The European Convention on Nationality defines nationality as the legal bond between a person and a State and does not indicate the person’s ethnic origin. It is a person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a given State. The terms nationality and citizenship are synonymous, and affords a person the political right to participate in government. Without it, a person is prevented from electing governmental officials or serving as a government official themselves. A political right is distinctly different from a civil right, which are basic human rights protected by the constitution and laws of the State, irregardless of a person’s citizenship. Non-citizens residing in the State are categorized as Aliens or Foreigners.

There are three ways a person could acquire citizenship within an established State depending on its national laws: (1) jus sanguinis, where a person acquires the citizenship of his or her parents; (2) jus soli, where the nationality is conferred upon a person by birth within the territory of the State; and (3) naturalization, where the government grants citizenship upon the application of a foreigner.

On January 21, 1868, the Minister of the Interior for the Hawaiian Kingdom, His Excellency Ferdinand Hutchison, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality: “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 having been the subject of another power, he becomes a subject of this kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.”

The position of His Majesty’s Government was founded upon Hawaiian statute. Section III, Art. I, Chap. V of an Act to Organize the Executive Departments, 1845 and 1846, provided that: “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, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty. All such persons shall be amenable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects. All persons born abroad of foreign parents, shall unless duly naturalized, as in this article prescribed, be deemed aliens, and treated as such, pursuant to the laws.”

There are two exceptions where birth within the territory does not result in citizenship. First, where a child is born within the territory, but the child’s parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats, that child is not a citizen of the territory of birth; and second, where a child is born of Alien enemies in an area of the territory under hostile occupation, that child will not be a citizen.

Regarding children of foreign diplomats, Frederick Turrill was an American citizen born in the Hawaiian Islands, but later got naturalized on May 21, 1888; and E.H. Wodehouse was a British subject born in the islands and later naturalized on May 7, 1892. The second exception applies to belligerent occupations.

There are numerous references to “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,” and one such reference is a U.S. Supreme Court decision. In the same year the United States began its hostile occupation of Hawaii in 1898 during the Spanish-American War, its Supreme Court rendered a decision concerning the United States citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, a person of Chinese descent. In that decision it also expounded upon the two exceptions to the acquisition of citizenship by birth as determined by the common law of England and made reference to an English case, Calvin’s case, which was decided by the English Court in the year 1608. Although the Hawaiian Kingdom courts have stated that the common law is not in force in this Kingdom, it did state that “…in construing our law the Court must be guided by those enactments and the decisions of American and English Courts.” In re Apuna, 6 Haw. 732 (1869).

In United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “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 naturalborn 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.”

In the Calvin’s case (1608), the English Court stated: “…for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject of the King of England though he be born upon his soil;” and “if any of the King’s ambassadors in foreign nations have children…they are natural born subjects [of England], yet they are born out of the King’s dominion.”

Once a State is occupied, international law preserves the status quo of the occupied State as it was before the occupation began. To preserve the nationality of the occupied State from being manipulated by the occupying State to its advantage, international law only allows individuals born within the territory of the occupied State to acquire the nationality of their parents—jus sanguinis. To preserve the status quo, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention mandates that the “Occupying Power shall not…transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” For individuals, who were born within Hawaiian territory, to be a Hawaiian subjects they must be a direct descendant of a person or persons who were Hawaiian subjects prior to the American occupation that began at 12 noon on August 12, 1898, which was when ceremonies took place by the United States annexing the islands. All other individuals born after 12 noon on August 12, 1898 to the present are Aliens who can only acquire the nationality of their parents.

According to the 1890 government census, Hawaiian subjects numbered 48,107, with the aboriginal Hawaiian, both pure and part, numbering 40,622, being 84% of the national population, and the non-aboriginal Hawaiians numbering 7,485, being 16%. Despite the massive and illegal migrations of foreigners to the Hawaiian Islands since 1898, which, according to the State of Hawai‘i numbers 1,302,939 in 2009, the status quo of the national population of the Hawaiian Kingdom is maintained. Therefore, under the international laws of occupation, the aboriginal Hawaiian population of 322,812 in 2009 would continue to be 84% of the Hawaiian national population, and the non-aboriginal Hawaiian population of 61,488 would continue to be 16%. The balance of the population in 2009, being 918,639, are Aliens who were illegally transferred, either directly or indirectly, by the United States of America as the occupying Power.

Similar to the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were occupied by the Russians for over half a century. In 1940, Russian intervention provided for the forced incorporation of these Baltic States into the U.S.S.R. In 1991, with the breakup of the Soviet Union, these Baltic States once again regained their independence and immediately had to deal with the pressing issue of citizenship in the aftermath of prolonged Russian occupation.

Roger Brubaker, author of the article Citizenship struggles in Soviet Successor States (1992), stated that Estonia adopted a model for defining the initial body of citizens as the restored State model. States who regained their former independence are called restored States, and as these States are not new there would be no need to redefine a new body of citizens, but rather utilize the laws that existed before the occupation to determine the citizenry.

Under this model, persons born in Estonia before the 1940 annexation and their descendants were recognized as having Estonian citizenship. This also included United States citizens who were the offspring of Estonians. Regarding the citizenry of the occupier, the Estonian government also applied the same view the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court had made in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. It viewed all Russians who entered the country after the occupation in 1940, and their descendants, as illegal and could not claim Estonian citizenship. But if a Russian was born in Estonia before the occupation that person acquired citizenship. Latvia also adopted the restored State model. Therefore, it can be stated as a matter of law and based on contemporary examples, that the Hawaiian citizenry of today is comprised of descendants of Hawaiian subjects and those foreigners who were born in the Hawaiian Islands prior to August 12, 1898.

This exclusion of the Hawaiian citizenry is based upon precedence and law, but a restored Hawaiian government does have the authority to widen the scope of its citizenry and adopt a more inclusive model in the aftermath of prolonged American occupation. Brubaker stated that Lithuania adopted such a model. Under the inclusive model, the original citizenry of Lithuania was confirmed under the restored State model, but the foreigners, which included the Russians, were divided into two groups. The first group comprised of permanent residents who would be granted optional inclusion in the Lithuanian citizenry, while the second would be classified as aliens. The optional inclusion of the first group depended upon these residents meeting certain minimum requirements established by the Lithuanian government. (i.e. years of residency and/or language).

Addition: The first occupation by the United States of America took place from January 17, 1893 to April 1, 1893, which, according to international law, any child born between these dates can only acquire the citizenship of their parents. International law provides that an occupation begins when foreign troops are in effective control of an invaded State’s territory and not merely present within the territory. Although the U.S. troops were landed on January 16, 1893, it did not have effective control until Queen Lili‘uokalani temporarily yielded her executive power to the United States, which called for a Presidential investigation. Before Special Commissioner James Blount initiated his investigation he ordered the U.S. flag to be removed and ordered the troops back on to the U.S.S. Boston that was anchored in Honolulu harbor on April 1, 1893.

Despite over a century of illegal migration that exploded the Alien population from 41,873 in 1890, of which U.S. citizens merely number 1,928, to 918,639 in 2009, the population of Hawaiian subjects has remained intact with its ratio of 84% aboriginal Hawaiians and 16% non-aboriginal Hawaiians. This should alleviate the concern of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects who previously thought they were the minority, when in fact and law they remain the majority. Only Hawaiian subjects, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, have political rights, which means they alone can participate in government.

Queen Lili‘uokalani’s reign was fraught with political power struggles and rumors of overthrow. The 1890 McKinley Tariff Act created an economic depression. On January 14, 1893, the Queen proclaimed her intent to reinstate the lawful constitution in response to calls by the people and political organizations, in particular the Hui Kalai‘aina (Hawaiian Political Association).

In reaction, Lorrin Thurston organized a small group of insurgents into a Committee of Safety to plan for the ultimate takeover of the government and to secure annexation to the United States. The so-called Committee of Safety sought support from U.S. Minister John L. Stevens on January 16, 1893 to order the landing of U.S. troops to protect the insurgents while they prepared for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States by a voluntary treaty of cession.

On January 17th the group declared themselves the Provisional Government with Sanford Dole as its president. Article 31 of the Hawaiian constitution provides, “To the [Queen] belongs the executive power.” Therefore, as the constitutional monarch, the Queen was vested with the faithful execution of Hawaiian law, and it was her duty to ensure that certain insurgents be apprehended by the police for committing the crime of treason, being a violation of Chapter VI of the Penal Code. However, under threat of war by the presence of U.S. troops who were ordered by the U.S. diplomat Stevens to protect the insurgents, the police force, headed by Marshall Charles Wilson, could not apprehend the insurgents without bloodshed between the police and U.S. troops. Later that day, the Queen made the following assignment of executive power under protest, called the Lili‘uokalani assignment:

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

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

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

Done at Honolulu this 17th day of January, A.D. 1893.

Lili‘uokalani, R.

Samuel Parker, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Wm. H. Cornwell, Minister of Finance.

John. F. Colburn, Minister of the Interior.

A.P. Peterson, Attorney General.

In complete disregard of the Queen’s protest and assignment of executive power, the Provisional Government and Secretary of State James Blaine signed a treaty on February 14, 1893 at Washington, D.C. President Benjamin Harrison submitted the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Presidential election already had taken place in 1892, with Grover Cleveland defeating the incumbent Benjamin Harrison. After his inauguration on March 4, 1893, President Cleveland received the Queen’s protest and assignment from Paul Neumann, former Hawaiian Attorney General, who, by a power of attorney, represented the Queen.

On March 9, 1893, Cleveland withdrew the treaty from the Senate and appointed James H. Blount as Special Commissioner, a former U.S. Representative from Georgia and former Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, as special commissioner to investigate and report his findings to Secretary of State Walter Gresham. By accepting the Queen’s temporary assignment of executive power, President Grover Cleveland bound himself and his successors in the office to temporarily administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in accordance with Article 31 of the Hawaiian constitution until the executive power would be returned.

The investigation concluded that the United States diplomat and troops were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government with the ultimate goal of transferring the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. Blount reported that, “in pursuance of a prearranged plan, the Government thus established hastened off commissioners to Washington to make a treaty for the purpose of annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.” The report also detailed United States government actions that violated international laws as well as Hawaiian territorial sovereignty.

In Hawai‘i there is a political trend called the sovereignty or independence movement that began in the 1970s. This political wing, which grew out of the Hawaiian cultural renaissance movement, is comprised of diverse groups of aboriginal Hawaiians working toward the goal or aspiration of achieving sovereignty or independence. These groups vary in ideologies and organization, but all of them have been operating on the false assumption that the United States has independence and sovereignty over Hawai‘i and therefore the goal is separation or secession through a process commonly referred to as self-determination. According to the United Nations, self-determination is the right of the people of a non-sovereign nation to choose their own form of governance separate from the foreign State that has the sovereignty and independence under international law.

Actions taken by these groups are centered on political activism that have taken many forms at both the national and international levels. This political trend has led to confusion regarding Hawai‘i’s true status and basic terminology and the application of the terms “sovereignty” and “independence.” Also adding to the confusion is the psychological effects of “presentism” and “confirmation bias.” Presentism is “an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experience,” and confirmation bias is “a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.”

Sovereignty by definition is absolute authority exercised by a State over its territory, territorial seas, and its nationals abroad, which is independent of other States and their authority over their territory, territorial seas, and its nationals abroad.  Authority over a State’s nationals abroad is called personal supremacy, and authority over territory is territorial sovereignty. Therefore, sovereignty is associated with political independence and the terms are often interchangeable.

The term State, under international law, means a political unit that has a centralized government, a resident population, a defined territory and the ability to enter and maintain international relations with other States. A State is a legal person in international law that possesses rights and obligations. A nation, however, is a group of people bound together by a common history, language and culture. Every State is a nation or a combination of nations, but not every nation or nations comprise a State. Since the nineteenth century, a State comes into existence only if other States have recognized it, which represents the entirety of the international order. In other words, a few States may have given explicit recognition, but the majority hasn’t. Until the majority of States have provided recognition to the nation or group of nations, international law does not recognize the new State because its independence over its territory, territorial seas, and its nationals abroad has not been acknowledged by the international community of States.

The most recent example of a sovereignty movement by a nation seeking State sovereignty and independence and ultimately achieving it was Palestine. On November 29, 2012, the member States of the United Nations voted overwhelmingly to recognize Palestinian Statehood. Up to this date, Palestine was a nation seeking sovereignty and independence, which is called self-determination. Once a State has been recognized the recognizing States cannot deny it later, and there exists a rule of international law that preserves the independence of an already recognized State, unless that State has relinquished its independence and sovereignty by way of a treaty or customary practice recognized by international law.

According to the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), in the 1927 seminal case S.S. Lotus between France and Turkey, “International law governs relations between independent States. The rules of law binding upon States therefore emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions (treaties) or by usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to regulate the relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims. Restrictions upon the independence of States cannot therefore be presumed.” In other words, once a State is acknowledged as being independent it will continue to be independent unless proven otherwise. Therefore, the State will still have sovereignty and independence over its territory, territorial seas, and its nationals, even when its government has been overthrown and is militarily occupied by a foreign State. During occupations the sovereignty remains vested in the occupied State, but the authority to exercise that sovereignty is temporarily vested in the occupying State, which is regulated by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and international humanitarian law.

When the PCIJ stated that restrictions upon the independence of States could not be presumed, it did not mean that international law could not restrict States in its relations with other States that are also independent. In the Lotus case, the PCIJ explained, “Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from convention (treaty).” The PCIJ continued, “In these circumstances, all that can be required of a State is that it should not overstep the limits which international law places upon its jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty.”

The United States Supreme Court in 1936 recognized this restriction and limitation of a State’s authority in international law in U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. The U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens…, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law. As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family. Otherwise, the United States is not completely sovereign.”

In 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), in its dictum in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, verified Hawai‘i to be an independent State. In its arbitral award, the PCA stated, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.” As an independent State, international law provided a fundamental restriction on all States, to include the United States of America, that it may “not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.”

Since 1898, the United States has unlawfully exercised its power within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom militarily, legislatively and economically. On July 7, 1898, the United States Congress enacted a joint resolution unilaterally annexing the Hawaiian Kingdom over the protests of Hawai‘i’s Queen and people. Two years later, Congress enacted another law by creating a territorial government that took over the governmental infrastructure of the Hawaiian Kingdom that was previously high jacked by insurgents since 1893 with the support of the United States military. In 1959, the Congress again passed legislation transforming the territorial government into the 50th state of the American Union. Under both international law and United States constitutional law, these Congressional actions have no force and effect in Hawai‘i. Despite the propaganda and lies that have been perpetuated since the beginning of the occupation that Hawai‘i was annexed by a treaty, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to be an independent State that still retains its personal supremacy over its nationals abroad, and territorial sovereignty over its territory and territorial seas. The exercising of this authority, however, is limited only by the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the fact of an illegal and prolonged occupation.

A common statement made by sovereignty advocates is that the people have to collectively decide on the question of sovereignty and that it should be put to a vote. This is incorrect if Hawai‘i is already a sovereign and independent State. This prospect is valid only if Hawai‘i is a nation seeking sovereignty and independence, which is commonly referred to as “nation-building” under a people’s right to self-determination, but Hawai‘i is not. Self-determination and nation-building is the United Nations process by which sovereignty and independence is sought, but it is not guaranteed. This process provides to the people of a non-sovereign nation who have been colonized by a foreign State to choose whether or not they want independence from the foreign State, free association as an independent State with the foreign State, or total incorporation into the foreign State.

Recently, Maohi Nui (French Polynesia) has been reaffirmed by the United Nations as having a right to choose independence from France, free association with France, or total incorporation into France. Maohi Nui is by definition a sovereignty movement and education is key to ensuring that the people decide Maohi Nui’s status through decolonization with full knowledge, and not be influenced or coerced by political activism that is French driven. It won’t be easy for Maohi Nui, but the process of exercising self-determination should be fair under United Nations supervision and in line with General Assembly resolutions.

If other independent States cannot affect or change the independence of an established State and its sovereignty under international law, how can Hawai‘i’s people believe they can do what States can’t? Because the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law as an independent State, not only is the sovereignty movement rendered irrelevant, but also the status of Hawai‘i as an occupied State renders the State of Hawai‘i government and other federal agencies in the Hawaiian Islands self-proclaimed. It is within this international legal framework that actions taken by Federal government officials, State of Hawai‘i government officials, and County government officials are being reported to international authorities for war crimes under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court.

Re-education is crucial for Hawai‘i’s people and the world on the reality that Hawai‘i is an already independent and sovereign State that has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation. Before restoration of the de jure Hawaiian government takes place in accordance with the 1893 executive agreements, international law mandates that the occupying Power must establish a military government in order to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law (Article 43, Hague Convention, IV) and to also begin the withdrawal of all military installations from Hawaiian territory (Article 2, Hague Convention, V). This is the first and primary step toward transition.

The following terms and definitions are from the Hawaiian history textbook “Ua Mau Ke Ea-Sovereignty Endures.”

Independent State—A state that has absolute and independent legal and political authority over its territory to the exclusion of other states. Once recognized as independent, the state becomes a subject of international law. According to United States common law, an independent State is a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities around the globe.

Sovereignty—Supreme authority exercised over a particular territory. In international law, it is the supreme and absolute authority exercised through a government, being independent of any other sovereignty. Sovereignty, being authority, is distinct from government, which is the physical body that exercises the authority. Therefore, a government can be overthrown, but the sovereignty remains.

Colonization—Colonization is the building and maintaining of colonies in one territory by people from another country or state. It is the process, by which sovereignty over the territory of a colony is claimed by the mother country or state, and is exercised and controlled by the nationals of the colonizing country or state. Though colonization there is an unequal relationship between the colonizer and the native populations that reside within its colonial territory. These native populations are referred to as indigenous peoples and form the basis of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

De-colonization—De-colonization is the political process by which a non-self-governing territory under the sovereignty of the colonizing state or country becomes self-governing. According to the United Nations Resolution 1541 (XV), Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter, “A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self government by: (a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State; (b) Free association with an independent State; or (c) Integration with an independent State.”

Self-determination—A principle in international law that nations have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The international community first used the term after World War I where the former territorial possessions of the Ottoman Empire and Germany were assigned to individual member countries or states of the League of Nations for administration as Mandate territories. The function of the administration of these territories was to facilitate the process of self-determination whereby these territories would achieve full recognition as an independent and sovereign state. After World War II, territories of Japan and Italy were added and assigned to be administered individual member countries or states of the United Nations, being the successor of the League of Nations, and were called Trust territories. Also added to these territories were territories held by all other members of the United Nations and called Non-self-governing territories. Unlike the Mandate and Trust territories, they were not assigned to other member countries or states for administration, but remained under the original colonial authority who reported yearly to the United Nations on the status of these territories. Self-determination for Non-self-governing territories had three options: total incorporation into the colonial country or state, free association with the colonial country or state, or complete independence from the colonial country or state. Self-determination for indigenous peoples does not include independence and is often referred to as self-determination within the country or state they reside in.

Sovereignty movement—A political movement of a wide range of groups in the Hawaiian Islands that seek to exercise self-determination under international law as a Non-self-governing unit, or to exercise internal self-determination under the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The commonality of these various groups is that their political platforms are based on aboriginal Hawaiian identity and culture and use of the United Nations term indigenous people. The movement presumes that the Hawaiian Kingdom and its sovereignty were overthrown by the United States January 17th 1893, and therefore the movement is seeking to reclaim that sovereignty through de-colonization. The movement does not operate on the presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent state and the law of occupation, but rather on the aspiration of becoming an independent state or some form of internal self-determination within the laws of the United States.

International law provides an appropriate lens to the political and legal history of the Hawaiian Islands, which has been relegated under U.S. sovereignty and the right to internal self-determination of indigenous peoples. There are inherent contradictions and divergence of thought and direction between the concepts of Hawaiian State sovereignty and Hawaiian indigeneity.

On January 18, 2001, the U.S. National Security Council made known its position on indigenous peoples to its delegations assigned to the “U.N. Commission on Human Rights,” the “Commission’s Working Group on the United Nations (UN) Draft Declaration on Indigenous Rights,” and to the “Organization of American States (OAS) Working Group to Prepare the Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Populations.” The Council directed these delegates to “read a prepared statement that expresses the U.S. understanding of the term internal ‘self-determination’ and indicates that it does not include a right of independence or permanent sovereignty over natural resources.”

The Council also directed these delegates to support the use of the term internal self determination in both the U.N. and O.A.S. declarations on indigenous rights, and defined Indigenous Peoples as having “a right of internal self-determination.” By virtue of that right, “they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. This resolution sought to constrain the growing political movement of indigenous peoples “who aspire to rule their territorial homeland, or who claim the right to independent statehood under the doctrine of self-determination of peoples.”

The legal definition of a colony is “a dependent political economy, consisting of a number of citizens of the same country who have emigrated therefrom to people another, and remain subject to the mother country.” According to Albert Keller, a colonial studies scholar, colonization is “a movement of population and an extension of political power,” and therefore must be distinguished from migration.

Colonization is an extension of sovereignty over territory not subject to the sovereignty of another State, while migration is the mode of entry into the territory of another sovereign State. The “so-called ‘interior colonization’ of the Germans [within a non-German State] would naturally be a misnomer on the basis of the definition suggested.” This would suggest that the migration of United States citizens into the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom constituted American colonization and somehow resulted in the creation of an American colony.

The history of the Hawaiian Kingdom has fallen victim to the misuse of this term by contemporary scholars in the fields of post-colonial and cultural studies. These scholars have lost sight of the original use and application of the terms colony and colonization, and have remained steadfast in their conclusion that the American presence in the Hawaiian Islands was and is currently colonial in nature. This erroneous use of the word has caused much confusion and complicates agreement on legal and political solutions.

Slavoj Zizek, a philosophy scholar, critically suggests that in post-colonial studies, the use of the term colonization “starts to function as a hegemonic notion and is elevated to a universal paradigm, so that in relations between the sexes, the male sex colonizes the female sex, the upper classes colonize the lower classes, and so on.” He argues that in cultural studies it “effectively functions as a kind of ersatz-philosophy, and notions are thus transformed into ideological universals.

In the legal and political realm, the fundamental difference between the terms colonization/de-colonization and occupation/de-occupation, is that the colonized must negotiate with the colonizer in order to acquire state sovereignty, e.g. India from Great Britain, Rwanda from Belgium, and Indonesia from the Dutch. Under the latter, State sovereignty is presumed and not dependent on the will of the occupier, e.g. Soviet occupation of the Baltic States, and the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonization/de-colonization is a matter that concerns the internal laws of the colonizing State and presumes the colony is not sovereign, while occupation/de-occupation is a matter of international law relating to already existing sovereign States. Matthew Craven an international law scholar who has done extensive research on the continuity of the Hawaiian State, concludes:

“For the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, therefore, acceding to their identification as an indigenous people would be to implicitly accede not only to the reality, but also to the legitimacy, of occupation and political marginalization. All they might hope for at that level is formal recognition of their vulnerability and continued political marginalization rather than the status accorded under international law to a nation belligerently occupied.”

Hawaiian State sovereignty and the international laws of occupation not only presume the continuity of Hawaiian sovereignty, but also provide the legal framework for regulating the occupier, despite its history of non-compliance. It is clear that the U.S. government wrongfully administered the Hawaiian Islands since 1898 as if it were a colonial possession for the purpose of concealing a gross violation of international law. Therefore, colonialism must be viewed as a tool used by the occupant to commit fraud in an attempt to extinguish the memory of sovereignty and the legal order of the occupied State.

Self-determination, inherent sovereignty and indigenous peoples are terms fundamentally linked not just to the concept, but to the political and legal process of de-colonization, which presupposes sovereignty to be an aspiration and not a legal reality. The effects of colonization have affected the psychological and physiological make-up of many native Hawaiians, but these effects must be reinterpreted through the lens of international law. Colonial treatment is the evidence of the violation of the law, not the political basis of a sovereignty movement. As such, these violations should serve as the measurement for reparations and compensation to a people who, against all odds, fought and continue to fight to maintain their dignity, health, language and culture, and above all, their rightful and lawful sovereign status.

In 2009, a revised edition of Nation Within by Coffman was published with a significant change in its subtitle. In the original version published in 1998, the subtitle reads “The Story of America’s Annexation of the Nation of Hawai‘i,” but the revised edition now reads “The History of the American Occupation of Hawai‘i.” Coffman explains:

“In the book’s subtitle, the word Annexation has been replaced by the word Occupation, referring to America’s occupation of Hawai‘i. Where annexation connotes legality by mutual agreement, the act was not mutual and therefore not legal. Since by definition of international law there was no annexation, we are left then with the word occupation. In making this change, I have embraced the logical conclusion of my research into the events of 1893 to 1898 in Honolulu and Washington, D.C. I am prompted to take this step by a growing body of historical work by a new generation of Native Hawaiian scholars. Dr. Keanu Sai writes, ‘The challenge for…for the fields of political science, history, and law is to distinguish between the rule of law and the politics of power.’ In the history of Hawai‘i, the might of the United States does not make it right.”

November 28th is the most important national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is the day Great Britain and France formally recognized the Hawaiian Islands as an “independent state” in 1843, and has since been celebrated as “Independence Day,” which in the Hawaiian language is “La Ku‘oko‘a.” Here follows the story of this momentous event from the Hawaiian Kingdom Board of Education history textbook titled “A Brief History of the Hawaiian People” published in 1891.

**************************************

The First Embassy to Foreign Powers—In February, 1842, Sir George Simpson and Dr. McLaughlin, governors in the service of the Hudson Bay Company, arrived at Honolulu on business, and became interested in the native people and their government. After a candid examination of the controversies existing between their own countrymen and the Hawaiian Government, they became convinced that the latter had been unjustly accused. Sir George offered to loan the government ten thousand pounds in cash, and advised the king to send commissioners to the United States and Europe with full power to negotiate new treaties, and to obtain a guarantee of the independence of the kingdom.

Accordingly Sir George Simpson, Haalilio, the king’s secretary, and Mr. Richards were appointed joint ministers-plenipotentiary to the three powers on the 8th of April, 1842.

Mr. Richards also received full power of attorney for the king. Sir George left for Alaska, whence he traveled through Siberia, arriving in England in November. Messrs. Richards and Haalilio sailed July 8th, 1842, in a chartered schooner for Mazatlan, on their way to the United States*

*Their business was kept a profound secret at the time.

Proceedings of the British Consul—As soon as these facts became known, Mr. Charlton followed the embassy in order to defeat its object. He left suddenly on September 26th, 1842, for London via Mexico, sending back a threatening letter to the king, in which he informed him that he had appointed Mr. Alexander Simpson as acting-consul of Great Britain. As this individual, who was a relative of Sir George, was an avowed advocate of the annexation of the islands to Great Britain, and had insulted and threatened the governor of Oahu, the king declined to recognize him as British consul. Meanwhile Mr. Charlton laid his grievances before Lord George Paulet commanding the British frigate “Carysfort,” at Mazatlan, Mexico. Mr. Simpson also sent dispatches to the coast in November, representing that the property and persons of his countrymen were in danger, which introduced Rear-Admiral Thomas to order the “Carysfort” to Honolulu to inquire into the matter.

Recognition by the United States—Messres. Richards and Haalilio arrived in Washington early in December, and had several interviews with Daniel Webster, the Secretary of State, from whom they received an official letter December 19th, 1842, which recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and declared, “as the sense of the government of the United States, that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to be respected; that no power ought to take possession of the islands, either as a conquest or for the purpose of the colonization; and that no power ought to seek for any undue control over the existing government, or any exclusive privileges or preferences in matters of commerce.” *

*The same sentiments were expressed in President Tyler’s message to Congress of December 30th, and in the Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, written by John Quincy Adams.

Success of the Embassy in Europe—The king’s envoys proceeded to London, where they had been preceded by the Sir George Simpson, and had an interview with the Earl of Aberdeen, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the 22d of February, 1843.

Lord Aberdeen at first declined to receive them as ministers from an independent state, or to negotiate a treaty, alleging that the king did not govern, but that he was “exclusively under the influence of Americans to the detriment of British interests,” and would not admit that the government of the United States had yet fully recognized the independence of the islands.

Sir George and Mr. Richards did not, however, lose heart, but went on to Brussels March 8th, by a previous arrangement made with Mr. Brinsmade. While there, they had an interview with Leopold I., king of the Belgians, who received them with great courtesy, and promised to use his influence to obtain the recognition of Hawaiian independence. This influence was great, both from his eminent personal qualities and from his close relationship to the royal families of England and France.

Encouraged by this pledge, the envoys proceeded to Paris, where, on the 17th, M. Guizot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, received them in the kindest manner, and at once engaged, in behalf of France, to recognize the independence of the islands. He made the same statement to Lord Cowley, the British ambassador, on the 19th, and thus cleared the way for the embassy in England.

They immediately returned to London, where Sir George had a long interview with Lord Aberdeen on the 25th, in which he explained the actual state of affairs at the islands, and received an assurance that Mr. Charlton would be removed. On the 1st of April, 1843, the Earl of Aberdeen formally replied to the king’s commissioners, declaring that “Her Majesty’s Government are willing and have determined to recognize the independence of the Sandwich Islands under their present sovereign,” but insisting on the perfect equality of all foreigners in the islands before the law, and adding that grave complaints had been received from British subjects of undue rigor exercised toward them, and improper partiality toward others in the administration of justice. Sir George Simpson left for Canada April 3d, 1843.

Recognition of the Independence of the Islands—Lord Aberdeen, on the 13^th of June, assured the Hawaiian envoys that “Her Majesty’s government had no intention to retain possession of the Sandwich Islands,” and a similar declaration was made to the governments of France and the United States.

At length, on the 28th of November, 1843, the two governments of France and England united in a joint declaration to the effect that “Her Majesty, the queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty, the king of the French, taking into consideration the existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign nations have thought it right to engage reciprocally to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent state, and never to take possession, either directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed…”

This was the final act by which the Hawaiian Kingdom was admitted within the pale of civilized nations. Finding that nothing more could be accomplished for the present in Paris, Messrs. Richards and Haalilio returned to the United States in the spring of 1844. On the 6th of July they received a dispatch from Mr. J.C. Calhoun, the Secretary of State, informing them that the President regarded the statement of Mr. Webster and the appointment of a commissioner “as a full recognition on the part of the United States of the independence of the Hawaiian Government.”

In 1995, the dominant view of sovereignty was centered on ethnicity—the aboriginal (native) Hawaiian, and, as a people, its endeavor was to achieve either sovereignty through independence or a limited sovereignty within the United States. In other words, sovereignty was not a reality vested in an already established independent State as we now understand the term, but rather it was perceived as a political aspiration of a native people seeking sovereignty, thus giving rise to a sovereignty movement where you have some groups advocating for independence from the United States, while other groups advocating for limited sovereignty under United States law. The United States 1993 Congressional Apology Resolution for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government merely reinforced this view and portrayed native Hawaiians as a group similar to Native Americans. This was not an accurate portrayal of Hawai‘i’s political and legal history.

According to the government census in 1890, the majority of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s citizenry were aboriginal Hawaiians at 86% and the remaining 14% were non-aboriginal. The Hawaiian Kingdom was not based on ethnicity, but rather the rule of law, and the citizenry was also opened through naturallization and denization or through birth on Hawaiian territory – natural born. The international law of occupation, however, prevents the acquisition of the citizenship of the Hawaiian Kingdom through birth on Hawaiian territory, and limits the acquisition of Hawaiian citizenship to parentage. In other words, the citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom today is limited to people who are direct descendants of Hawaiian subjects, irrespective of their race, color or creed, that were Hawaiian subjects on August 12, 1898, which was the beginning of the prolonged occupation.

Already armed with the knowledge that the Hawaiian Kingdom was a recognized State under international law since November 28, 1843, and that the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government on January 17, 1893 by the United States did not equate to an overthrow of Hawaiian State sovereignty, extraordinary steps were taken in order to establish an acting government through a process provided for by Hawaiian Kingdom law as it existed in 1893, and by the legal doctrine of necessity. On December 15, 1995, a general partnership was formed under the 1880 Act to Provide for the Registration of Co-partnership Firms with the specific purpose to serve as an acting government in the absence of the monarch who was the chief executive of Hawaiian law and administration of government. A plan was devised to activate a regent under Article 33 of the Hawaiian Constitution to temporarily serve in the absence of a monarch, because to claim to be a monarch would be a direct violation of Hawaiian law. Since the death of Prince Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole in 1922, the last proclaimed heir to the throne prior to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government, only the Legislative Assembly has the authority under Article 22 of the Hawaiian Constitution to elect by ballot a new monarch—any other claimant would be self-proclaimed. Lunalilo was elected King by the Legislative Assembly under Article 22 of the Constitution on January 8, 1873 because King Kamehameha V was not able to confirm an heir under Hawaiian law, and the following year, David Kalakaua was elected King under Article 22 because King Lunalilo was not able to confirm an heir as well. A regency was the only legal option to reactivate the government.

According to the Co-partnership Act, Hawaiian Kingdom law required partnership agreements to be recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances as part of the registration process with the Minister of Interior. Today, the Bureau of Conveyances still exists and you will find partnership agreements that have been registered since 1880 to 1893. In fact, the State of Hawai‘i governmental infrastructure is the governmental infrastructure of the Hawaiian Kingdom. All that was changed since 1893 were the titles and additional departments, i.e. Monarch to Governor, Governors to Mayors, Department of Interior to Department of Land and Natural Resources, Department of Finance to Department of Accounting and General Services, Department of Education remained, Attorney General remained, Judicial Circuits remained, etc.

In its co-partnership agreement establishing the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, which was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances and assigned document no. 96-000263, the partnership agreement specifically states the “company will serve in the capacity of acting for and on behalf the Hawaiian Kingdom government.” It also provided that the “company has adopted the Hawaiian constitution of 1864 and the laws lawfully established in the administration of the same.” The Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company was specifically established to regulate and ensure that Perfect Title Company, another co-partnership established on December 10, 1995, comply with the Co-partnership Act and Hawaiian Kingdom law.

The acting government was not established by virtue of Hawaiian Kingdom law, but rather by virtue of the legal doctrine of necessity though the use and application of Hawaiian Kingdom law. As in any constitutional government, there is an organizational infrastructure established under the constitution and laws that provides for its effective administration. Within this infrastructure, co-partnerships come under the direct supervision of the office of the Minister of the Interior; the Minister of the Interior sits on the Cabinet Council comprised of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Attorney General; and the Cabinet Council serves as a Council of Regency who serves in the absence of a monarch according to Article 33 of the Hawaiian constitution.

In the absence of individuals occupying these offices established by Hawaiian law since January 17, 1893, the Trustees of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company took the necessary steps, under extraordinary circumstances and under the doctrine of necessity, to assume the offices directly in line from a co-partnership through the Minister of the Interior to the Council of Regency. This is analogous to a soldier with the rank of Private assuming the chain of command to Lieutenant, because everyone within the chain of command from Corporal to Sergeant to Staff Sergeant to Lieutenant were killed in action. Under Army regulations the most senior Private is obligated to assume the chain of command and is called acting Lieutenant in order to maintain the command structure. He remains the acting Lieutenant until a properly commissioned officer relieves him and then he returns to his original position as Private.

For a private company to assume the role of government is revolutionary, but in order for this action to not be considered treason, the doctrine of necessity can be used to justify the assumption of government. According to Professor de Smith in his book Constitutional and Administrative Law, deviations from a State’s constitutional order “can be justified on grounds of necessity.” He argues, “State necessity has been judicially accepted in recent years as a legal justification for ostensibly unconstitutional action to fill a vacuum arising within the constitutional order [and to] this extent it has been recognized as an implied exception to the letter of the constitution.” In 1986, the Court of Appeals of Grenada in Mitchell v. Director of Public Prosecutions, addressed the doctrine of necessity and provided the following conditions that would justify an action to assume the role of government.

• An imperative necessity must arise because of the existence of exceptional circumstances not provided for in the Constitution, for immediate action to be taken to protect or preserve some vital function of the State;
• There must be no other course of action reasonably available;
• Any such action must be reasonably necessary in the interest of peace, order, and good government; but it must not do more than is necessary or legislate beyond that;
• It must not impair the just rights of citizens under the Constitution; and,
• It must not be one the sole effect and intention of which is to consolidate or strengthen the revolution as such.

On March 1, 1996, the Trustees appointed David Keanu Sai, who later received his Ph.D. in 2008, to serve in the capacity as acting Regent to head the government. Dr. Sai is also the maternal great grandson of William Kuakini Simerson and the paternal great great grandson of Julia Kapapakuialii Kalaninuipoaimoku, both of whom who was confirmed by the Hawaiian Board of Genealogists of Hawaiian Chiefs to be “native chiefs” in conformity with the 1880 Act to Perpetuate the Genealogy of the Chiefs of Hawai‘i. The purpose of enacting the statute was provided in its preamble, which states:

• Whereas, it is provided by the 22d article of the Constitution that the Kings of Hawai‘i shall be chosen from the native chiefs of the Kingdom;
• And Whereas, at the present day it is difficult to ascertain who are the chiefs, as contemplated by said article of the Constitution, and it is proper that such genealogies of the Kingdom be perpetuated, and also the history of the chiefs and kings from ancient times down to the present day, which would also be a guide to the King in the appointment of Nobles in the Legislative Assembly

The Board of Genealogy of Hawaiian Chiefs was established by law to “collect from genealogical books, and from the knowledge of old people the history and genealogy of the Hawaiian chiefs, and shall publish a book.” As a result of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government, however, the Board published the genealogies of native chiefs living at the time between April 20 and November 30, 1896 in the newspaper publication Ka Maka‘ainana.

After assuming the role of government, the acting Regency had to display some form of legal effects, which is a crucial element of legitimacy. In order for a government to be legitimate, it has to be effective both within its territory to enforce its laws and outside of its territory to enforce international law. An exception to the principle of effectiveness is the occupation by another State’s forces. According to Professor Marek in her book Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, “the legal order of the occupant (State) is…strictly subject to the principle of effectiveness, while the legal order of the occupied State continues to exist [despite] the absence of effectiveness. It can produce legal effects outside the occupied territory and may develop and expand, not by reason of its effectiveness, but solely on the basis of the positive international rule safeguarding its continuity.”

The first instance of exhibiting legal effects outside the occupied territory occurred when the acting government entered into an arbitration agreement with Lance Larsen, a Hawaiian national, to submit their dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands. In 2001, the American Journal of International Law reported:

• “At the center of the PCA proceeding was the argument that Hawaiians never directly relinquished to the United States their claim of inherent sovereignty either as a people or over their national lands, and accordingly that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that the Hawaiian Council of Regency (representing the Hawaiian Kingdom) is legally responsible under international law for the protection of Hawaiian subjects, including the claimant. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom was legally obligated to protect Larsen from the United States’ ‘unlawful imposition [over him] of [its] municipal laws’ through its political subdivision, the State of Hawaii. As a result of this responsibility, Larsen submitted, the Hawaiian Council of Regency should be liable for any international law violations that the United States committed against him.”

The arbitral proceedings led to the United States de facto recognition of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State, and the acting government as officers de facto of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In February 2000, the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Secretary General Tjaco T. van den Hout recommended that the acting government provide a formal invitation to the United States to join in the arbitration. In order to carry out this request by the Secretary General, Dr. Sai was sent to Washington, D.C. Ms. Ninia Parks, attorney for the Claimant Lance Larsen, accompanied Dr. Sai. On March 3, 2000, a telephone meeting with John R. Crook, Assistant Legal Adviser for United Nations Affairs section of the US Department of State, was held. It was stated to Mr. Crook that the “visit was to provide these documents to the Legal Department of the U.S. Department of State in order for the U.S. Government to be apprised of the arbitral proceedings already in train and that the Hawaiian Kingdom, by consent of the Claimant, extends an opportunity for the United States to join in the arbitration as a party.”

Mr. Crook was made fully aware of the United States occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the establishment of the acting government. This direct challenge to US sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands should have prompted the United States to protest the action taken by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in accepting the Hawaiian arbitration case and call upon the Secretary General to cease and desist because this action constitutes a violation of US sovereignty. The United States did neither. Instead, Deputy Secretary General Phyllis Hamilton notified the acting government that the United States notified the Court that it will not join in the arbitration, but did request from the acting government permission to access all pleadings and transcripts of the case. Both the acting government and Larsen’s attorney consented. By this action, the United States directly acknowledged the circumstances of the proceedings and the acting government as the legitimate representation of the Hawaiian Kingdom before an international tribunal.

On December 12, 2000, the day after oral hearings were held at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a meeting took place in Brussels between Dr. Jacques Bihozagara, Ambassador for the Republic of Rwanda assigned to Belgium, and the acting government. The meeting was prompted by Ambassador Bihozagara who called the acting government at its hotel in The Hague, after the Ambassador was apprised of the arbitration proceedings while he was attending a hearing at the International Court of Justice on December 8, 2000, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium. At the meeting in Brussels, the Rwandan government directly acknowledged the acting government and offered their assistance in reporting to the United Nations General Assembly the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In that meeting, the acting government decided it could not, in good conscience, accept the offer and place Rwanda in a position of reintroducing Hawaiian State continuity before the United Nations, when Hawai‘i’s community, itself, remained ignorant of Hawai‘i’s profound legal position as a result of institutionalized indoctrination. Although the Rwandan government took no action before the United Nations General Assembly, the offer itself, exhibited Rwanda’s de facto recognition of the acting government and the continuity of the Hawaiian State.

Other examples of creating legal effects on the international plane include:

• China, as President of the UN Security Council, accepted a complaint by the acting government against the United States of America on July 5, 2001 under Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter, which provides that States who are not members of the United Nations can file a dispute with the Security Council or General Assembly. By accepting the complaint, China recognized the acting government and the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom;
• Qatar, as President of the UN General Assembly accepted a Protest and Demand by the acting government against 173 member States of the United Nations on August 10, 2012 under Article 35(2) of the UN Charter. By accepting the complaint, Qatar, recognized the acting government and the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom;
• The International Criminal Court, by the Secretary General of the United Nations accepted the acting government accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on December 10, 2012;
• Switzerland, by its Foreign Ministry, accepted the acting government’s instrument of accession acceding to the Fourth Geneva Convention on January 14, 2013.
• The International Court of Justice, by its Registrar, acknowledged receipt of the acting government’s Application Instituting Proceedings against 45 States on September 27, 2013.

The acting government, as nationals of an occupied State, took the necessary and extraordinary steps, by necessity and according to the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom and international law, to reestablish the Hawaiian government in an acting capacity in order to exercise our country’s preeminent right to “self-preservation” that was deprived through fraud and deceit; and for the past 13 years the acting government has acquired a customary right under international law in representing the Hawaiian State during this prolonged and illegal occupation.

For a detailed legal brief download “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

PROCLAMATION

August 21, 2013

Whereas, the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State in the nineteenth century, as acknowledged by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2001 by dictum in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, and that international law provides for the presumption of the Hawaiian State’s continuity, which may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains;

Whereas, because there exists no valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States over the Hawaiian Islands, all United States government agencies operating within the territory of the Hawaiian State that was established by the United States Congress, which includes the State of Hawai‘i and County governments, are self-declared and their authority unfounded;

Whereas, Hawaiian subjects took the necessary and extraordinary steps, by virtue of the legal doctrine of necessity and according to the laws of the country and international law, to reestablish the Hawaiian government as it stood on January 17, 1893, in an acting capacity on February 28, 1997, in order to exercise the country’s preeminent right to self-preservation during an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States of America since August 12, 1898;

Whereas, for the past 13 years, the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom has been vested with a prescriptive special customary right under international law to represent the Hawaiian State during this prolonged and illegal occupation by virtue of the legal doctrine of acquiescence, as well as explicit acknowledgment by the United States of America, and other States, of the acting government’s de facto authority before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the United Nations Security Council, and the United Nations General Assembly;

Whereas, a Brief on the Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom can be accessed online at: http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Continuity_Brief.pdf.

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in the acting government, we do hereby declare, proclaim, and make known as follows:

1. 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 (§6, Civil Code). The Hawaiian Civil Code, Penal Code and the 1884 and 1886 Session Laws can be accessed online at http://hawaiiankingdom.org/constitutional-history.shtml.
2. The acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom reclaims its sovereignty over all property within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom by virtue of its special customary right to represent the Hawaiian State during an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States of America.
3. As a result of Hawaiian law not being complied with since January 17, 1893, all titles to real estate within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom are invalid and void for want of a competent notary public and registrar for the Bureau of Conveyances (§1249, §1254, §1255, §1262, §1263, §1267, Civil Code). Remedy for these defects will take place in accordance with Hawaiian Kingdom law and the international law of occupation.

Peter Umialiloa Sai, Acting Vice Chair of the Council of Regency, and Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Saturday, February 1, 1969

WASHINGTON (AP) – Now it can be told—what happened during the longest of three Senate sessions during the Spanish-American War, a debate over whether to take over Hawaii.

The debate of nearly three hours on that day—May 31, 1898—and in two secret sessions the previous month had remained locked up until last week. Then at the request of a historian who noted gaps in the Congressional Record, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the National Archives to take the wraps off the debate transcript.

The government’s only explanation for the long suppression of the debate records is that they had been long forgotten.

THE SECRECY WAS clamped on during a debate over whether to seize the Hawaiian Islands—called the Sandwich Islands then—or merely developing leased areas of Pearl Harbor to reinforce the U.S. fleet at Manila Bay.

Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, grandfather and namesake of the current chief U.S. peace negotiator in Paris, had the floor. He was pleading for all war measures and particularly for the dispatch of reinforcements to Adm. George Dewey who already had destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay.

But before Lodge could press his case for the need of Hawaii as a rear base, Sen. David Turpie of Indiana demanded and got the Senate chamber cleared. Even the official reporter of debate was expelled for five minutes.

Study of the transcripts is unlikely to add more than a minor footnote to history, for as Lodge contended during the debate:

“I do not know anything that would give them (the enemy) any information,” because “there is nothing, nothing not already in the newspapers.”

LODGE COMPLAINED BITTERLY at the time about the secrecy, but his peers went along with Turpie and Sen. Georg Gray of Delaware, who questioned the “propriety” of public utterances “addressed to the ears of the enemy.”

Going further, Sen. Eugene Hale of Maine declared that the Senate is “the last place in which to discuss what shall be done about war,” for its word “goes on the wing of the lightning to every part of the globe.”

Lodge said Dewey’s need for reinforcement was urgent because “great and powerful interests in Europe (Paris bankers holding Spanish loan bonds) are directly interested in having Manila wrested from him and his fleet destroyed.”

Sen. William Stewart of Nevada saw “no possible secrets involved in the discussion of the annexation of the Sandwich Islands.” He contended the Navy required a coaling station for its ships and a “residing place” for the men enroute to the Philippines.

PEARL HARBOR, ALREADY UNDER LEASE, Stewart argued, wouldn’t be much use until costly dredging operations opened the entrance channel. “Either we must have the Sandwich Islands,” he declared, “or the administration must recall Dewey.”

The senate was unimpressed by the argument of Sen. Richard F. Pettigrew of South Dakota that the great circle route to Manila, skirting the Aleutian Islands, was 500 miles shorter than the route through Honolulu.

He argued that many warships and fortifications could be built with $10 million proposed to be “thrown away in the interest of a few sugar planters and adventures in Hawaii,” and asked: “Why embarrass that feeble republic, or monarchy, or oligarchy or whatever it is, with our presence?”

Sen. John T. Morgan of Alabama was concerned about the bubonic plague, cholera, yellow fever, small pox and “all the horrible diseases to which humanity is incident” prevailing in the Philippines. Therefore, “we cannot refuse to men going there a stopping place on the salubrious islands of Hawaii.”

Sen. Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina had the last word about the islands, saying “is not Hawaii lying there praying to the United States: ‘Please come and swallow me and pay the $4 million you promised.’”

THE UNITED STATES ANNEXED the Hawaiian Islands five weeks after the debate. But before the Senate reopened its doors that day, Morgan steered the discussion back to Cuba, the original cause of the war with Spain.

The first secret session, April 25, 1898, involved technical and emotional debate over wording of the declaration of war and why it or some accompanying resolution did not formally recognize the independence of Cuba or at least declare the Cubans to have the rights of belligerents in the conflict.

THE SENATE ENDED UP BY ACCEPTING the House passed version reading that “war and the same is hereby declared to exist and that war has existed since the 21^st of April”—four days earlier.

Dropped from the final declaration was a Senate proposed tagline requiring the administration to “prosecute said war to a successful conclusion.”

Sen. Stephen White of California joined the unanimous vote for war “even with that mild prevarication” about when the war started.

Today is July 31st which is a national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom called “Restoration day,” and it is directly linked to another holiday observed on November 28th called “Independence day.” Here is a brief history of these two celebrated holidays.

In the summer of 1842, Kamehameha III moved forward to secure the position of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a recognized independent state under international law. He sought the formal recognition of Hawaiian independence from the three naval powers of the world at the time—Great Britain, France, and the United States. To accomplish this, Kamehameha III commissioned three envoys, Timoteo Ha‘alilio, William Richards, who at the time was still an American Citizen, and Sir George Simpson, a British subject. Of all three powers, it was the British that had a legal claim over the Hawaiian Islands through cession by Kamehameha I, but for political reasons the British could not openly exert its claim over the other two naval powers. Due to the islands prime economic and strategic location in the middle of the north Pacific, the political interest of all three powers was to ensure that none would have a greater interest than the other. This caused Kamehameha III “considerable embarrassment in managing his foreign relations, and…awakened the very strong desire that his Kingdom shall be formally acknowledged by the civilized nations of the world as a sovereign and independent State.”

While the envoys were on their diplomatic mission, a British Naval ship, HBMS Carysfort, under the command of Lord Paulet, entered Honolulu harbor on February 10, 1843, making outrageous demands on the Hawaiian government. Basing his actions on complaints made to him in letters from the British Consul, Richard Charlton, who was absent from the kingdom at the time, Paulet eventually seized control of the Hawaiian government on February 25, 1843, after threatening to level Honolulu with cannon fire. Kamehameha III was forced to surrender the kingdom, but did so under written protest and pending the outcome of the mission of his diplomats in Europe. News of Paulet’s action reached Admiral Richard Thomas of the British Admiralty, and he sailed from the Chilean port of Valparaiso and arrived in the islands on July 25, 1843. After a meeting with Kamehameha III, Admiral Thomas determined that Charlton’s complaints did not warrant a British takeover and ordered the restoration of the Hawaiian government, which took place in a grand ceremony on July 31, 1843. At a thanksgiving service after the ceremony, Kamehameha III proclaimed before a large crowd, ua mau ke ea o ka ‘aina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness). The King’s statement became the national motto.

The envoys eventually succeeded in getting formal international recognition of the Hawaiian Islands “as a sovereign and independent State.” Great Britain and France formally recognized Hawaiian sovereignty on November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation at the Court of London, and the United States followed on July 6, 1844 by a letter of Secretary of State John C. Calhoun. The Hawaiian Islands became the first Polynesian nation to be recognized as an independent and sovereign State.

The ceremony that took place on July 31 occurred at a place we know today as “Thomas Square” park, which honors Admiral Thomas, and the roads that run along Thomas Square today are “Beretania,” which is Hawaiian for “Britain,” and “Victoria,” in honor of Queen Victoria who was the reigning British Monarch at the time the restoration of the government and recognition of Hawaiian independence took place.