It is a legal fact under international law, with profound consequences that are not debatable. The investigative work of the Royal Commission of Inquiry should not be taken lightly by members of the State of Hawai‘i because a senior State of Hawai‘i official says to ignore.

Attorney General Anne Lopez is directly responsible for causing other senior officials of the State of Hawai‘i to commit war crimes because she instructed them to ignore what international law says it is to their peril. Because a person doesn’t understand international law, they shouldn’t just ignore it especially when their conduct and action would constitute a war crime that they were pre-warned about. They should inquire from qualified persons, which the Attorney General is not.