Category Archives: International Relations

Natural Born Citizenship under Hawaiian Kingdom Law during the American Occupation

Posted on by
2

According to Blackstone, the English common law rule of jus soli—any person born within British territory is a British subject by birth, is traced back to the feudal law of England based on allegiance to the King. Because allegiance was at the core of natural born citizenship, the common law rule carved out exceptions for those born within British territory whose parents held foreign allegiances such as foreign diplomats or enemy invaders.

On February 25, 1794, King Kamehameha I, showing his allegiance to King George III, ceded the Island Kingdom of Hawai‘i to the British King thereby establishing Hawai‘i as a British Protectorate. Since that date, Kamehameha I, his Chiefs and people were British subjects. According to Captain Vancouver, who was present at the ceremony, he stated the issues “being fully discussed, and thoroughly understood on both sides, the king repeated his former proposition, which was now unanimously approved of, and the whole party declared their consent by saying, that they were no longer Tanata no Owhyhee [Hawai‘i], (i.e.) the people of Owhyhee [Hawai‘i]; but Tanata no Britannee (i.e.) the people of Britain.”

As a result, English common law applied over the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, to include Kamehameha’s acquisition of the Island Kingdom of Maui 1795, and the Island Kingdom of Kaua‘i in 1810. Anyone born within Kamehameha’s kingdom were natural born British subjects.

When the Hawaiian Kingdom became an independent State on November 28, 1843, English common law no longer applied over Hawaiian territory because there was a new allegiance to be owed to King Kamehameha III, a constitutional monarch. Addressing Hawaiian citizenship, the Hawaiian Legislature enacted the Third Act of Kamehameha III in 1847:

All persons born within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, whether of alien foreigners, of naturalized or of native parents, and all persons born abroad of a parent native of this kingdom, and afterwards coming to reside in this kingdom, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty. As such persons shall be amendable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects.

Natural born citizenship was codified by Hawaiian statute until the legislature enacted the 1859 Civil Code that repealed the Third Act of Kamehameha III. However, natural born citizenship survived by Hawaiian common law in 1856 in Naone v. Thurston, where the Supreme Court stated, “defendant in this case was born of foreign parentage, within the jurisdiction of this realm, and claims to be a Hawaiian subject by birth.” The Civil Code does not mention natural born, but rather Hawaiian citizenship by naturalization and letters patent of denization, which is dual citizenship.

On January 21, 1868, Ferdinand Hutchison, Hawaiian Minister of the Interior, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality. He announced it in the Hawaiian Government’s newspaper, The Hawaiian Gazette:

In the judgment of His Majesty’s government no one acquires citizenship in this Kingdom unless he is born here, or born abroad of Hawaiian parents (either native or naturalized) during their temporary absence from the Kingdom, or unless have been the subject of another power, he becomes the subject of this Kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.

The “judgment of His Majesty’s government” firmly established the means by which a person acquires Hawaiian citizenship through being natural born—jus soli, born abroad of Hawaiian parents—jus sanguinis, naturalization, and denization. The latter two are by virtue of taking the oath of allegiance.

When U.S. troops unlawfully overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by an act of war, and began its prolonged occupation on January 17, 1893, sovereignty remained vested in the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to paragraph 353 of the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10:

Being an incident of war [act 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 [by administering the laws of the occupied State], 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 (See Geneva Convention, art. 47).

Consequently, allegiance to the Hawaiian Kingdom, under its domestic law, remained unaffected. Therefore, natural born citizenship of the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to apply to children born within Hawaiian territory except for those children born of diplomats and those children born of the population of the invader—United States citizens. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual—as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

The last census done in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1890 listed the entire population at 89,990.  Here follows the breakdown by nationality:

According to the United States Census of the population in the Hawaiian Islands from 1900 to 1950, migration from the continental U.S. and its territories in fifty years exploded to 293,379.  Here follows the breakdown by year:

On April 30, 1900, the U.S. Congress passed “An Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii.  Regarding U.S. nationals, section 4 of the 1900 Act stated that:

all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.  And all citizens of the United States resident in the Hawaiian Islands who were resident there on or since August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight and all the citizens of the United States who shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

In addition to this Act, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution also provided that individuals born in the Hawaiian Islands since 1900 would acquire U.S. citizenship. It states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Under these American municipal laws, the putative U.S. national population exploded in the Hawaiian Kingdom from a meager 1,928 out of a total population of 89,990, in 1890, to 423,174 out of a total population of 499,794 in 1950. 

The migration of the American population into Hawaiian territory, to include Puerto Ricans and the Filipinos, having both become U.S. territory by the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, constitutes the war crime of unlawful transfer of populations to the occupied territory. According to Professor Schabas, who authored a legal opinion on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom since January 17, 1893, “[b]elligerent occupation is a temporary situation and not the prelude to annexation. For this reason, the Occupying Power must not change the demographic, social and political situation in the territory it has occupied to the social and economic detriment of the population living in the occupied territory.”

The unlawful imposition of American laws within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, under an American occupation, constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, and, therefore, have no legal effect. According to Professor Schabas, the “crime of ‘usurpation of sovereignty’ was referred to by Judge Blair of the American Military Commission in a separate opinion in the ‘Justice Case:’ ‘This rule is incident to military occupation and was clearly intended to protect the inhabitants of any occupied territory against the unnecessary exercise of sovereignty by a military occupant.'”

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., stated, (“[n]either the [federal] Constitution nor the [federal] 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 inter-national law; and it also stated, in The Apollon, “[t]he laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.”

On July 4, 1894, the provisional government, which President Cleveland stated in his manifesto to the Congress on December 18, 1893, “owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States,” changed its name to the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i. Thereafter, twenty countries violated their obligation of neutrality by recognizing the American puppet and consequently became parties to the war on the side of the United States. These countries spanned Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Customary international law in the nineteenth century required that countries had to have been made aware that a state of war existed between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom in order to trigger their obligation to be neutral or to become co-belligerents with the United States.

The publication of the President’s manifesto to the Congress on December 18, 1893, in The Alexandria Gazette would have satisfied awareness of the state of war by the Legations in Washington, D.C. He stated to the Congress:

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 an act of war.

“If a neutral neglects this obligation,” explains Professor Oppenheim, “he himself thereby commits a violation of neutrality, for which he may be made responsible by a belligerent who has suffered through the violation of neutrality committed by the other belligerent and acquiesced in by him.” The recognition by these countries was an attempt to provide de facto or diplomatic recognition of the American puppet in a state of war that the U.S. initiated. Of these countries, Austria-Hungary, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Russia, and Spain maintained Legations accredited to the United States in Washington, D.C. in 1893, and, therefore, cannot claim they were unaware of the circumstances of the invasion and overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Under the law of neutrality, countries must refrain from siding with one belligerent to the detriment of the other belligerent. The Hawaiian Kingdom became a belligerent, under international law, as a consequence of the U.S. invasion.

The dates of the recognition are as follows—Austria/Hungary on January 1, 1895, Belgium on October 20, 1894, Brazil on September 29, 1894, Chile on September 26, 1894, China on September 12, 1894, France on August 31, 1894, Germany on October 4, 1894, Guatemala on September 30, 1894, Italy on September 23, 1894, Mexico on August 8, 1894, Netherlands on November 2, 1894, Peru on September 10, 1894, Portugal on December 17, 1894, Russia on August 26, 1894, Spain on November 26, 1894, Sweden/Norway on December 17, 1894, Switzerland on September 11, 1894, and the United Kingdom on September 19, 1894.

The recognition of the so-called Republic did not alter the status of the puppet regime but rather serves as the indisputable evidence that these countries violated their obligation to be neutral during a state of war and instead chose to become co-belligerents with the United States against the Hawaiian Kingdom. Diplomatic recognition of governments does not occur during a state of war between countries but rather only in a situation where revolutionaries within a country succeed in replacing the former government, thus becoming a de facto government by recognition of other countries.

These recognitions were made under the false pretense that the so-called Republic, being an American puppet, succeeded in a revolution and therefore was the new government of Hawai‘i. This narrative was refuted by the President’s manifesto, where he stated that the provisional government “was neither a government de facto nor de jure [because] it was not in such possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to recognition.” The insurgents’ control was by virtue of a foreign State’s intervention and not revolution. The co-belligerent States cannot deny this legal reality, notwithstanding their belligerent acts of recognizing the so-called Republic.

Despite the unlawful imposition of American laws, Hawaiian Kingdom laws continued to be in force throughout Hawaiian territory. This included Hawaiian natural born citizenship until the Council of Regency, by proclamation, repealed “the Hawaiian common law of native born or jus soli” on October 2, 2023. Another exception to acquiring Hawaiian natural born citizenship would be foreign populations that entered the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom under United States immigration laws after 1898.

Consequently, the children born in the Hawaiian Kingdom of the populations of the co-belligerent States of Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, did not acquire Hawaiian nationality if they were born after the date of their country’s recognition of the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i.

All other children born of foreign parentage in the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to the United States imposition of its laws in 1898 are Hawaiian subjects. If children born of foreign parents that arrived in the Hawaiian Kingdom after 1898, under U.S. immigration laws, they acquire the citizenship of their parents and are not natural born Hawaiian subjects. If a person is a direct descendant of foreign parentage that arrived in the Hawaiian Kingdom before 1898 and born before the repealing of Hawaiian natural born citizenship on October 2, 2023, they would be natural born Hawaiian subjects.

Amici Curiae Challenge Federal Judge Smith’s Order Denying Its Brief in Support of the Kamehameha Schools

Posted on by
4

On September 12, 2026, the attorney for Amici Curiae filed a motion for the Court to reconsider its September 4th Order denying Amici Curiae’s brief in support of the Kamehameha Schools. The amici curiae comprise of sixty-eight scholars and academics, along with the Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency, from eleven countries. Four of the amici are scholars of international law.

Amicus curiae is Latin for friend of the court. If there is more than one person, the filing is called an amici curiae or friends of the court. In the American court system, an amici curiae are individuals who are not a party to the case but have a particular expertise that can assist the judge in making a consequential decision. Thus, they are called friends of the court. These kinds of briefs are important because they provide expert knowledge, highlight the broader real-world consequences of a potential ruling, and help judges make fully informed decisions.

In their brief, the amici explain why the Court is not legal because it is operating within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a country that still exists since the nineteenth century despite the unlawful overthrow of its government by U.S. troops on January 17, 1893. However, the amici state that the Court can make itself legal by transforming into an occupation court, under the law of occupation, that would administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in order for the Defendant Kamehameha Schools to have a fair trial.

At present, the Court and the Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions are operating under American law, which the amici point out is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. Amici conclude their brief by stating if the Court does not begin to comply with international law and the law of occupation it would be committing the war crimes of usurpation of sovereignty and depriving Kamehameha Schools of a fair trial.

According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for reconsideration is allowed if the Court committed a manifest error by applying a wrong legal standard. The motion argues the court committed a manifest error of law by misapplying Jones v. United States. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government.”

The amici stated in their motion that the executive branch of the U.S. did “determine” the Hawaiian Kingdom as the sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands when it recognized it as an independent State. Amici then state:

What followed were the 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom at the United States (9 Stat. 977); the 1875 Treaty of Reciprocity (19 Stat. 625); the 1883 Postal Convention Concerning Money Orders (23 Stat. 736); the 1884 Supplementary Convention to the 1875 Treaty of Reciprocity (25 Stat. 1399); and  the establishment of the Hawaiian Legation in Washington, D.C., and the United States Legation in Honolulu, to include both establishing Consulates in both countries.

Also, the amici curiae provided, in their brief, clear and undeniable evidence, under international law, that the United States executive branch, by its Embassy at The Hague, recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its interim government during arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 International Law Reports 566 (2001), under customary international law grounded on opinio juris (Doc. 157, p. 40-41), and by treaty under the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement (Id., p. 37-39). These are contemporary determinations made by the executive branch of the United States that conclusively binds this Court and the Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions pursuant to Jones.

The amici argued that the Court misapplied the legal standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Jones as if the executive branch did not recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands. Because the U.S. executive made these determinations of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State since the nineteenth century it is not a political question, and that such determinations are binding on the Court and Students for Fair Admissions because the plaintiff are citizens of the United States. In its Order the Court disregarded the actions taken by the executive branch as if it never occurred. Thus, the Court is wrongly claiming it is still a political question as to who the sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands is.

In its Order, the Court also claims that it is “bound to accept the lawfulness of the government of the United States and the applicability of its laws” in the State of Hawai‘i. The amici assert that U.S. laws, which includes the law establishing the State of Hawai‘i in 1959, have no effect outside of the United States, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., the Supreme Court stated, “Neither the [federal] Constitution nor the [federal] 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.” In The Apollon, it stated, “The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.”

The amici state that imposing U.S. laws in the Hawaiian Kingdom is a violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, amounting to the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation.

The motion also critiques the Court’s disregard of the Lorenzo principle, which places the burden on defendants to prove the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In 2014, the State of Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, stated:

Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature[,]” and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.

Amici, show that this legal standard has applied to all State of Hawai‘i courts for the past thirty-two years and applies to the U.S. District Courts in Hawai‘i for the past twenty-four years. Amici provided sufficient factual and legal evidence of the Kingdom’s continued existence, and that the Court erred by disregarding the binding nature of the Lorenzo principle. The amici stated:

Neither did the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals in Lorenzo, the State of Hawai‘i Supreme Court in Armitage, nor did Judge Ezra in United States v. Goo, invoke Jones. For the Court now to invoke Jones is a blatant manifest error of law that runs counter to the Lorenzo principle that has bound U.S. District Courts in Hawai‘i for the past 24 years.

Under international law, there is a legal principle of the presumption of State continuity, even under occupation. In its motion that amici state:

“[t]here is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations […] despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and that “belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Judge Crawford further points out that “the presumption—in practice a strong one—is in favour of the continuance, and against the extinction, of an established state.” See James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law 417 (1979). Consequently, “[i]f 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.”

Consequently, Lorenzo and Armitage erred when it placed the burden on the defendant because under international law that burden is placed on the Plaintiff or the Judge who oppose that continuity to provide rebuttable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom has ceased to exist as a State under international law. Failure to provide rebuttable evidence the presumption of Hawaiian State continuity remains. By disregarding the facts and international law, the Court committed manifest error of law by not properly applying the Lorenzo principle and providing no rebuttable evidence as to the presumption of Hawaiian State continuity and the evidence provided by the amici curiae in its brief.

These arguments, by the amici, collectively challenge the court’s jurisdiction and the application of U.S. law in Hawai‘i, grounding their claims in both U.S. and international law, and emphasizing the ongoing legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The amici conclude its motion with:

Under international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, the Court is obligated to transform itself into an Article II occupation court so that it can administer Hawaiian Kingdom law that protect the rights of the Defendant Kamehameha Schools, unless the Court can provide rebuttable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom is not the de jure sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands, which it has not done. Until there is rebuttable evidence, this Court IS situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom and NOT within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The burden is on the Court, pursuant to Curtiss-Wright Corp., to provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist as a State, under international law, by reference to “treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.” And Curtiss-Wright Corp. precludes the Court from referencing “the [federal] Constitution [or] the [federal] laws passed in pursuance of it,” because it has no “force in foreign territory.” In its Order denying amici curiae’s motion for leave to file amici curiae brief, the Court could have, sua sponte, provided rebuttable evidence as to the presumption of Hawaiian State continuity and evidence provided in the amici curiae’s brief, but it did not.

Therefore, the Court’s willful act not to transform into an Article II occupation court would be a violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, and, consequently, would constitute the commission of the war crimes of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation and deprivation of fair and regular trial, thereby making the Defendant Kamehameha Schools a war crime victim. Under international law, the Council of Regency, as the interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, has a duty and obligation to investigate war crimes committed within Hawaiian territory. See David Keanu Sai, “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands,” 6(2) International Review of Contemporary Law 72-81 (2024).

AS AN OCCUPIED STATE, HAWAI‘I WAS NEVER A PART OF THE UNITED STATES—Hawaiian Council of Regency and 67 Scholars and Academics from 11 Countries file Amici Brief with U.S. District Court in Hawai‘i in Support of the Kamehameha Schools

Posted on by
11

Students for Fair Admissions filed a federal lawsuit in October 2025 challenging the long-standing admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools in Hawaiʻi that grants enrollment preference to pure and part aboriginal Hawaiian students. The Kamehameha Schools is a private estate established by the probate court of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1885 under the last will and testament of High Chiefess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The admission policy was the intent of High Chiefess Mrs. Bishop that began in 1887.

The Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency, the restored government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, along with 66 scholars and academics from 11 countries, have filed an amici brief in support of the defendant Kamehameha Schools.

Amicus curiae is Latin for friend of the court. If there is more than one person, the filing is called an amici curiae or friends of the court. In the American court system, an amici curiae are individuals who are not a party to the case but have a particular expertise that can assist the judge in making a consequential decision. Thus, they are called friends of the court. These kinds of briefs are important because they provide expert knowledge, highlight the broader real world consequences of a potential ruling, and help judges make fully informed decisions.

Minister Dr. David Keanu Sai and Professor Federico Lenzerini authored the amici brief. Minister Dr. Sai is Chairman of the Council of Regency and is a Senior Lecturer in Political Science and Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai‘i Windward Community College and an affiliate faculty at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education graduate program. Dr. Sai is also a recognized scholar with his recent publication by Oxford University Press “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire.” Professor Lenzerini is a full Professor of International Law, Human Rights and International Organization, at the University of Siena, Italy, Department of Political and International Sciences.

An additional 66 amici with doctoral degrees joined in on the brief. Under the heading of “Interests of Amici Curiae,” it states,

Amici curiae, Minister Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., and Professor Federico Lenzerini, Ph.D., international scholars whose views are represented in this brief, along with attesting amici curiae Professors Prabhakar Singh, Ph.D., and Alfred de Zayas, Ph.D., have expertise in public international law, international human rights, international humanitarian law, and international norms regarding statehood and sovereignty, self-determination and the rule of law. The remaining amici have joined solely representing themselves as doctoral degree recipients that understand the highest level of academic and legal research, and attest the amici brief to be factual and true.  Amici are from eleven countries—France, Germany, Hawaiian Kingdom, India, Italy, Japan, Palestine, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, and the United States. All amici have an interest in ensuring an informed interpretation by the Court of the consequences that international humanitarian law, the law of occupation, and international criminal law have on its jurisdiction.

The amici states that U.S. federal courts (Article III courts) lack jurisdiction in Hawaiian territory under international law, unless acting as Article II occupation courts during military occupation. International law, including treaties and customary law must be enforced by U.S. courts established in foreign territory that is under an American occupation. The Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State.

Article III courts are referred to as the third branch of government in the U.S. Constitution. Article II occupation courts are referred to the second branch of government called the executive branch that stems from the President’s authority over U.S. forces in occupied territories. Article I courts are referred to as the first branch of government, which are courts established by the Congress such as bankruptcy courts.

The amici state that the Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as an independent State in the nineteenth century by the U.S. and other nations. The 1893 overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by U.S. forces is described as illegal and an act of war, with no valid treaty of cession transferring sovereignty to the U.S. Consequently, U.S. congressional acts, such as the “annexation resolution” in 1898, Hawai‘i territorial status in 1900, and Hawai‘i statehood in 1959, have no legal effect outside U.S. territory and do not lawfully transfer U.S. sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. Amici states that international law presumes the continued existence of an independent State even if its government is militarily overthrown or absent.

The amici explain that what was overthrown, albeit illegally, was the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and not the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. This is why when the Iraqi government was militarily overthrown by U.S. forces in April of 2003, the Iraqi State and its sovereignty continued to exist during the Second Gulf War, widely known as the Iraq War. During the American occupation, Iraqi sovereignty and laws, not American sovereignty and laws, continued to be enforced by the American led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The status of the CPA was a provisional government under U.S. military occupation. According to paragraph 353 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10:

Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional. On the other hand, subjugation or conquest implies transfer of sovereignty, which generally takes the form of annexation and is normally affected by a treaty of peace.

The amici state, in the case of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893, that U.S. forces did not administer Hawaiian Kingdom law but rather allowed the provisional government to pretend to be a government who created draconian laws. President Cleveland branded the provisional government as a puppet of the United States. On December 18, 1893, the President stated to the Congress that the “provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.”

Five years later, the United States Congress passed a joint resolution purporting to have unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War. Since 1898, the United States began to unlawfully impose American laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of international law, Hawaiian Kingdom law, the law of occupation, and U.S. law.

The amici also draw attention to a legal opinion by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1988, that concluded Congress did not have the authority to annex the Hawaiian Islands, being a foreign country, by enacting a joint resolution. The legal opinion also stated that only “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.” There has never been any treaty of cession of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty and territory to the United States.

The amici states that in 1997, a Council of Regency was established under the Hawaiian Constitution to serve as the acting government in the absence of a monarch. Amici further affirm that the Council of Regency has legitimate authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom domestically and internationally. And that according to international law, under the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, the Hawaiian Kingdom currently has treaties with 92 Member States of the United Nations, of which 12 treaties are with the original States, and 80 treaties are with their successor States.

The amici also draw attention to an international arbitration case that came before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, from 1999-2001. Before the arbitration proceedings began, the Permanent Court recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State for the purposes of the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom case (1999-2001), and the U.S. entered into an executive agreement (the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement) regarding access to case records. Under international law and U.S. law, an executive agreement is a treaty.

The Permanent Court’s recognition and the lack of objection from 129 Member States of the Permanent Court, to include the United States, was presented as evidence of these States’ recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued legal existence and the Council of Regency as its government. Together with the Hawaiian Kingdom treaty partners and their successor States, 185 of these States are also Members of the United Nations that recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence by treaties and customary international law. The current membership of the United Nations is 193 States.

The amici bring to the attention of the Court the Lorenzo principle that has been in effect since 2002. In the Federal courts in Hawai‘i, the Lorenzo principle sets an evidentiary standard for those claiming the federal court lack’s jurisdiction because of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Lorenzo principle stems from a 1994 State of Hawai‘i Appellate decision in State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo that set that evidentiary burden.

In 2014, the Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, clarified the evidentiary burden that Lorenzo placed upon defendants. The Supreme Court stated, “Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.” The amici state that they have met the evidentiary burden, under the Lorenzo principle, proving the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law.

Amici state that the imposition of U.S. laws and administrative policies in Hawai‘i is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation under international law. Denial of a fair and regular trial to protected persons, like Kamehameha Schools, in occupied territory is also described by the amici as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is also a war crime.

The amici urge the Court to recognize U.S. obligations under international law and to transform itself into an Article II occupation court, rather than remaining as an Article III court, when sitting in the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Amici further state that for the Court not to comply with international law, war crimes would be committed. In its closing, the amici state:

For the foregoing reasons, amici request that the Court consider U.S. obligations under international law when sitting in the territory of an occupied State, in evaluating the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1893. The amici urge the Court to also evaluate the amici curiae brief filed by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Water Protector Legal Collective, which is enclosed herein as Exhibit 2, so as to enhance its own understanding of why the Court must transform itself from an Article III court to an Article II occupation court.

The filed amici curiae brief is available online.

CONTACT:

Hawaiian Kingdom files Additional Evidence from the International Seabed Authority of its Legal Standing as a Government in the Kamehameha Schools Federal Lawsuit

Posted on by
33

On January 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Micah Smith issue an order denying the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion to Intervene in the federal lawsuit Students for Fair Admissions v. Kamehameha Schools. The Council of Regency is intervening as the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The lawsuit, brought by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), seeks to dismantle the Native Hawaiian admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools—an institution created by Aliʻi Bernice Pauahi Bishop to uplift and educate Hawaiian children. SFFA claims that Kamehameha Schools’ policy violates U.S. civil rights law and is premised on the assertion that Hawaiʻi was lawfully annexed and fully absorbed into the United States more than a century ago.

The Council of Regency’s intervention is necessary because this case is built on fundamental historical and legal inaccuracies that neither party before the Court can correct. At stake is not only the future of Kamehameha Schools, but the integrity of Hawaiian Kingdom law, the rights of the Hawaiian people, and the protection of future generations who were the express beneficiaries of Pauahi’s trust.

U.S. civil rights law, which includes all U.S. laws and administrative measures, cannot be imposed within the territory of the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom, which constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. The United States has recognized usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation as a war crime since the First World War.

As an occupied State, only Hawaiian Kingdom law applies in this case, which allows preferential admissions to Hawaiian children. The Council of Regency is intervening to protect Kamehameha Schools, which was called the Bishop Estate in the nineteenth century.

Kamehameha Schools was created under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the nineteenth century, at a time when Hawaiʻi was an internationally recognized sovereign State with treaties, diplomats, and a functioning constitutional government. Pauahi’s will was accepted by the Hawaiian Kingdom probate court in 1885—years before the illegal overthrow of the government of Queen Liliʻuokalani on January 17, 1893. Those laws did not disappear with the arrival of U.S. troops.

Under international law, the overthrow of a government does not extinguish the State itself. In 1997, the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was restored as a Regency under Hawaiian constitutional law and the legal doctrine of necessity.

On February 3, 2026, the Council of Regency, as interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed its Motion for Reconsideration with the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i, seeking reconsideration of Judge Smith’s order denying the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion to Intervene in the federal lawsuit filed on January 21, 2026.

The Hawaiian Kingdom argues that Judge Smith committed “manifest errors of law” including its misapplication of the political question doctrine at the intervention stage. The political question doctrine bars federal courts from adjudicating disputes that are “textually committed” by the U.S. Constitution to another branch or lack judicially manageable standards to resolve. In the case of Hawai‘i, the court invoked this doctrine because it falsely asserted that the United States executive branch has not recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom. In this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom provides conclusive evidence that Judge Smith’s order is a “manifest error.”

In its motion for reconsideration, the Council of Regency provided two explicit evidence that the United States recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State and the Council of Regency as its interim government during international arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court. The first piece of evidence is when the United States entered into an executive agreement with the Council of Regency, called the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement, for it to have access to all records and pleadings of the international arbitration case of Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration from 1999-2001.

The second piece of evidence is under opinio juris—customary international law, when it did not object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency before it formed the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. By not objecting, the United States accepted the Permanent Court’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency. Here is a link to a memorandum that explains the circumstances of this evidence under international law published by the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Foreign Ministry.

On the matter of opinio juris—customary international law, none of the current 127 Contracting States to the treaty that formed the Permanent Court, to include the United States, objected to the Permanent Court’s conclusion that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that it is a non-Contracting State under Article 47 of the treaty permitting the Hawaiian Kingdom access to the Permanent Court. Article 47 states, the “jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may…be extended to disputes [with] non-Contracting Powers.” In international law, “Powers” is used interchangeably with “States.”

Under opinio juris, the practice of the Permanent Court includes its case description on its website that was not objected to by the United States. It states:

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.

The case description by the Permanent Court states that the Council of Regency is the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America continues to exist, and the imposition of American laws within Hawaiian territory is “unlawful.”

On February 16, 2026, the Hawaiian Kingdom filed its motion for leave to file supplemental brief in support of motion for reconsideration that provided additional evidence of the Council of Regency being the interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Added to the Permanent Court, is the recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the International Seabed Authority (ISA). In a formal letter, dated March 3, 2026, from the ISA’s Secretary General, Letitia Carvalho, to Hawaiian Kingdom Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim, Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., the ISA recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and its status as an Observer State. In her letter, the Secretary General clarifies the rules and practice of the ISA for a State to acquire observer status under Rule 82 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the ISA.

The ISA is an international organization that is composed of representatives of States that are Contracting States to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The headquarters of the ISA is in Kingston, Jamaica, where the Council and the Assembly of the ISA meet in session. Currently, the membership of the ISA is comprised of the European Union and 171 Contracting States to the UNCLOS.

According to Civil Beat, “Leticia Carvalho, the secretary-general of the ISA, said last week that she wants to finalize global rules governing seabed mining by the end of this year, a reversal of her previous position that the regulations could take several years to finalize, in part a reaction to President Donald Trump’s aggressive push to mine both U.S. and international waters outside the international regulatory framework.” 

On March 5, 2026, Minister Dr. Sai provided a formal letter to the Secretary General acknowledging receipt of her letter, as requested, and thanking her for the ISA’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its interim government.

On March 10, the Council of Regency filed a Motion for Leave to file Letters Supplement in Support of Motion for Reconsideration. These letters from the ISA Secretary General and the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Minister of Foreign Affairs affirm the legal standing of the Council of Regency as the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is at the core of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Reconsideration. The legal standing of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency, as its interim government, prevents Judge Smith from invoking the political question doctrine.

Neutrality Studies Podcast: From the Ocean to the Sea, Hawaii will be Free | Dr. Keanu Sai

Posted on by
2

Dr. Keanu Sai was again invited to do a podcast interview by Professor Pascal Lottaz on the subject of the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a Neutral State. Professor Lottaz is an Assistant Professor for Neutrality Studies at the Waseda Institute for Advanced Study in Tokyo. He is a also a researcher at Neutrality Studies, where its YouTube channel, which airs their podcasts, has 153,000 subscribers worldwide.

The first podcast was titled “EX-Army Officer WAGES LAWFARE To End Illegal Occupation of Hawaii” that was posted December 5, 2024.

BREAKING NEWS: International Seabed Authority Recognizes the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on by
8

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 10, 2026:

In a formal letter, dated March 3, 2026, from the International Seabed Authority’s (ISA) Secretary General, Letitia Carvalho, to Hawaiian Kingdom Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim, Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., the ISA recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and its status as an Observer State. In her letter, the Secretary General clarifies the rules and practice of the ISA for a State to acquire observer status under Rule 82 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the ISA.

The ISA is an international organization that is composed of representatives of States that are Contracting States to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The headquarters of the ISA is in Kingston, Jamaica, where the Council and the Assembly of the ISA meet in session. Currently, the membership of the ISA is comprised of the European Union and 171 Contracting States to the UNCLOS.

According to its website, the “ISA is the organization through which States Parties to UNCLOS organize and control all mineral-resources-related activities in the Area for the benefit of humankind as a whole. In so doing, ISA has the mandate to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-seabed-related activities.”

For those States that have not acceded to the UNCLOS, participation is allowed if the States are granted observer status. While the Observer State is permitted to participate in the meetings, it has no voting rights. There are currently 27 Observer States that includes the United States.

Rule 82(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly provides “States and entities referred to in article 305 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which are not members of the Authority,” can participate as Observers. Article 305(a) of the UNCLOS provides “all States” can become a Contracting State to the Convention. Though it is not yet a Contracting State and member to the UNCLOS pursuant to Article 305(a) of the Convention, the Hawaiian Kingdom has been acknowledged by the ISA as a State, as referred to in article 305 of the UNCLOS, and is consequently qualified to apply for participation as an “Observer” in meetings of the Assembly and of the Council of the ISA.

Since June of 2025, Minister Dr. Sai, in his official capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim of the Hawaiian Kingdom, was in communication with the ISA that led to the formal recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the ISA on March 3, 2026.

In Minister Dr. Sai’s letter to Secretary General Carvalho, dated June 30, 2025, he stated, “The purpose of this letter is two-fold: first, to explain the circumstances of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom for the purposes of international law and its impact on ISA members who are successor States of Hawaiian Kingdom treaty partners; and second, for the Hawaiian Kingdom to provide you notice of our intent to accede to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (with annex).”

Minister Dr. Sai sent a communication, dated July 28, 2025, to Ms. Mariana Durney, Legal Counsel and Director of the Office of Legal Counsel for the ISA, that provided the factual and legal basis for the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State, under international law, since the nineteenth century, and the Council of Regency as its interim government, so that it can pursue Observer State status under Rule 82 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly.

In a communication, dated September 2, 2025, to Secretary General Carvalho, Minister Dr. Sai stated, “Pending the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom accession to these international agreements and, thereby, becomes a Member State of the International Seabed Authority, we request observer status as a State in accordance with Article 305(1)(a) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and Rule 82(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority.”

On March 3, 2026, Minister Dr. Sai received an email, with an enclosed letter, from Ms. Durney, explaining the process by which the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a Non-Contracting State to the UNCLOS, needs to do in order to be granted Observer State status under Rule 82 (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly. In Ms. Durney’s letter, she referred to Minister Dr. Sai as “H.E. Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim, Hawaiian Kingdom.”

Later that day of the same date, Minister Dr. Sai received an email, with an enclosed  “formal letter,” from Secretary General Carvalho clarifying the rules and practice for a State to participate in meetings of the ISA as an observer.

According to the United Nations Correspondence Manual, “Formal letters are those employing diplomatic style and phraseology. Normally such letters are addressed only to heads of State or heads of Government, ministers for foreign affairs and [Ambassadors].” And that “Formal letters to ministers for foreign affairs […] should, as a rule, include the name of the addressee in the address. The address should also contain full personal titles such “His Excellency.” Here is an example of a formal letter from the Secretary General of United Nations to a Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In her formal letter to Minister Dr. Sai, Secretary General Carvalho stated:

On March 5, 2026, Minister Dr. Sai acknowledged receipt of Secretary General Carvalho’s communication, dated March 3, 2026. In his letter to the Secretary General, Minster Dr. Sai stated:

Excellency:

This letter acknowledges your email, of 3 March 2026, which enclosed your letter of the same date, and the email from Ms. Mariana Durney, Legal Counsel and Director of the Office of Legal Counsel, of 3 March 2026, which enclosed her letter of the same date. I wish to thank you for Your Excellency’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, under customary international law, since the nineteenth century, despite the prolonged nature of the belligerent occupation, by the United States of America, that began on 17 January 1893.

The International Seabed Authority’s recognition is consistent with the recognitions of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the Permanent Court of Arbitration during arbitral proceedings in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom from 1999 to 2001, by the United States’ recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom under the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement, a treaty under international law, and by the 127 Contracting States to the 1907 Hague Convention, I, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes that established the Permanent Court, under opinio juris.

Of the 169 Member States of the International Seabed Authority, 111 of these States are also Member States of the Permanent Court, to wit: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Eswatini, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North, Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, State of Palestine, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. And there are 15 Observer States that are also Member States of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, to wit: Cambodia, Colombia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Liechtenstein, Peru, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, and Venezuela.

My communication of 28 July 2025 to Ms. Durney, provided her the factual and legal basis of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State, under customary international law, and the restoration of the government by a Council of Regency under Hawaiian constitutional law and the legal doctrine of necessity, so that it can pursue Observer State status under rule 82 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority.

I wish to thank you for your clarification of the rules and practices of the International Seabed Authority regarding observer status. The Hawaiian Kingdom intends to pursue its observer status accordingly so that its Special Envoy can be accredited to participate in meetings of the Assembly or the Council under Rule 82 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly.

Please accept, Excellency, the expression of my highest consideration.

[signed]
H.E. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D.
Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim
Her Excellency Letitia Carvalho
Secretary General of the International Seabed Authority
14-20 Port Royal Street
Kingston, Jamaica

“The recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State under international law by the Secretary General of the International Seabed Authority is a significant act taken by a reputable international body represented by 171 countries,” stated Minister Dr. Sai. He explained, “The Hawaiian Kingdom took deliberate steps to become accredited as an Observer State so that it can participate in meetings of the International Seabed Authority, because its fisheries and marine environment in its 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone has been unlawfully exploited by the United States for over a century.”

Minister Dr. Sai also stated, “The Hawaiian Kingdom will now proceed toward securing Observer State status so that its Special Envoy can participate in the meetings of the Council and the Assembly of the ISA in the very near future.”

MEDIA CONTACT:

Dr. David “Keanu” Sai, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Council of Regency
Acting Minister of the Interior
Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim
Email: interior@hawaiiankingdom.org

The Significance of the 2000 Sai-Clinton Agreement—A Treaty under International Law

Posted on by
17

In April of 2000 began an exchange of diplomatic notes between the Hawaiian Kingdom Government and the United States Government, and between the Hawaiian Kingdom Government and the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands. International arbitration proceedings were initiated by Lance Larsen’s legal counsel filing a notice of arbitration with the Permanent Court on November 8, 1999. At the center of the international dispute was the allegation by the claimant—Larsen, that the respondent—the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was liable “for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

Before the arbitral tribunal was formed by the Permanent Court on June 9, 2000, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, Tjaco T. van den Hout, Secretary General of the Permanent Court, spoke with the Chairman of the Council of Regency, David Keanu Sai, who served as agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom, over the telephone and recommended that the Hawaiian Government provide an invitation to the United States to join in the arbitration.

On April 3, 2000, the first diplomatic note was delivered by Chairman Sai to John R. Crook, Assistant Legal Adviser, United States Department of State. This note covered a conference call meeting in Washington, D.C., on that day between Chairman Sai, Crook, and Ms. Ninia Parks, legal counsel for Lance Larsen, where the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom provided a formal invitation for the United States to join in international arbitration proceedings already in train at the Permanent Court, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom.

A copy of the note was sent to the Permanent Court’s Registry for record that the United States was invited to join in the arbitral proceedings. Under international law, this note served as an offering instrument that contained the following language:

[T]he reason for our visit was the offer by the…Hawaiian Kingdom, by consent of the Claimant [Larsen], by his attorney, Ms. Ninia Parks, for the United States Government to join in the arbitral proceedings presently instituted under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, Netherlands. … [T]he State Department should review the package in detail and can get back to the Acting Council of Regency by phone for continued dialogue. I gave you our office’s phone number…, of which you acknowledged. I assured you that we did not need an immediate answer, but out of international courtesy the offer is still open, notwithstanding arbitral proceedings already in motion. I also advised you that Secretary-General van den Hout of the Permanent Court of Arbitration was aware of our travel to Washington, D.C. and the offer to join in the arbitration. As I stated in our conversation he requested that the dialogue be reduced to writing and filed with the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration for the record, and you acknowledged.

Thereafter, the Permanent Court’s Deputy Secretary General, Phyllis Hamilton, informed Chairman Sai over the phone that Cynthia Perrin Schneider, Ambassador of the United States to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, notified the Hawaiian Kingdom, through the Permanent Court, that the United States declined the invitation to join the arbitral proceedings. Ambassador Schneider was representing Bill Clinton, President of the United States. Instead, the United States requested permission from the Hawaiian Government to have access to the pleadings and records of the Larsen case at the Registry of the Permanent Court. Chairman Sai consented to this request. The Permanent Court, represented by the Deputy Secretary General, served as an intermediary to secure an agreement, by exchange of notes, between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States.

According to Johst Wilmanns, in his article “Note Verbale,” published in the Encyclopedia of Public International Law, “Legally there is no difference between a formal note, a note verbale and a memorandum. They are all communications which become legally operative upon the arrival at the addressee. The legal effects depend on the substance of the note, which may relate to any field of international relations.” And according to Cendric van Assche, in her chapter “1969 Vienna Convention,” in The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, A Commentary, “the exchange of two notes […] constituting an agreement satisfies the definition of the term ‘treaty’ as provided by Article 2(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention.”

This treaty providing permission for the United States to access all records and pleadings of the Larsen case at the Registry of the Permanent Court is called the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement. Coincident with this treaty is the recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its interim government. The 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement has similar parallels to the 1933 Roosevelt-Litvinov agreement where the United States recognized the Soviet Government.

The offer by the Permanent Court’s Secretary General to have the Hawaiian Government provide the United States an invitation to join in the arbitral proceedings, and the Hawaiian Government’s acceptance of this offer, also constitutes an international agreement between the Permanent Court and the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to J.L. Weinstein, in his article, “Exchange of Notes,” in the British Yearbook of International Law, “the growth of international organizations and the recognition of their legal personality has resulted in agreements being concluded by an exchange of notes between such organizations and states.” This treaty is called the Sai-van den Hout agreement.

There is no question of law or fact that by virtue of the Sai-Clinton agreement, the United States recognizes the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom since the nineteenth century and that American laws and administrative measures being imposed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom is UNLAWFUL. Section 6 and 8 of the Hawaiian Kingdom Civil Codes states:

§6. 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.

§8. Whatever is done in contravention of a prohibitory law is void, although the nullity be not formally directed.

As a result, the United States, through its State of Hawai‘i, must begin to comply with the international law of occupation and begin to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which the provisional laws proclaimed in 2014, until there is a treaty of peace. Under the law of occupation, the State of Hawai‘i must transform itself into a Military Government. The Council of Regency has published its Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government in 2023 with essential and implied tasks.

Hawaiian Kingdom has Treaties with 154 Member States of the United Nations

Posted on by
33

As an independent State in the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom maintained treaties with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

Despite the unlawful overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by United States forces on January 17, 1893, international law provides for the continued existence of the Hawaiian State even when the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands on July 7, 1898, by a congressional law during the Spanish-American War. For information of the American occupation, see chapter 21 “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” in Oxford University Press’ publication of Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age. Because the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist so do its treaties.

After the American overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, States were led to believe that the Hawaiian Kingdom had ceased to exist and became a part of the United States in 1898. Shattering this narrative was the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State and the Council of Regency as its restored government, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, in 1999.

The 20th century ushered in new States as successors to their predecessor States where the number of States in 1893 that numbered 44 would exponentially rise to 193 States that are members of the United Nations (“UN”). These successor States arose because of the First and Second World Wars and through decolonization of former colonial and trust territories.

When a successor State is established, the question arises regarding treaties of the predecessor State with a third State and whether it is binding or not on the successor State. For example, in June of 1961, New Zealand and Great Britain entered into a treaty that concerned air services between the former and the British territories of Western Samoa and Fiji. When Western Samoa became a successor State to Great Britain on January 1, 1962, the 1961 treaty remained binding on Western Samoa after its independence from Great Britain. In 1997, Western Samoa officially changed its name to Samoa.

According to the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Article 24 states:

1. A bilateral treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates is considered as being in force between a newly independent State and the other State party when: (a) they expressly so agree; or (b) by reason of their conduct they are to be considered as having agreed.

2. A treaty considered as being in force under paragraph 1 applies in the relations between the newly independent State and the other State party from the date of the succession of States, unless a different intention appears from their agreement or is otherwise established.

The successor States of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s treaty partners, were not aware, at the time of their independence, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a State, therefore, neither the newly independent States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom could declare “within a reasonable time after the attaining of independence, that the treaty is regarded as no longer in force between them.” Until there is clarification of the successor States’ intentions, as to a common understanding with the Hawaiian Kingdom regarding the continuance in force of the Hawaiian treaty with their predecessor State, the Hawaiian Kingdom will presume the continuance in force of its treaties with the successor States. The majority of Member States of the United Nations are successor States to treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with 154 Member States of the United Nations. 14 treaties with original States and 140 treaties with their successor States.

HAWAIIAN-AMERICAN TREATY: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, and the Philippines.

HAWAIIAN-AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN TREATY: Austria and Hungary

HAWAIIAN-BELGIAN TREATY: Burundi, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda.

HAWAIIAN-BRITISH TREATY: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

HAWAIIAN-DUTCH TREATY: Indonesia and Suriname.

HAWAIIAN-FRENCH TREATY: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Vanuatu, and Viet Nam.

HAWAIIAN-ITALIAN TREATY: Libya and Somalia.

HAWAIIAN-JAPANESE TREATY: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea.

HAWAIIAN-PORTUGUESE TREATY: Angola, Cabo Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, and Timor-Leste.

HAWAIIAN-RUSSIAN TREATY: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

HAWAIIAN-SPANISH TREATY: Cuba and Equatorial Guinea.

HAWAIIAN-SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN TREATY: Sweden and Norway.

VIDEOS of the Kamehameha Schools Presentation “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire: A Conversation with Dr. David Keanu Sai”

Posted on by
11

Below is the video of Dr. Keanu Sai’s presentation on his recent chapter “Hawai‘iʻs Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” published by Englandʻs Oxford University Pressʻ Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age in December of 2024.

Below is the video of questions and answers of Dr. Keanu Sai following his presentation.

Kamehameha Schools Presents “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire: A Conversation with Dr. David Keanu Sai”

Posted on by
25

Dr. Keanu Sai, a graduate of the Kamehameha Schools Kapālama campus in 1982 has been invited by Kamehameha Schools Ka‘iwakīloumoku Pacific Indigenous Institute, in partnership with Kanaeokāna, for a presentation on March 5, 2025, with questions and answers to follow about his recent chapter “Hawai‘iʻs Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” published by Englandʻs Oxford University Pressʻ Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age in December of 2024. No registration is required for this free public in-person event and light refreshments to follow.

The public is encouraged to attend because Dr. Saiʻs presentation will get into the operational plan for transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a military government of Hawai‘i and the impact it will have on the population of Hawai‘i, e.g. health care, land, taxes, cost of living. The session will be recorded and uploaded on Kanaeokana’s website.

The session will be recorded and uploaded on Kanaeokana’s YouTube channel.

Book Launch Tomorrow at the University of Hawai‘i of Oxford University Press’ publication of “Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age” with a Chapter on the American Occupation of Hawai‘i

Posted on by
10

Tomorrow will be the official book launch of Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age published by England’s Oxford University Press in December of 2024. Dr. Keanu Sai is a contributor of a chapter in the book titled “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire.” In his chapter Dr. Sai

In his chapter, Dr. Sai covers: the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the evolution of governance as a constitutional monarchy, the unlawful overthrow of the government by United States troops in 1893, the prolonged American occupation since 1893, the restoration of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1997 by a Council of Regency, and the recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, and the Council of Regency, as its provisional government, by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, in the 1999-2001 international arbitration case Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. He concludes his chapter with:

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.

THE EVENT WILL BE LIVE STREAMED ON FACEBOOK STARTING AT 3:30pm HI TIME