Category Archives: National

Neutrality Studies Podcast: EX-Army Officer WAGES LAWFARE To End Illegal Occupation of Hawaii | Dr. Keanu Sai

Posted on by
13

Dr. Keanu Sai was 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.

Oxford University Press will make it Official—Hawai‘i is the Longest Occupation in Modern History

Posted on by
16

With Oxford University Press (OUP) upcoming release, on December 30, 2024, of Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age with a chapter by Dr. Keanu Sai on the Hawaiian Kingdom and its continued existence as a State despite having been under a prolonged American occupation since 1893, it will make it official that Hawai‘i is the longest occupation in modern history. Previously, it was thought that the longest occupation was Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem that began in 1967.

The reach of OUP is worldwide. In all its publications it states “Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford, Auckland, Cape Town, Dar es Salaam, Hong Kong, Karachi, Kuala Lumpur, Madrid, Melbourne, Mexico City, Nairobi, New Delhi, Shanghai, Taipei, and Toronto. With offices in Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam.”

Dr. Sai’s chapter has effectively pierced the false narrative that has plagued Hawai‘i’s population and the world that Hawai‘i is an American state, rather than an occupied State. The Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as an occupied State is not a legal argument but rather a legal fact with consequences under international law. Dr. Sai 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.

With the world knowing about the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom it will assist in facilitating compliance by the Hawai‘i Army National Guard with the law of occupation so that the American occupation will eventually come to an end by a treaty of peace.

Oxford University Press to release “Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age” with a chapter on the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on by
10

On December 30, 2024, Oxford University Press will be releasing a book titled Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age. The editors of the book, Professor H. E. Chehabi from Boston University and Professor David Motadel from the London School of Economics and Political Science, invited 23 scholars from around the world to contribute their scholarship. Dr. Keanu Sai is the author of chapter 21—Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire.

Here are the reviews:

“This is an ingenious collection, a book on international history in the 19th and 20th centuries that really does, for once, “fill a gap.” By countering our simple assumption that the West’s imperial and colonial drives swallowed up all of Africa and Asia in the post-1850 period, Chehabi and Motadel’s fine collection of case-studies of nations that managed to stay free—from Abyssinia to Siam, Japan to Persia—gives us a more rounded and complex view of the international Great-Power scene in those decades. This is really fine revisionist history.”—Paul Kennedy, Yale University

“This is an excellent collection of scholars writing on an important set of states, which deserve to be considered together.”—Kenneth Pomeranz, University of Chicago

“Carefully curated and with an excellent introduction that provides an analytical frame, this book offers a global history of “unconquered” countries in the imperial age that is original in its perspective and composition.”—Sebastian Conrad, Free University of Berlin

“The book offers an insightful comparative analysis of political forms and relationships in non-European countries from the 18th to the early 20th centuries. The “non-conquered states” of Asia and Africa are show as sometimes resisting and but often accommodating in innovative ways European political forms and military and diplomatic techniques. The particular appeal of the essays lies in their effort to bring to the surface and critically assess the indigenous histories and struggles that enabled these political formations, each in their own way, to respond to the challenges of modernization. This is global history at its kaleidoscopic best.”—Martti Koskenniemi, University of Helsinki

Oxford University Press is the gold standard for academic publishing in the world and to have the untold story of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its continued existence under an American occupation is a monumental feat for the Council of Regency’s strategic plan under Phase II—exposure of Hawaiian Statehood. Dr. Sai is not only a Hawaiian scholar and political scientist, but he is also Chairman of the acting Council of Regency.

When the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was restored in 1997, as an acting Council of Regency under Hawaiian constitutional law and the legal doctrine of necessity, it approached the prolonged American occupation with a strategic plan that entailed three phases:

Phase I: Verification of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an Independent State and subject of international law where a reputable international body must verify the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State.

Phase II: Exposure of Hawaiian Statehood within the framework of international law and the law of occupation as it affects the realm of politics and economics at both the international and domestic levels. Phase II will focus on individual accountability and compliance to the law of occupation.

Phase III: Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a subject of international law, which is when the occupation will come to an end by a treaty of peace.

On November 8, 1999, international arbitration proceedings were initiated at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in The Hague, Netherlands, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, PCA Case no. 1999-01. At its website, the PCA described the dispute as:

Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Before an arbitral tribunal could be established by the PCA, it had to determine that the dispute was international, which meant the Hawaiian Kingdom had to be an existing State under customary international law. Once the PCA recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State and the Council of Regency as its government, it then had to determine whether the Hawaiian Kingdom was a Contracting State or Non-Contracting State to the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (PCA Convention) that established the PCA.

The reasoning for this determination was that Contracting States, which includes the United States, did not pay for the use of the facilities because they contributed yearly dues to maintain the PCA. Non-Contracting States had to pay for the use of the facilities. The PCA recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a Non-Contracting State under Article 47 of the PCA Convention. The PCA established the arbitral tribunal on June 9, 2000. To understand this case you can go to pages 24-27 of the ebook Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The PCA’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1999 satisfied Phase I. Since then, Phase II was initiated and continued when Dr. Sai entered the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa in 2001 to acquire an M.A. degree and a Ph.D. degree in political science specializing in international relations and law. According to Dr. Sai:

The Council of Regency needed to institutionalize, and not politicize, the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law and its continued existence today. This would be done by academic research and publications that will normalize the fact of the American occupation. From this premise, we could move into compliance to the law of occupation where the occupation will eventually come to an end by a treaty of peace. This was the most viable approach to a revisionist history that has been perpetrated for over a century.

National Holiday – Lā Kūʻokoʻa (Independence Day)

Posted on by
5

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.

William Richards

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.

Daniel Webster

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.

Aberdeen

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 13th 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…”

John C Calhoun

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.”

Military Government—Economy of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State

Posted on by
6

A country’s economy, according to Investopedia, “is the total of all activities related to the production, sale, distribution, exchange, and consumption of limited resources by a group of people living and operating within it.” The economy of the Hawaiian Kingdom is a mixed economy based on Francis Wayland’s theory of economics and not Adam Smith’s version that promoted the theory of laisse faire, which is letting the market take its own course.

At the center of Wayland’s theory was the introduction of morality into capitalism. Wayland was a Baptist minister and taught political economy at Brown University. In 1839, he published Elements of Political Economy that was an alternative to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. According to Professor Mykkänen, Wayland was interested in “defining the limits of government by developing a theory of contractual enactment of political society, which would be morally and logically binding and acceptable to all its members.” William Richards, a former missionary and advisor to King Kamehameha III, taught courses at Lahainaluna to the high chiefs of the kingdom on government reform and economics.

In stages of the classes, Richards translated into the Hawaiian language sections of Wayland’s Elements of Political Economy in 1838. By 1839, he completed the sections, and it was published into a book titled No Ke Kalaiaina, which means carving of the land. From the premise that governance could be formed and established to acknowledge and protect the rights of all the people and their property, it was said to follow that laws should be enacted to maintain a society for the benefit of all and not the few. Richards asserted, “God did not establish man as servants for the government leaders and as a means for government leaders to become rich. God provided for the occupation of government leaders in order to bless the people and so that the nation benefits.”

Hawaiian currency was backed by silver at par with the United States currency backed by silver. Hawaiian coinage that was circulated since 1883 included umi keneta—one dime, hapaha—one-quarter dollar, hapalua—half dollar, and akahi dala—one dollar.

In 1876, the Hawaiian Legislative Assembly enacted a statute that from 1877 “gold coins of the United States of America shall be the standard and a legal tender in this Kingdom in all payments of debts, at their nominal value,” as well as “silver coins of the United States shall be a legal tender at their nominal value in payment for all debts within this Kingdom.”

This statute also provided that gold and silver coinage “bearing the legalized impress of any Sovereign State, shall also be receivable in payment of Government dues, duties and taxes, at the exchequer, and in tender or payment of debts contracted by private individuals and payable in this Kingdom, at their value as fixed by the King in Privy Council and published by the Minister of Finance.” In other words, their value will be according to the exchange rate for the Hawaiian dollar and the American dollar.

According to Professor Feilchenfeld, in his 1942 book titled The International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation, he states:

The law of occupation affects many phases of life. Among them are numerous aspects such as the treatment of educational institutions, the occupant’s attitude towards criminal and administrative laws, and the treatment of the law courts of the occupied state.

The comparative importance of economic aspects and, consequently, the comparative relevance of international economic within the law of belligerent occupation, are indicated by the fact that eleven of the fifteen articles of the Hague Regulations on occupation are exclusively concerned with economic questions. Purely economic provisions are contained in Articles 46-56. Article 42 and 43 of the Regulations deal with general problems affecting both economic and non-economic interests. Only Articles 44, 45 and part of the first paragraph of Article 46, are devoted to interests which are clearly non-economic.

As an independent State, the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into extensive treaty relations with a variety of States establishing diplomatic relations and trade agreements. Its treaty partners include Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hamburg, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway, Switzerland and the United States. None of these treaties were terminated. On the subject of international treaties during an illegal occupation, Professor Benvenisti states:

The UN Security Council often reminds states of their obligation to regard such acts as legally invalid. States must therefore, for example, refrain from signing new treaties with such regimes. But this caveat contains its own caveat: the illegality of the occupant’s measures should not adversely affect the population subject to its rule. States must therefore confine their reactions to the illegality to their direct relations with the occupant, while at the same continue to maintain existing treaty-based relations that benefit the local population.

On the subject of public and private interests under the law of occupation, Professor Feilchenfeld explains that under “the doctrine Rousseau-Portales, war is directed against sovereigns and armies, not against subjects and civilians. This doctrine, which was recognized during the nineteenth century, governs the Hague Regulations.” He goes on to state that under “another legal dogma of the nineteenth century, the Doctrine of Vested Rights, private property of inhabitants is protected against confiscation.”

Black’s Law dictionary defines vested rights as “a right complete and consummated, and of such character that it cannot be divested without the consent of the person to whom it belongs, and fixed or established, and no longer open to controversy.” Since land reform was initiated in 1845, the Hawaiian Kingdom recognized the legal doctrine of vested rights. Specifically, §825 of the Hawaiian Civil Code states, “The several courts, in the decisions, shall have due regard to vested rights.”

The law of occupation provides for the maintenance of the status quo ante of the occupied State’s institutions, legal order and territorial integrity, but also protects the rights of the population of the occupied State. What makes the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom unique or sui generis is not an occupying State’s compliance with international humanitarian law that maintains the status quo ante, but rather its defiance of the law in pursuit of American military interests. Since 1893, the United States denied the application of the law of occupation by acting through puppet regimes it installed and illegally annexed the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1898 during the Spanish-American War.

At the time of South Africa’s occupation of Namibia, the latter was not at the time a sovereign and independent State. It was a mandate territory assigned to the administration of South Africa in 1920 after the First World War. The League of Nations determined that colonial territories of Germany and Turkey would be assigned to member States so that they can foster the mandate of these territories to eventually become a sovereign and independent State. Instead of adhering to the mandate, South Africa treated Namibia as one of its provinces.

Since it was a mandate territory it came under the authority of the United Nations who became the successor to the League of Nations. This prompted actions to be taken by the United Nations, on behalf of Namibia. In 1969, the United Nations Security Council called on South Africa to withdraw and called its actions in Namibia legally invalid. In 1971, the International Court of Justice, in its Namibia Advisory Opinion, affirmed the United Nations’ authority over Namibia and demanded the withdrawal of South Africa.

The Court also “found that States Members of the United Nations were under an obligation to recognize the illegality of South Africa’s presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to refrain from any acts implying recognition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration.” South Africa withdrew its forces from Namibia in 1989. The following year in 1990, Namibia became an independent State.

Since the Hawaiian Kingdom achieved its independence in the nineteenth century, there is no requirement, like in the case of Namibia, for the United Nations to intercede on its behalf. Its continued existence as a State and its sweeping effect of sovereignty is a matter of customary international law. As the International Court of Justice, in the Lotus case, explained:

Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention [treaty].

The permissive rule the Court referred to is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that mandates the occupant to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until there is a treaty of peace. For the past 131 years, there has been no permissive rule of international law that allows the United States to exercise any authority in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which makes every act stemming directly from its authority unlawful and void.

This places the Council of Regency at the center because it alone, as the government of the occupied State, can legally change what is unlawful and void to become lawful under Hawaiian Kingdom law and the doctrine of necessity. The transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government of Hawai‘i will need the cooperation of the Council of Regency to transition from an American economy that international law renders unlawful and void, to a Hawaiian economy based on Wayland’s theory of cooperative capitalism and regulated under Hawaiian Kingdom laws and administrative measures.

Under the law of occupation, the Military Government of Hawai‘i would not incur the debt of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties. In 2022, the State of Hawai‘i debt was $8.52 billion, and its County debt was $7.87 billion. This debt is based on American law and administrative measures, which is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. What the Military Government of Hawai‘i would incur is the debt of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which would be the loans of money to the Hawaiian Kingdom government by the issuance of Hawaiian Kingdom bonds since 2013.

In other words, the Military Government of Hawai‘i will be operating on the current budget of the State of Hawai‘i and Counties without having incurred any debt, except for the Hawaiian Kingdom’s debt. The revenues for the budget would have to be realigned under Hawaiian Kingdom laws and administrative measures. For those lenders that loaned money to the State of Hawai‘i or those who purchased State of Hawai‘i bonds, retrieval of their investments would be a matter for the United States federal government and not the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Major General Hara and Brigadier General Logan Denies 714,847 Native Hawaiians of Their Legal Right to Free Healthcare and Land under Hawaiian Law

Posted on by
13

After United States troops invaded and overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893, international law, at the time, required the United States, as the occupant, to maintain the status quo of the occupied State until a treaty of peace was agreed upon between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States. To maintain that status quo of the Hawaiian Kingdom was for the senior military commander of U.S. troops in Hawai‘i, Admiral Skerrett, Commander of the U.S.S. Boston, to take control of the Hawaiian Kingdom governmental apparatus, called a military government, and continue to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law until there is a treaty of peace. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-5 states:

The term “military government” as used in this manual is limited to and defined as the supreme authority exercised by an armed occupying force over the lands, properties, and inhabitants of an enemy, allied, or domestic territory. Military government is exercised when an armed force has occupied such territory, whether by force or agreement, and has substituted its authority for that of the sovereign or previous government. The right of control passes to the occupying force limited only by the rules of international law and established customs of war.

But Admiral Skerrett did not comply with international law and the insurgents were allowed to continue to pretend that they were the legitimate government, ever after President Cleveland told the Congress on December 18, 1893, that the “provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.” Five years later, in 1898, the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands in violation of Hawaiian State sovereignty and international law. According to U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10:

Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these. rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress.

After illegally annexing the Hawaiian Islands without a treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the United States began to unlawfully impose its laws throughout the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The imposition of the Occupying State’s laws over the territory of an Occupied State is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. This war crime had a devastating effect on the health of the native Hawaiian people who had universal healthcare, at no cost, at Queen’s Hospital, and native Hawaiian access to lands for their homes and businesses.

Queen’s Hospital was established in 1859 by King Kamehameha IV and Queen Emma under the 1859 Hospital Act. Its purpose was to provide universal health care, at no cost, for all native Hawaiians. Under its charter the Monarch would serve as President of a Board of Trustees comprised of ten persons appointed by the government and ten persons elected by the corporation’s shareholders.

The Hawaiian government appropriated funding for the maintenance of the hospital. “Native Hawaiians are admitted free of charge, while foreigners pay from seventy-five cents to two dollars a day, according to accommodations and attendance (Henry Witney, The Tourists’ Guide through the Hawaiian Islands Descriptive of Their Scenes and Scenery (1895), p. 21).” It wasn’t until the 1950’s and 1960’s that the Nordic countries followed what the Hawaiian Kingdom had already done with universal health care.

In 1909, the government’s interest in Queen’s Hospital was severed and native Hawaiians would no longer be admitted free of charge. The new Board of Trustees changed the 1859 charter where it stated, “for the treatment of indigent sick and disabled Hawaiians” to “for the treatment of sick and disabled persons.” Gradually native Hawaiians were denied health care unless they could pay. This led to a crisis of native Hawaiian health today. Queen’s Hospital, now called Queen’s Health Systems, currently exists on the islands of O‘ahu, Molokai, and Hawai‘i.

A report by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 2017 stated, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care (Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, p. 2).” Hawaiians should not have died due to “late or lack of health care” because Queen’s Hospital was an institution that provided health care at no cost.

Another right of native Hawaiians, under Hawaiian Kingdom law, was access to government land for a home and/or business. Under the 1850 Kuleana Act, which has not been repealed by the Hawaiian Legislature and remained a law in 1893, native Hawaiians can receive from the Minister of the Interior up to 50 acres in fee-simple at $.50 an acre. According to the inflation calculator, $.50 in 1893 would be $20 today. So, for a quarter acre for a home, a native Hawaiian need only to pay $5.

According to the U.S. Census of 2022, there are 714,847 native Hawaiians. The majority of native Hawaiians presently reside in the United States. The reason for native Hawaiians moving to the United States is attributed to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living.

On February 20, 2024, Hawai‘i News Now did a story “Hawaii’s high cost of living testing patience of residents, poll shows.” The report interviewed two native Hawaiians, Patricia Pele and Kahi Kaonohi.

Patricia Pele grew up on Molokai and wanted to pursue a career in the state after graduating from Chaminade, but ultimately chose to move.

She and her partner Nathan Estes previously rented a one-bedroom apartment in Aiea for $1,700 a month.

They now pay less than half that for a home in Dayton, Ohio.

“We have a four-bedroom house and our mortgage is a little bit less than $700 a month,” Estes said. “Two full baths, a covered garage with extra driveway space.”

Pele acknowledges she misses home and struggled to adjust, but financial flexibility outweighed being homesick.

“You’ll get happy in paradise, but you’ll also have to pay that price,” Pele said. “It’s unfortunate that it takes multi-generational income under one roof, multiple jobs. I think all my friends had at least two jobs if not three and that was with another spouse or significant other.”

For lifelong Windward Oahu native and musician Kahi Kaonohi, leaving the islands isn’t an option.

“Hawaii to me is my home and it’s a special place,” Kaonohi said. “I just feel that I have to do and my wife, we just have to do what we have to do to live here.”

Kaonohi and his wife have six kids and 10 grandchildren.

He says all but one of his children still live on Oahu and while he’s retired, they’re in the daily grind.

“Every day items that used to be $1.50 is now $4.75, how did that happen?,” Kaonohi said. “It’s still the same product. How did it go for four dollars more?”

According to U.S. News, “Cost of Living: How to Calculate How Much You Need,” it explains how to calculate the cost of living.

Simply add up all of your monthly fixed expenses, like rent or a mortgage payment, and your variable expenses, such as groceries and gas costs. Also factor in occasional but expected purchases, such as new tires. The resulting amount, assuming you aren’t going to debt every month, is your cost of living.

Under the American occupation, Hawai‘i’s economy is the combination of inflated high costs for housing, healthcare and groceries. To live comfortably in Honolulu, you will need an annual income of $200,000. The U.S. Census, in 2019, had the median household income at around $80,000. According to Payscale.com, the cost of living in Honolulu is 84% higher than the average in the United States, housing is 214% higher, utilities is 42% higher, and groceries is 50% higher. On O‘ahu, the median price for a home is $1,100,000 and the median price for an apartment is $510,000. These high costs for home purchasing forces people to rent. The average median monthly rent for all islands is $3,000.

Contributing to the high cost of groceries, Hawai‘i imports 85-90% of food. The money it costs to bring this food, by sea or air, to the Hawaiian Islands is passed on to the consumer. In other words, the cost of fuel and labor on the planes or ships that carry the food, in addition to the cost of producing the food itself, is included in the costs to the buyer of the food.

In 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom had the reverse where it produced over 90% of its own food for the Hawaiian economy. According to the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom, in 1891, exported 58% of its goods and imported 42%. The major articles for exports from 1862-1891 were sugar, molasses, rice, coffee, bananas, goat skins, hides, tallow, wool, betel leaves, sheep skins, guano, fruit, pineapples, vegetables, plants, and seeds. The major trading partners with the Hawaiian Kingdom from 1885 to 1893 were the United States, Great Britain, Germany, British Columbia, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan and France. The Hawaiian Kingdom had a healthy economy.

The failure for the United States to maintain this status quo during the American occupation is not only a gross violation of international law but it, consequently, placed the native Hawaiian population in a dire situation in their own country. In his memorandum, as Minister of the Interior, Dr. Keanu Sai states:

While the State of Hawai‘i has yet to transform itself into a Military Government and proclaim the provisional laws, as proclaimed by the Council of Regency, that brings Hawaiian Kingdom laws up to date, Hawaiian Kingdom laws as they were prior to January 17, 1893, continue to exist. The greatest dilemma for aboriginal Hawaiians today is having a home and health care. Average cost of a home today is $820,000.00. And health care insurance for a family of 4 is at $1,500 a month. According to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care.”

Under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are the recipients of free health care at Queen’s Hospital and its outlets across the islands. In its budget, the Hawaiian Legislative Assembly would allocate money to the Queen’s Hospital for the healthcare of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects. The United States stopped allocating moneys from its Territory of Hawai‘i Legislature in 1909. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are also able to acquire up to 50 acres of public lands at $20.00 per acre under the 1850 Kuleana Act. With the current rate of construction costs, which includes building material and labor, an aboriginal Hawaiian subject can build 3-bedroom, 1-bath home for $100,000.00.

Hawaiian Kingdom laws also provide for fishing rights that extend out to the first reef or where there is no reef, out to 1 mile, exclusively for all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens of the land divisions called ahupua‘a or ‘ili. From that point out to 12 nautical miles, all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens have exclusive access to economic activity, such as mining underwater resources and fishing. Once the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is acceded to by the Council of Regency, this exclusive access to economic activity will extend out to 200 miles called the Exclusive Economic Zone.

Major General Kenneth Hara and Brigadier General Stephen Logan denied all native Hawaiians their legal right to access free health care at Queen’s Hospital throughout the islands, and denied them their legal right to access government land to build a home or business, because they were both willfully derelict in their duty to establish a military government of Hawai‘i in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. Thus, becoming war criminals for the war crime by omission.

This duty to establish a military government is now on the shoulders of Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. He has until 12 noon on August 19, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government of Hawai‘i. The Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government will provide Colonel Kawakami guidance to do so. If Colonel Kawakami is derelict in his duty and consequently commits the war crime by omission, it will fall upon the next officer in the chain of command to perform. This will continue until someone in the Army National Guard performs their military duty.

Dr. Keanu Sai Presented a History of the Kāʻei or Sash of Liloa at Bishop Museum on July 31st

Posted on by
2

The Bishop Museum invited Dr. Keanu Sai to present a history of the kāʻei or sash of Līloa who was King of Hawaiʻi Island in the fifteenth century. Here follows the speech that Dr. Sai gave yesterday at Bishop Museum in celebration of the Hawaiian Kingdom national holiday Restoration Day (Lā Hoʻihoʻi).

It is truly an honor for me to be here with you on this Hawaiian Kingdom national holiday of Restoration Day or Lā Ho‘iho‘i and share with you a bit of history of the kāʻei or sash of Līloa and its direct link as a royal emblem of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Ancient human society was comprised of tribes or bands that were either subsumed or grew into what anthropologists have come to call ancient States, which pre-dates the Westphalian States of the 17th century that was the genesis of current understanding of States under international law today.

Ancient States, which Hommon calls primary States, “are generally believed to have developed in six widely distributed regions of the world: Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, Mesoamerica, and Andean South America.” To these regions, Hommon and Kirch add the North Pacific and the emergence of the ancient Hawaiian State from the fifteenth century with “centralized, active leadership based on political power, delegation of such power through a formal bureaucracy, and territorial expansion by conquest warfare.”

According to Kirch, “the Hawaiians had invented divine kingship, a hallmark of archaic states.” Political science and law today distinguishes between the State and its government, but this distinction pertains to the Westphalian States that arose in Europe since 1648, and not the ancient States that Hommon and Kirch refer to.

High Chief Kana‘ina

When Captain James Cook arrived in the islands in 1778, he witnessed a phenomenon not seen in other parts of the Pacific he previously visited. What he observed was a society whose governmental structure was centralized, organized, and disciplined. He wrote, “I have no where in this Sea seen such a number of people assembled at one place.” Kirch concludes, the “combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria bolster the case that the late Hawaiian polities as encountered by Cook and other early European explorers fit conformably with the pattern of primary archaic states known for other regions of the world.”

Captain James King, who served under Cook, provides an eyewitness account of the Chiefs of that time. Captain King admired Hawaiian nobility and described their regal appearance. “These chiefs were men of strong and well-proportioned bodies, and of countenances remarkably pleasing. Kana‘ina especially, whose portrait Mr. Webber has drawn, was one of the finest men I ever saw. He was about six feet high, had regular and expressive features, with lively, dark eyes; his carriage was easy, firm, and graceful.”

Captain King also stated that Kana‘ina “was very inquisitive after our customs and manners; asked after our King; the nature of our government; our numbers; the method of building our ships; our houses; the produce of our country; whether we had wars; with whom; and on what occasions; and in what manner they were carried on; who was our God; many other questions of the same nature, which indicated an understanding of great comprehension.” I should also note that Kana‘ina is my fourth great grandfather who is also known along with another chief for causing the demise of Captain Cook.

Kana‘ina was a direct descendant of Līloa, King of Hawai‘i island in the 15th century. His father being Keawe ‘Opala and his grandfather being Alapa‘i Nui, both kings of Hawai‘i island. Since Pili Ka‘ea, progenitor of the line of Hawai‘i Island Kings, there were two royal emblems, the spittal-vessels called ipu kuha and the crown called the kahili.

Added to these royal emblems in the 15th century was the kā‘ei or sash of Līloa we see here this evening. Līloa ordered the making of the sash whom his son Umialiloa received when he ascended to the throne after defeating his half-brother, Hākau, in battle. The dimensions of the kā‘ei are 4.5 inches wide and 11 feet in length. As with feather capes and cloaks, the kāʻei consists of feathers tied to a netting of olona fiber. The read feathers of the ʻiʻiwi bird and the yellow of the ōʻō bird, along with rows of teeth, it creates an object that is still stunning to behold nearly six centuries after its creation. Carbon dating of feathers that naturally separated itself from the kāʻei ranged from 1406 to 1450 A.D.

The kāʻei eventually came into the possession of Kamehameha the Great, progenitor of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it can be seen adorned on him as seen on his statue that fronts Ali‘iolani Hale across from the palace.

In 1794, Kamehameha became a part of the British Empire where he continued to be king of a British protectorate. By 1810, Kamehameha consolidated the former kingdoms of Maui and Kauaʻi into one kingdom that came to be known as the Hawaiian Kingdom. After his death in 1819, the ipu kuha, the kahili and the kāʻei descended to Kamehameha II. And after the death of Kamehameha II in 1824 these royal emblems descended to Kamehameha III.

In 1840, Kamehameha III transformed the Hawaiian Kingdom into a constitutional monarchy while still owing allegiance to the British Crown. Based on claims by the British Consul Richard Charlton that the rights of British subjects were being violated by the Hawaiian government, a British warship, HBMS Carysfort, under the command of Captain Lord Paulet, entered Honolulu harbor on February 10, 1843. Paulet eventually seized control of the Hawaiian government on February 25th after threatening to level Honolulu with cannon fire. Kamehameha III was forced to surrender the kingdom but did so under written protest and pending the outcome of the mission of his diplomats that were dispatched to the United States and Europe the previous year to seek recognition of Hawaiian independence.

News of Paulet’s action reached Admiral Richard Thomas of the British Admiralty, and he sailed from the Chilean port of Valparaiso and arrived in Honolulu on July 25, 1843. After a meeting with Kamehameha III, Admiral Thomas determined that Charlton’s complaints did not warrant a British takeover and ordered the restoration of the Hawaiian government, which took place in a grand ceremony on July 31, 1843, at a place that has come to be known today as Thomas Square. At a thanksgiving service after the ceremony, Kamehameha III proclaimed before a large crowd, ua mau ke ea o ka ‘āina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness). The King’s statement became the national motto. July 31st also became a national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it is why we are here today at the Bishop Museum.

Kamehameha III’s diplomats eventually succeeded in achieving recognition of Hawaiian independence. On November 28, 1843, both Great Britain and France, at the Court of London, jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State. The United States followed the next year on July 6, 1844. In the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom was one of only forty-four independent States that comprised the family of nations. Today the United Nations is comprised of 196 independent States.

The Hawaiian Kingdom became one of the most progressive countries in the world with land reform, universal health care for native Hawaiians at no cost at Queen’s hospital, and universal education for the population at common schools, secondary schools and colleges. Dr. Sun Yat Sen, the father of modern China, and who received his education at Iolani College and Punahou between 1879 and 1883, told a reporter when he returned to Hawai‘i, “This is my Hawaii. Here I was brought up and educated; and it was here that I came to know what modern, civilized governments are like and what they mean.”

After the death of Kamehameha III on December 15, 1854, his wife, the Queen consort Kalama, inherited the kāʻei. When she passed away on September 20, 1870, her mother’s brother and adopted father, High Chief Charles Kana‘ina, father of King Lunalilo, inherited the kāʻei.

On March 13, 1877, Charles Kana‘ina died and probate proceeding ensued until 1882. At one of the auctions of the estate in 1877, Lucy Peabody, who would later become a Lady in Waiting to Queen Lili‘uokalani, stated that King Kālakaua retrieved the kāʻei before it could be auctioned. Thus, the kāʻei became a royal emblem of not just the Kamehameha Dynasty but also the Kālakaua Dynasty.

The following month, on April 10, 1877, Kālakaua received approval from the Nobles of the Legislative Assembly that Princess Lili‘uokalani would be his heir apparent. After the death of the King in 1891, Princess Lili‘uokalani became Queen Lili‘uokalani.

Preparing to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian independence, a dire situation would take place reminiscent of the British takeover in 1843. On January 16, 1893, U.S. resident Minister John Stevens ordered the landing of marines that eventually led to the takeover of the Hawaiian government the following day. Of note is that the Queen did not surrender to the insurgency but rather to the United States and called upon the President to investigate the actions taken by their resident Minister and the Admiral that landed of U.S. troops.

After President Cleveland conducted a presidential investigation he told the Congress on December 18, 1893, “And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself and act of war.”

President Cleveland also reported, “It has been the boast of our Government that it seeks to do justice in all things without regard to the strength or weakness of those with whom it deals. I mistake the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality, that there is one law for a strong nation and another for a weak one, and that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weak one of its territory. By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. President Cleveland concluded that “A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.”

The President entered into a treaty with the Queen to restore her to the office of Monarch, but because of political wrangling in the Congress and the lust for Pearl Harbor, the agreement was not carried out. Five years later, on July 7, 1898, at the height of the Spanish-American War, President McKinley signed into American law a joint resolution for annexing the Hawaiian Islands. In 1910, Queen Lili‘uokalani, with the kāʻei in her possession, provided it to the Bishop Museum.

However, the story of the kāʻei, being one of the royal emblems of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is not finished. ‘A‘ole pau.

According to international law, the United States military overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 did not affect the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. Nor did the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the Congress affect the Hawaiian State because a congressional joint resolution is a legislative act that can only operate within United States territory. In other words, American laws have no effect beyond the borders of the United States.

The United States could only have a acquired the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty by a treaty. There is no treaty. Only American laws being unlawfully imposed throughout Hawaiian territory. The United States could no more enact law annexing Hawai‘i in 1898 than it could enact a law today annexing Canada, Mexico or Cuba. It is absurd to think otherwise.

In 1997, the Hawaiian government was restored as a Regency under Hawaiian constitutional law and the legal doctrine of necessity. And in 1999, an international dispute was submitted for arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands called Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The United States and other countries established the Permanent Court in 1899 to resolve international disputes that States may have with each other, or disputes between a State and an international organization, or a dispute between a State and private entity. In other words, the Permanent Court is only authorized to create an arbitration tribunal if one of the parties to the dispute is a State under international law.

On the Permanent Court’s website it describes the case as “Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

Before the Permanent Court could form the arbitration tribunal to resolve this dispute it had to confirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State since the nineteenth century despite the overthrow of its government in 1893 and despite the American annexation in 1898. The Permanent Court did just that and it also recognized that the Council of Regency is its government. And more importantly, the United States did not protest or object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In fact, the United States, through its embassy in the Netherlands, entered into an agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom so that it could have access to all records and pleadings of the case.

Today is not just to celebrate Restoration Day or La Ho‘iho‘i, but it is also to celebrate that a sequence of events has begun today for the State of Hawai‘i to begin to comply with the international law of occupation, which will eventually bring 131 years of an unlawful and prolonged occupation of a sovereign and independent State to an end.

Despite over a century of revisionist history, the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign State is grounded in the very same principles that the United States and every other State have relied on for their own legal existence. The Hawaiian Kingdom is a magnificent story of perseverance and continuity.

Mahalo.

Clarifying the Role and Function of the International Criminal Court regarding War Crimes Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on by
10

There is confusion on the role and function of the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding the prosecution of war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom. What is its role on this subject?

The ICC was established in 2002 by a treaty called the Rome Statute. Although the United States participated in negotiations and signed the treaty that eventually established the court, President Bill Clinton did not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. President George W. Bush, in 2002, sent a diplomatic note to the United Nations Secretary-General that the United States intends not to ratify the treaty. There are currently 137 countries that signed the treaty, but there are 124 countries that are State Parties to the Rome Statute.

According to the Rome Statute, the 124 countries have committed to be the ones primarily responsible for the prosecution of war crimes called complementarity jurisdiction. Article 1 of the Rome Statute states that the ICC “shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.”

This principle of complementarity is implemented through Articles 17 and 53 of the Rome Statute. The principle states that the ICC will not accept a case if a State Party with jurisdiction over it is already investigating it or unless the State Party is unwilling or genuinely unable to proceed with an investigation. According to Human Rights Watch:

Under international law, states have a responsibility to investigate and appropriately prosecute (or extradite for prosecution) suspected perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other international crimes. The ICC does not shift this responsibility. It is a court of last resort. Under what is known as the “principle of complementarity,” the ICC may only exercise its jurisdiction when a country is either unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute these grave crimes.

On November 28, 2012, the Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the Rome Statute and deposited its instrument of accession with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York City the following month on December 12, 2012. Under the principle of complementarity and its responsibility to investigate war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) was established by proclamation of the Council of Regency on April 17, 2019. According to Article 2 of the proclamation:

The purpose of the Royal Commission shall be to investigate the consequences of the United States’ belligerent occupation, including with regard to international law, humanitarian law and human rights, and the allegations of war crimes committed in that context. The geographical scope and time span of the investigation will be sufficiently broad and be determined by the head of the Royal Commission.

The RCI has already conducted 18 war criminal investigations and published these war criminal reports on its website. The failure of the State of Hawai‘i to transform itself into a U.S. military government to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom has put a temporary hold on prosecutions. However, once the U.S. military government is established, prosecutions will begin. As a result, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands to investigate war crimes because the RCI has already initiated its investigative authority and published its war criminal reports.

Under the principle of complementarity, the other State Parties to the Rome Statute could initiate prosecution proceedings for those persons who were the subjects of the RCI war criminal reports when these individuals enter the territory of a State Party.

CLARIFICATION: At first glance, it would appear that Major General Hara can escape criminal culpability by not transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a U.S. military government. This is incorrect because MG Hara is not the subject of a war criminal report by the RCI yet. However, he will be the subject of a war criminal report if he does not delegate full authority to Brigadier General Stephen Logan who must establish the military government by 12 noon on July 31, 2024.

If MG Hara is derelict in the performance of his duties by not delegating authority to BG Logan, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of MG Hara’s war criminal report, BG Logan will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If BG Logan is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of BG Logan’s war criminal report, Colonel David Hatcher, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, and who is next in the chain of command below BG Logan, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

These chain of events will continue down the chain of command of the entire Hawai‘i Army National Guard, and possibly the Hawai‘i Air National Guard, until there is someone who sees the “writing on the wall” that he/she either performs their military duty or become a war criminal subject to prosecution.

Who Prosecutes Hawai‘i War Crimes?

Posted on by
6

War crimes in the Hawaiian Islands are violations of international humanitarian law during military occupation. There are war crimes under customary international law, and there are war crimes listed in the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court. In a legal opinion for the Hawaiian Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), Professor William Schabas, identified certain war crimes under customary international law being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom:

Usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, which is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures

Compulsory enlistment, which is military draft

Denationalization, which is the destruction of the national identity and national consciousness of the population

Pillage, which is the unlawful seizure of certain property for private use

Confiscation or destruction of property of the State or individuals

Deprivation of fair and regular trial, which is a court that operates without lawful authority

Deporting civilians of the occupied territory

Transferring populations into an occupied territory

The domestic courts of countries have primary responsibility to prosecute war crimes committed on its territory. If the State is occupied, it is the military government established by the occupant under the law of occupation that has the responsibility to prosecute war criminals. In addition to the military government, the occupying State could also establish an international tribunal for the prosecution of war criminals in occupied territories like the United States did when it occupied Germany and Japan during the Second World War. The International Criminal Court is the last resort to prosecuting war crimes.

Stemming from its duty to investigate war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands, the Council of Regency established the RCI on April 17, 2019. The RCI collects necessary evidence from reliable sources that are independent, impartial, and objective.

Where the collection of evidence constitutes a particular war crime—the criminal act, the RCI will then determine whether there is evidence that constitutes the intent needed to commit the crime, which is the mental state of mind of the perpetrator. For example, Professor Schabas states that the elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation are:

1. The perpetrator imposed or applied legislative or administrative measures of the occupying power going beyond those required by what is necessary for military purposes of the occupation.

2. The perpetrator was aware that the measures went beyond what was required for military purposes or the protection of fundamental human rights.

3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an occupation resulting from international armed conflict.

4. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of the armed conflict and subsequent occupation.

The first element is the criminal act, and the last three elements go to the state of mind of the perpetrator. With respect to the last two elements of the war crime, Professor Schabas states:

1. There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an armed conflict or its character as international or non-international;

2. In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the conflict as international or non-international;

3. There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with.”

If there is evidence that has met all of the elements of the war crime, the RCI will publish a war criminal report on its website. The next stage is to initiate the prosecution of the perpetrator by seeking a bill of indictment under Hawaiian Kingdom law. Unlike the United States, there is no grand jury that issues an indictment. Under Hawaiian law, the Prosecutor of the Crown must prepare a bill of indictment for the approval of a judge of the court that will prosecute the alleged perpetrator. After the bill of indictment is signed by the judge, an arrest warrant is issued to apprehend the perpetrator and to begin prosecution.

The current system of governance in Hawai‘i is a product of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty because it is a product of American legislation by the U.S. Congress. The State of Hawai‘i was established by the Congress in 1959 under the Statehood Act. Until the State of Hawai‘i is transformed into an American military government to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws under the law of occupation, prosecution of war criminals cannot take place. However, should any of the perpetrators identified in the RCI’s published war criminal reports travel to foreign countries they could be apprehended and tried by the courts of these countries under universal jurisdiction.

According to Human Rights Watch, “universal jurisdiction is the ability of the domestic judicial systems of a state to investigate and prosecute certain crimes, even if they were not committed on its territory, by one of its nationals, or against one of its nationals (i.e. crime beyond other bases of jurisdiction, such territoriality or active/passive personality.)” Under the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, every foreign national that traveled to the Hawaiian Islands is a victim of war crimes having been subjected to American laws and administrative measures.

The current illegal situation in the Hawaiian Islands does not diminish the RCI’s published war criminal reports on its website because there are no statutory limitations for the prosecution of war crimes. In 2022, Germany convicted a 97-year-old woman for Nazi war crimes committed during the Second World War. War crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Islands should not be taken lightly.

The Associated Press reported, “A German court on Tuesday convicted a 97-year-old woman of being an accessory to more than 10,000 murders for her role as a secretary to the SS commander of the Nazi’s Stutthof concentration camp during World War II.”

Irmgard Furchner sits in the courtroom at the beginning of the trial day in Itzehoe, Germany, Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2021. Christian Charisius/AP

The Seat of Hawaiian Sovereignty Remains Undisturbed Despite the American Occupation

Posted on by
6

The bedrock of international law is the sovereignty of an independent State. Black’s Law dictionary defines sovereignty as the “supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.” For the purposes of international law, Wheaton explains:

Sovereignty is the supreme power by which any State is governed. This supreme power may be exercised either internally or externally. Internal sovereignty is that which is inherent in the people or any State, or vested in its ruler, by its municipal constitution or fundamental laws. This is the object of what has been called internal public law […], but which may be more properly be termed constitutional law. External sovereignty consists in the independence of one political society, in respect to all other political societies. It is by the exercise of this branch of sovereignty that the international relations of one political society are maintained, in peace and in war, with all other political societies. The law by which it is regulated has, therefore, been called external public law […], but may more properly be termed international law.

In the Island of Palmas arbitration, which was a dispute between the United States and the Netherlands, the arbitrator explained that “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.” And in the S.S. Lotus case, which was a dispute between France and Turkey, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated:

Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention [treaty].

The permissive rule under international law that allows one State to exercise authority over the territory of another State is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that mandates the occupant to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until there is a treaty of peace. For the past 131 years, there has been no permissive rule of international law that allows the United States to exercise any authority in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which makes the prolonged occupation illegal under international law.

As the arbitral tribunal, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, noted in its award, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.” The scope of Hawaiian sovereignty is sweeping. According to §6 of the Hawaiian Civil Code:

The laws are obligatory upon all persons, whether subjects of this kingdom, or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, while within the limits of this kingdom, except so far as exception is made by the laws of nations in respect to Ambassadors or others. The property of all such persons, while such property is within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom, is also subject to the laws.

Property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom includes both real estate and personal property. Hawaiian sovereignty over the population, whether Hawaiian subjects or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, is expressed in the Penal Code. Under Chapter VI—Treason, the statute, which is in line with international law, states:

1. Treason is hereby defined to be any plotting or attempt to dethrone or destroy the King, or the levying of war against the King’s government, or the adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort, the same being done by a person owing allegiance to this kingdom.

2. Allegiance is the obedience and fidelity due to the kingdom from those under its protection.

3. An alien, whether his native country be at war or at peace with this kingdom, owes allegiance to this kingdom during his residence therein, and during such residence, is capable of committing treason against this kingdom.

4. Ambassadors and other ministers of foreign states, and their alien secretaries, servants and members of their families, do not owe allegiance to this kingdom, though resident therein, and are not capable of committing treason against this kingdom.

When the Hawaiian Kingdom Government conditionally surrendered to the United States forces on January 17, 1893, the action taken did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty but merely relinquished control of Hawaiian sovereignty because of the American invasion and occupation. According to Benvenisti:

The foundation upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, whether through the actual or the threatened use of force, or in any way unauthorized by the sovereign. Effective control by foreign military force can never bring about by itself and valid transfer of sovereignty. Because occupation does not transfer sovereignty over the territory to the occupying power, international law must regulate the inter-relationships between the occupying force, the ousted government, and the local inhabitants for the duration of the occupation. […] Because occupation does not amount to sovereignty, the occupation is also limited in time and the occupant has only temporary managerial powers, for the period until a peaceful solution is reached. During that limited period, the occupant administers the territory on behalf of the sovereign. Thus the occupant’s status is conceived to be that of a trustee.

The occupant’s ‘managerial powers’ is exercised by a military government over the territory of the occupied State that the occupant is in effective control. The military government would need to be in effective control of the territory in order to effectively enforce the laws of the occupied State. Without effective control there can be no enforcement of the laws.

The Hawaiian government’s surrender that transferred effective control over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the American military did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty. U.S. Army FM 27-10 explicitly states, “Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty.”

The United States never possessed sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. It remained undisturbed for over a century, and in 1997 when the Hawaiian Kingdom government was restored as a Regency, Hawaiian sovereignty came to the forefront as the foundation for the existence of the Regency and the application of the law of occupation.

Restoration of Hawaiian sovereignty needs to be removed from the conversations because you cannot restore what was never taken. And restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom government also needs to be removed from the conversations because the government was already restored in 1997 as a Regency, in an acting capacity, until the Legislature can be reconvened to elect by ballot a lawful Regency according to Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution, as amended. The doctrine of necessity and Hawaiian constitutional law provides the legal basis for the Regency to serve in an acting role.

What should become a part of the conversation is the duty of the State of Hawai‘i Adjutant General to comply with the law of occupation by establishing a military government to temporarily administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as they were prior to the American invasion and also the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom proclaimed by the Council of Regency on October 10, 2014. These provisional laws shall be all Federal, State, and County laws that “do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to July 6, 1887, the international law of occupation and international humanitarian law, and if it be the case they shall be regarded as invalid and void.” The Minister of the Interior published a memorandum on the formula to be used in determining whether American laws can be considered provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Royal Order of Kamehameha I Calls Upon Major General Hara to Transform State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government

Posted on by
8

On June 15, 2024, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I sent a letter to State of Hawai‘i Adjutant General Major General Kenneth Hara to perform his duty of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. Here is a link to download the letter.

Aloha Major General Hara:

We the members of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I (including Na Wahine O Kamehameha), was established in the early 1900s to maintain a connection to our country, the Hawaiian Kingdom, despite the unlawful overthrow of our country’s government on January 17, 1893, by the United States.

Our people have suffered greatly in the aftermath of the overthrow, but we, as Native Hawaiian subjects, have survived. Our predecessors, who established the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, had a national consciousness of their country that we didn’t have because of the Americanization of these islands. We, today, were taught that our country no longer existed and that we are now American citizens. We now know that this is not true.

When the Government was restored in 1997, the Council of Regency embarked on a monumental task to ho‘oponopono (right the wrong) from a legal standpoint. Their success to get the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, to recognize the continued existence of our country and the Council of Regency as our government was no small task. When the Council of Regency returned from the Netherlands in 2000, they embarked on an educational campaign to restore the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of its people. This led to classes being taught on the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom at the University of Hawai‘i, High Schools, Middle Schools, Elementary Schools, and Preschools throughout the Hawaiian Islands.

In 2018, the Hawai‘i State Teachers Association was able to get their resolution passed at the annual conference of the National Education Association in Boston, Massachusetts. The resolution stated, “The NEA will publish an article that documents the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893, the prolonged illegal occupation of the United States in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the harmful effects that this occupation has had on the Hawaiian people and resources of the land.” The HSTA asked Dr. Keanu Sai to write three articles, which were published on the NEA website. Dr. Sai is the Chairman of the Council of Regency, and he led the legal team for the Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent of Court of Arbitration in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom.

Because of this educational campaign, we are now aware that our country still exists and, as a people, we must owe allegiance to the Hawaiian Kingdom as our predecessors did. This is not a choice, but an obligation as Hawaiian subjects. We also acknowledge that the Council of Regency is our government that was lawfully established under extraordinary circumstances, and we support its effort to bring compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i on behalf of the United States, which will eventually bring the American occupation to close. When this happens, our Legislative Assembly will be brought into session so that Hawaiian subjects can elect a Regency of our choosing. The Council of Regency is currently operating in an acting capacity that is allowed under Hawaiian law.

We have read the Minister of the Interior’s memorandum dated April 26, 2024 (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Memo_re_Rights_of_Hawaiians_(4.26.24).pdf), and the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for the State of Hawai‘i to transform into a Military Government (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/HK_Operational_Plan_of_Transition.pdf), and we support this plan. After watching Dr. Sai’s presentation to the Maui County Council on March 6, 2024 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A), we were made aware of your reluctance to carry out your duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government.

Because of the high cost of living brought here because of the unlawful American presence, the majority of Native Hawaiians now reside in the United States. The U.S. Census reported that in 2020, that of the total of 680,442 Native Hawaiians, 53 percent live in the United States. The driving factors that led to the move were not being able to afford a home and adequate health care. Dr. Sai, as the Minister of the Interior, clearly explains this in his memorandum where he states,

While the State of Hawai‘i has yet to transform itself into a Military Government and proclaim the provisional laws, as proclaimed by the Council of Regency, that brings Hawaiian Kingdom laws up to date, Hawaiian Kingdom laws as they were prior to January 17, 1893, continue to exist. The greatest dilemma for aboriginal Hawaiians today is having a home and health care. Average cost of a home today is $820,000.00. And health care insurance for a family of 4 is at $1,500 a month. According to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care.”

Under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are the recipients of free health care at Queen’s Hospital and its outlets across the islands. In its budget, the Hawaiian Legislative Assembly would allocate money to the Queen’s Hospital for the healthcare of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects. The United States stopped allocating moneys from its Territory of Hawai‘i Legislature in 1909. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are also able to acquire up to 50 acres of public lands at $20.00 per acre under the 1850 Kuleana Act. With the current rate of construction costs, which includes building material and labor, an aboriginal Hawaiian subject can build 3-bedroom, 1-bath home for $100,000.00.

Hawaiian Kingdom laws also provide for fishing rights that extend out to the first reef or where there is no reef, out to 1 mile, exclusively for all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens of the land divisions called ahupua‘a or ‘ili. From that point out to 12 nautical miles, all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens have exclusive access to economic activity, such as mining underwater resources and fishing. Once the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is acceded to by the Council of Regency, this exclusive access to economic activity will extend out to 200 miles called the Exclusive Economic Zone.

On behalf of the members of the Royal Order, I respectfully call upon you to carry out your duty to proclaim the transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government so that all Hawaiian subjects, and their families, would be able to exercise their rights secured to them under Hawaiian Kingdom law and protected by the international law of occupation. We urge you to work with the Council of Regency in making sure this transition is not only lawful but is done for the benefit of all Hawaiian subjects that are allowed under Hawaiian Kingdom law, the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.

International Law Journal Publishes Articles by the Head and Deputy Head of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Royal Commission of Inquiry

Posted on by
5

The International Review of Contemporary Law released its volume 6, no. 2, earlier this month. The theme of this journal is “77 Years of the United Nations Charter.” The Head, Dr. Keanu Sai, and Deputy Head, Professor Federico Lenzerini, of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that investigates war crimes and human rights violations committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, each had an article published in the journal.

Dr. Sai’s article is titled “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.” Dr. Sai’s article opened with:

At the United Nations World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect was unanimously adopted. The principle of the Responsibility to Protect has three pillars: (1) every State has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing; (2) the wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual States in meeting that responsibility; and (3) if a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter. In 2009, the General Assembly reaffirmed the three pillars of a State’s responsibility to protect their populations from war crimes and crimes against humanity. And in 2021, the General Assembly passed a resolution on “The responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” The third pillar, which may call into action State intervention, can become controversial.

Rule 158 of the International Committee of the Red Cross Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law specifies that “States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects.” This “rule that States must investigate war crimes and prosecute the suspects is set forth in numerous military manuals, with respect to grave breaches, but also more broadly with respect to war crimes in general.”

Determined to hold to account individuals who have committed war crimes and human rights violations throughout the Hawaiian Islands, being the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Council of Regency, by proclamation on 17 April 2019, established a Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) in similar fashion to the United States proposal of establishing a Commission of Inquiry after the First World War “to consider generally the relative culpability of the authors of the war and also the question of their culpability as to the violations of the laws and customs of war committed during its course.” The author serves as Head of the RCI and Professor Federico Lenzerini from the University of Siena, Italy, as its Deputy Head. This article will address the first pillar of the principle of Responsibility to Protect.

Professor Lenzerini’s article is titled “Military Occupation, Sovereignty, and the ex injuria jus non oritur Principle. Complying with the Supreme Imperative of Suppressing ‘Acts of Aggression or Other Breaches of the Peace’ à la carte?” After covering the Iraqi military occupation of Kuwait and the Russian military occupation of Ukraine, Professor Lenzerini’s article draws attention to the American military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Professor Lenzerini writes:

As a factual situation, the occupation of Hawai‘i by the US does not substantially differ from the examples provided in the previous section. Since the end of the XIX Century, however, almost no significant positions have been taken by the international community and its members against the illegality of the American annex­ation of the Hawaiian territory. Certainly, the level of military force used in order to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom was not even comparable to that employed in Kuwait, Donbass or even in Crimea. In terms of the il­legality of the occupation, however, this circumstance is irrelevant, because, as seen in section 2 above, the rules of international humanitarian law regulating military oc­cupation apply even when the latter does not meet any armed resistance by the troops or the people of the oc­cupied territory. The only significant difference between the case of Hawai‘i and the other examples described in this article rests in the circumstance that the former oc­curred well before the establishment of the United Na­tions, and the resulting acquisition of sovereignty by the US over the Hawaiian territory was already consolidated at the time of their establishment. Is this circumstance sufficient to uphold the position according to which the occupation of Hawai‘i should be treated differently from the other cases? An attempt to provide an answer to this question will be carried out in the next section, through examining the possible arguments which may be used to either support or refute such a position.

In the next section, Professor Lenzerini undermines the argument that international law in 1893 allowed the occupying State, in this case the United States, to have acquired the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom because the United States exercised effective control over the territory. He wrote:

The main argument that could be used to deny the illegality of the US occupation of Hawai‘i rests in the doctrine of intertemporal law. According to this doctrine, the legality of a situation “must be appraised […] in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today”. In other words, a State can be considered responsible of a violation of international law—implying the determination of the consequent “secondary” obligation for that State to restore legality—only if its behaviour was prohibited by rules already in force at the time when it was held. In the event that one should ascertain that at the time of the occupation of Hawai‘i by the US international law did not yet prohibit the annexation of a foreign territory as a consequence of the occupation itself, the logical conclusion, in principle, would be that the legality of the annexation of Hawai‘i by the United States cannot reasonably be challenged. In reality even this conclusion could probably be disputed through using the argument of “continuing violations”, by virtue of the violations of international law which continue to be produced today as a consequence of the American occupation and of its perpetuation. In fact, it is a general principle of international law on State responsibility that “[t]he breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation”.

However, it appears that there is no need to rely on this argument, for the reason that also an intertemporal-law-based perspective confirms the illegality—under international law—of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the US. In fact, as regards in particular the topic of military occupation, the affirmation of the ex injuria jus non oritur rule predated the Stimson doctrine, because it was already consolidated as a principle of general international law since the XVIII Century. In fact, “[i]n the course of the nineteenth century, the concept of occupation as conquest was gradually abandoned in favour of a model of occupation based on the temporary control and administration of the occupied territory, the fate of which could be determined only by a peace treaty”, in other words, “the fundamental principle of occupation law accepted by mid-to-late 19th-century publicists was that an occupant could not alter the political order of territory”. Consistently, “[l]es États qui se font la guerre rompent entre eux les liens formés par le droit des gens en temps de paix; mais il ne dépend pas d’eux d’anéantir les faits sur lesquels repose ce droit des gens. Ils ne peuvent détruire ni la souveraineté des États, ni leur indépendance, ni la dépendance mutuelle des nations”. This was already confirmed by domestic and international practice contemporary to the occupa­tion of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States. For instance, in 1915, in a judgment concerning the case of a person who was arrested in a part of Russian Poland occupied by Germany and deported to the German ter­ritory without the consent of Russian authorities, the Su­preme Court of Germany held that an occupied enemy territory remained enemy and did not become national territory of the occupant as a result of the occupation.

Professor Lenzerini when on to state:

In light of the foregoing, it appears that the theories according to which the effective and consolidated occupation of a territory would determine the acquisition of sovereignty by the occupying power over that territory—although supported by eminent scholars—must be confuted. Consequently, under international law, “le transfert de souveraineté ne peut être considéré comme effectué judiquement que par l’entrée en vigueur du Traité qui le stipule et à dater du jour de cette mise en vigueur”, which means that “[t]he only form in which a cession [of territory] can be effected is an agreement embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State. Such treaty may be through the outcome of peaceable negotiations or of war.” This conclusion had been confirmed, among others, by the US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in 1928, holding that the fate of a territory subjected to military occupation had to be “determined at the treaty of peace.”

There is no treaty where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its territorial sovereignty to the United States. The American military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is now at 131 years.