Category Archives: National

The Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross during Occupations

Posted on by
4

Emblem_of_the_ICRCThe International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a respected private organization comprised of Swiss citizens that intervenes, as a neutral party, in conflicts and occupations where international humanitarian law is being violated. Article 10 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) acknowledges the ICRC’s right it may “undertake for the protection of civilian persons and for their relief.”

The ICRC plays an important role as a non-government organization because it is not confined or limited by the politics of governments. According to its mission statement, the ICRC “is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance.” This mission statement is drawn from Article 30 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides “Protected persons shall have every facility for making application to the…International Committee of the Red Cross…as well as to any organization that might assist them.”

In 1958, the ICRC published a commentary of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The following commentary is made in reference to Article 47—Inviolability of Rights. Article 47 states, “Protected persons who in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, in to the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”

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

1.  General—The position of Article 47 at the beginning of the Section dealing with occupied territories underlines the cardinal importance of the safeguard it proclaims. During the Second World War whole populations were excluded from the application of the laws governing occupation and were thus denied the safeguards provided by those laws and left at the mercy of the Occupying Power. In order to avoid a repetition of this state of affairs, the authors of the [Fourth Geneva] Convention made a point of giving these rules an absolute character. They will be considered in the following pages in the order in which they occur in the Convention.

2.  Changes in the institutions or the government of the occupied territory—During the Second World War Occupying Powers intervened in the occupied countries on numerous occasions and in a great variety of ways, depending on the political aim pursued; examples are changes in constitutional forms or in the form of government, the establishment of new military or political organizations, the dissolution of the State, or the formation of new political entities.

International law prohibits such actions, which are based solely on the military strength of the Occupying Power and not on a sovereign decision by the occupied State. Of course the Occupying power usually tried to give some colour of legality and independence to the new organizations, which were formed in the majority of cases with the co-operation of certain elements among the population of the occupied country, but it was obvious that they were in fact always subservient to the will of the Occupying Power. Such practices were incompatible with the traditional concept of occupation (as defined in Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907) according to which the occupying authority was to be considered as merely being a de facto administrator.

This provision of the Hague Regulations is not applicable only to the inhabitants of the occupied territory; it also protects the separate existence of the State, its institutions and its laws. This provision does not become in any way less valid because of the existence of the [Fourth Geneva] Convention, which merely amplifies it so far as the question of the protection of civilians is concerned.

Interference by the Protecting Power with the institutions or government of an occupied country has the effect of transforming the country’s structure and organizations more or less radically. Such a transformation may make the position of the inhabitants worse, and the present Article is intended to prevent from harming protected persons measures taken by the Occupying Power with a view to restoring and maintaining law and order. It does not expressly prohibit the Occupying Power from modifying the institutions or government of the occupied territory. Certain changes might conceivably be necessary and even an improvement; besides, the text is question is of an essentially humanitarian character; its object is to safeguard human beings and not to protect political institutions and government machinery of the States as such. The main point, according to the [Fourth Geneva] Convention, is that changes made in the international organization of the State must not lead to protected persons being deprived of the rights and safeguards provided for them. Consequently it must be possible for the Convention to be applied to them in its entirety, even if the Occupying Power has introduced changes in the institutions or government of the occupied territory.

3.  Agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territory and the Occupying Power—Agreements concluded with the authorities of the occupied territory represent a more subtle means by which the Occupying Power may try to free itself from the obligations incumbent on it under occupation law; the possibility of concluding such agreements is therefore strictly limited by Article 7, paragraph 1, and the general rule expressed there is reaffirmed by the present provision. It may thus be regarded as a provision applying the safeguards embodied in Article 7, which are valid for the whole [Fourth Geneva] Convention; reference should therefore be made to the comments on that Article.

It should be noted, however, that the Diplomatic Conference wished to reaffirm that general rule by re-stating it at the beginning of the chapter dealing with occupied territory for a particular reason; because there is in this case a particularly great danger of the Occupying Power forcing the Power whose territory is occupied to conclude agreements prejudicial to protected persons. Cases have in fact occurred where the authorities of an occupied territory have, under pressure from the Occupying Power, refused to accept supervision by a Protecting Power, banned the activities of humanitarian organizations and tolerated the forcible enlistment or deportation of protected persons by the occupying authorities. Such stipulations are in flagrant contradiction with Articles 9, 39 and 51 of the [Fourth Geneva] Convention and are consequently strictly forbidden.

Lastly it will be noted that the same clause applies both to cases where the lawful authorities in the occupied territory have concluded a derogatory agreement with the Occupying Power and to cases where that Power has installed and maintained a government in power.

4.  Annexation—The occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty; it merely interferes with its power to exercise its rights. That is what distinguishes occupation from annexation, whereby the Occupying Power acquires all or part of the occupied territory and incorporates it in its own territory.

Consequently occupation as a result of war, while representing actual possession to all appearances, cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory. As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupied the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts.

And yet the Second World War provides us with several examples of “anticipated annexation,” as a result of unilateral action on the part of the victor to dispose of territory he had occupied. The population of such territories, which often covered a wide area, did not enjoy the benefit of the rules governing occupation, were without the rights and safeguards to which they were legitimately entitled, and were thus subjected to whatever laws or regulations the annexing State wished to promulgate.

Aware of the extremely dangerous nature of such proceedings, which leave the way open to arbitrary actions and decisions, the Diplomatic Conference felt it necessary to stipulate that actions of this nature would have no effect on the rights of protected persons, who would, in spite of them, continue to be entitled to the benefits conferred by the Convention.

It will be well to note that the reference to annexation in this Article cannot be considered as implying recognition of this manner of acquiring sovereignty. The preliminary work on the subject confirms this. In order to bring out more clearly the unlawful character of annexation in wartime, the government experts of 1947 proposed adding the adjective “alleged” before the word “annexation.” Several delegates at the Diplomatic Conference, concerned about the same point, went as far as to propose cutting out the reference to a hypothetical annexation in this Article. The Conference eventually decided to keep it because they considered that these fears were unfounded and also felt that it was wiser to mention such a situation in the text of the Article, in order to be better armed to meet it.

A fundamental principle emerges from the foregoing considerations; an Occupying Power continues to be bound to apply the Convention as a whole even when, in disregard of the rules of international law, it claims during a conflict to have annexed all or part of an occupied territory.

National Holiday – Independence Day (November 28)

Posted on by
8

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

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

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

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

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

Success of the Embassy in Europe—The king’s envoys proceeded to London, whereAberdeen 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 CalhounThis 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.”

Establishing an Acting Government – The Doctrine of Necessity

Posted on by

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

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

Already armed with the knowledge that the Hawaiian Kingdom was a recognized State under international law since November 28, 1843, and that the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government on January 17, 1893 by the United States did not equate to an overthrow of Hawaiian State sovereignty, extraordinary steps were taken in order to establish an acting government through a process provided for by Hawaiian Kingdom law as it existed in 1893, and by the legal doctrine of necessity. On December 15, 1995, a general partnership was formed under the 1880 Act to Provide for the Registration of Co-partnership Firms with the specific purpose to serve as an acting government in the absence of the monarch who was the chief executive of Hawaiian law and administration of government. A plan was devised to activate a regent under 95F1AFE6A38011DCArticle 33 of the Hawaiian Constitution to temporarily serve in the absence of a monarch, because to claim to be a monarch would be a direct violation of Hawaiian law. Since the death of Prince Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole in 1922, the last proclaimed heir to the throne prior to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government, only the Legislative Assembly has the authority under Article 22 of the Hawaiian Constitution to elect by ballot a new monarch—any other claimant would be self-proclaimed. Lunalilo was elected King by the Legislative Assembly under Article 22 of the Constitution on January 8, 1873 because King Kamehameha V was not able to confirm an heir under Hawaiian law, and the following year, David Kalakaua was elected King under Article 22 because King Lunalilo was not able to confirm an heir as well. A regency was the only legal option to reactivate the government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hague 4_1_1The arbitral proceedings led to the United States de facto recognition of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State, and the acting government as officers de facto of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In February 2000, the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Secretary General Tjaco T. van den Hout recommended that the acting government provide a formal invitation to the United States to join in the arbitration. In order to carry out this request by the Secretary General, Dr. Sai was sent to Washington, D.C. Ms. Ninia Parks, attorney for the Claimant Lance Larsen, accompanied Dr. Sai. John_CrookOn March 3, 2000, a telephone meeting with John R. Crook, Assistant Legal Adviser for United Nations Affairs section of the US Department of State, was held. It was stated to Mr. Crook that the “visit was to provide these documents to the Legal Department of the U.S. Department of State in order for the U.S. Government to be apprised of the arbitral proceedings already in train and that the Hawaiian Kingdom, by consent of the Claimant, extends an opportunity for the United States to join in the arbitration as a party.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lili‘uokalani Assignment: Temporary Transfer of Law Enforcement to the United States President

Posted on by
10

Since the first constitution was promulgated by King Kamehameha III in 1840, constitutionalism had begun in the Hawaiian Islands. For the next 24 years, Hawaiian governance would be transformed from an absolute monarchy to a limited monarchy under the separation of powers doctrine under the headings of Executive power, Legislative power and Judicial power. This cornerstone of constitutionalism was eventually enshrined in the 1864 constitution.

  • ARTICLE 20. The Supreme Power of the Kingdom in its exercise, is divided into the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial; these shall always be preserved distinct, and no Judge of a Court of Record shall ever be a member of the Legislative Assembly.
  • ARTICLE 31. The person of the King is inviolable and sacred. His Ministers are responsible. To the King belongs the Executive power. All laws that have passed the Legislative Assembly, shall require His Majesty’s signature in order to their validity.
  •  ARTICLE 45. The Legislative power of the Three Estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative Assembly; which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the People, sitting together.
  • ARTICLE 64. The Judicial Power of the Kingdom shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such Inferior Courts as the Legislature may, from time to time, establish.

In 1893, Queen Lili‘uokalani was constitutionally vested with the Executive power under Article 31, which is the power to execute laws enacted by the Legislature, which included the Civil and Criminal Codes, and to enforce judicial decisions made by the Courts. This John_Stevensauthority, however, was interrupted when United States troops were unlawfully landed by order of the United States Minister John Stevens on January 16, 1893, in order to protect insurgents who, as part of a prearranged plan, would declare themselves to be a provisional government until annexation to the United States can be accomplished by a treaty of cession.

A.S._CleghornOver the protests by Oahu Governor Archibald Cleghorn and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Samuel Parker, the US troops were fullySamuel_Parker armed and occupied a small space between two buildings adjacent to the Government building on Mililani Street and fronting Iolani Palace, which was across King Street. If the police moved in to apprehend the insurgents for committing the capital crime of treason they would have to first deal with the US troops who were prepared for a fight. This situation quickly escalated from a domestic police matter to now an international incident that could spark a war between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States. Upon the sound advice of her advisors, Queen Lili‘uokalani provided the following protest.

1893_Protest The yielding of her power to enforce the law was limited to the the Queen’s constitutional authority enumerated under Article 31 of the Hawaiian constitution. It was not a transfer of the sovereignty of the country, and it was limited and confined to the circumstances of the invasion by US troops to aid and protect insurgents from arrest by the police force. It was made with the understanding of the Hawaiian government that the President would investigate the circumstances and restore the government.

If the United States was in complete control of Hawaiian territory as an occupying force it would, by circumstance, be vested with authority to enforce Hawaiian law under the international laws of occupation, and would not need the Queen to have temporarily assigned her power to enforce Hawaiian law to make it valid. But this was not the case. USS_Boston_landing_force,_1893The US troops were illegally landed on January 16, 1893 and maintained a defensive position limited to a small space between two buildings called Opera House and Arion Hall that was situated on Mililani Street adjacent to the Government building. On January 31, 1893, lead insurgent Sanford Dole of the provisional government was concerned for their safety and requested US Minister Stevens for protection. Dole stated, “Believing that we are unable to satisfactory protect life and property, and to prevent civil disorders in Honolulu and throughout the Hawaiian Islands, we  hereby, in obedience to the instructions of the advisory council, pray that you will  raise the flag of the United States of America for the protection of the Hawaiian Islands for the time being.” The following day on February 1, 1893, US Minister Stevens directed Captain Wiltse of the USS Boston to comply with the request and take the necessary steps to establish a US protectorate.

On March 9, 1893, President Cleveland acknowledged receipt of the temporary assignment and thereafter took the necessary steps to investigate the overthrow by appointing James Blount as special commissioner on March 11, 1893. The protectorate status was terminated when US Special Commissioner Blount arrived in Honolulu on March 29, 1893 and began his investigation by direction of President Cleveland. Blount sent periodic reports to Secretary of State Walter Gresham in Washington, D.C., with his final report submitted on July 17, 1893.

The investigation was completed on October 18, 1893, where Secretary of State Gresham stated to the President, “The Government of Hawaii surrendered its authority under a threat of war, until such time only as the Government of the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, should reinstate the constitutional sovereign.” Gresham concluded in his report to the President, “Should not the great wrong done to a feeble but independent State by an abuse of the authority of the United States be undone by restoring the legitimate government? Anything short of that will not, I respectfully submit, satisfy the demands of justice.” The President agreed and directed the new US Minister Albert Willis to negotiate with the Queen for restoration of the government, which led to the executive agreement of restoration on December 18, 1893. Because the Agreement of restoration has not been carried out since, the United States is still bound to administer Hawaiian law under the Lili‘uokalani assignment as well as the international laws of occupation.

German Federal Prosecutor Receives War Crime Complaint From Hawai‘i Attorney Against Deutsche Bank

Posted on by
4

Yesterday, the German Federal Prosecutor received a war crime complaint filed by attorney Dexter Kaiama alleging the Management Board of Deutsche Bank, Judge Greg K. Nakamura, and Deutsche Bank attorneys Charles R. Prather, Sofia M. Hirosone, and Michael G.K. Wong committed criminal acts against his clients Mr. Kale Kepekaio Gumapac and Mr. Harris Bright, both being Hawaiian subjects and protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949. The basis of the complaint is Section 6(9) of the German Criminal Code, which authorizes the German government to prosecute crimes committed by a German abroad, the German Code of Crimes against International Law (CCAIL), and the 1879 Hawaiian-German Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation and Consular Convention. Deutsche Bank is a German financial institution headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.

The complaint alleges that “Deutsche Bank, despite having no valid and legal interest in both of my clients’ property, has deliberately ignored pursuing its proper remedy for financial recovery, and instead, intentionally violated CCAIL (and international law) by initiating a fraudulent and unlawful court process to obtain unlawful orders to evict my clients from their property, thereby committing violations of the CCAIL.” In the complaint, it states that both clients mortgaged their properties that was eventually assigned to Deutsche Bank, but were unaware that their titles to their properties were defective as a direct result of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States in 1893 and the United States subsequent illegal and prolonged occupation.

Laulima Title Search and Claims, LLC, a company owned by Gumapac, was contracted to investigate the title to both properties and determined “This claim involves a defect of title by virtue of an executive agreement entered into between President Grover Cleveland of the United States and Queen Lili‘uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, whereby the President and his successors in office were and continue to be bound to faithfully execute Hawaiian Kingdom law by assignment of the Queen under threat of war on January 17th 1893. The notaries public in the Hawaiian Islands and the registrar of the Bureau of Conveyances were not lawful since January 17th 1893, and therefore title to the estate in fee-simple” defective, “because…the deed of conveyance was not lawfully executed in compliance with Hawaiian Kingdom law.”

Since a mortgage is a lien on the title to the property, a defect in title would consequently render the lien invalid, which would also invalidate any foreclosure and ejectment proceedings stemming from the mortgage. In order for lenders to protect themselves from this type of situation,  they require the borrowers to purchase title insurance as a condition of the loan. Both Gumapac and Bright purchased title insurance while they were in escrow that covered the amount of the money each had borrowed. The complaint provides a definition of title insurance from Black’s Law dictionary as a “policy issued by a title company after searching the title, representing the state of that title and insuring the accuracy of its search against claims of title defects.” The complaint further states that title insurance is an “indemnity contract that does not guarantee the state of the title but covers loss incurred from a defect in land titles that would arise from an inaccurate title report.”

Both Gumapac and Bright each sent a letter with the evidence of the defect in title to Deutsche Bank, and called on “Deutsche Bank to cease the ejectment proceedings and to file an insurance claim under the lender’s title insurance policy.” Deutsche Bank refused to file the insurance claim and maintained the proceedings to evict Gumapac and Bright in the Third Circuit Court in Hilo.

Because Deutsche Bank refused to file the insurance claim, motions to dismiss with evidence were filed with the Third Circuit Court. The basis for the dismissals were that since Hawai‘i is under a prolonged and illegal occupation, the court, which is an American court, cannot claim to have authority in the Hawaiian Islands if Hawai‘i is not part of the United States. Despite having Judge Nakamura take judicial notice of the evidence and the attorneys for Deutsche Bank providing no counter evidence, Judge Nakamura denied the motion and eventually issued the orders for eviction. According to Kaiama, this is evidence of an unfair trial and pillaging because Deutsche Bank is attempting to seize property that they have no legal interest through a court that is illegal. Both unfair trial and pillaging are war crimes under Sections 8 and 9 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law.

On November 14, 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a war crime complaint with the German Federal Prosecutor against:

  • Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
  • Former CIA Director George Tenet
  • Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Stephen Cambone
  • Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez
  • Major General Walter Wojdakowski
  • Major General Geoffrey Miller
  • Colonel Thomas Pappas
  • Major General Barbara Fast
  • Colonel Marc Warren
  • Former Chief White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales
  • Former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee
  • Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo
  • General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II
  • Vice President Chief Counsel David S. Addington

The complaint was filed under the same provisions of German law cited by Kaiama, but on April 27, 2007, the Federal Prosecutor announced she would not proceed to prosecute because in order for Germany to prosecute crimes committed abroad by foreigners against foreigners outside the country, there needs to be a domestic linkage. The defendants named in the complaint were not German, the victims were not German and there was no direct link to Germany. The Federal Prosecutor stated:

“The purpose of Sec. 153f StPO is to take account of the consequences for the German justice system arising from the applicability of universal jurisdiction. The view that the most consistent possible worldwide prosecution of violations of international criminal law should be ensured militates in favor of carrying out investigations. On the other hand, it is necessary to counteract the danger that complainants will seek out certain states as sites of prosecution—like Germany in this case—that have no direct connection with the acts complained of, simply because their criminal law is favorable to international law.”

Unlike the Rumsfeld complaint, the Hawaiian complaint has a “direct connection” to Deutsche Bank that is headquartered in the city of Frankfurt, Germany, and the German “prosecution of violations of international criminal law should be ensured militates in favor of carrying out investigations.” Kaiama has requested arrest warrants be issued for the following individuals:

  • Jürgen Fitschen, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Deutsche Bank
  • Anshu Jain, Co-Chief Executive Officer
  • Stefan Krause, Chief Financial Officer
  • Stephan Leithner, Chief Executive Officer Europe (except Germany and UK), Human Resources, Legal & Compliance, Government & Regulatory Affairs
  • Stuart Lewis, Chief Risk Officer
  • Rainer Neske, Head of Private and Business Clients, and
  • Henry Ritchotte, Chief Operating Officer
  • Greg K. Nakamura, Circuit Court Judge
  • Charles R. Prather, attorney for Deutsche Bank
  • Sofia M. Hirosone, attorney for Deutsche Bank
  • Michael G.K. Wong, attorney for Deutsche Bank

Kaiama also calls for those alleged defendants in Hawai‘i “be extradited to Germany for prosecution to the full extent of the law under the Treaty between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning Extradition that has been in force since August 29, 1980.” Kaiama also requests “immediate formal action be taken by the office of the prosecutor to have Deutsche Bank cease and desist the impending actions of Lt. Patrick Kawai, State of Hawai‘i Department of Public Safety Sheriff’s Department, to include his superiors and his deputies, to remove my clients from their home.” Kawai has already been reported to the Philippine Government for the war crime of pillaging a Filipino citizen’s property in Kona, Island of Hawai‘i.

Proclamation by the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on by
64

PROCLAMATION

August 21, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives Takes Wraps off 1898 Senate Transcript: Secret Debate on U.S. Seizure of Hawaii Revealed [Feb. 1, 1969]

Posted on by
6

1969_Article

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Saturday, February 1, 1969

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1893 Executive Agreements and Their Profound Impact Today

Posted on by
10

On March 15, 2013, at the Keauhou Sheraton Hotel on the Island of Hawai‘i, Dr. Keanu Sai gave a presentation that provides a political science perspective of Hawaiian history that incorporates law on the repercussions of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1893, and the effect of two executive agreements between Queen Lili‘uokalani and President Grover Cleveland that mandated the United States to administer Hawaiian law, restore the government, and thereafter the Queen to grant amnesty to the insurgents. The United States seizure of the Hawaiian Islands since 1898 and its willful violation of these agreements and international law have now given rise to war crimes that have and continue to be committed on a monumental scale. The presentation was sponsored by the Keauhou-Kahalu‘u Education Group, Kamehameha Schools, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo Kīpuka Native Hawaiian Student Center, Eia Hawai‘i Lecture Series, Keauhou Beach Resort, and The Kohala Center.

Dr. Sai received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa specializing in international relations and public law. His research specifically addressed the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Islands since the eighteenth century to the present. Dr. Sai has authored several law journal articles on the topic of the continuity of Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state, is the author of a new history book titled “Ua Mau Ke Ea: Sovereignty Endures,” and served as lead agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitration proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, in Lance Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (1999-2001).

Speech of Dr. G. P. Judd at the Celebration – July 31, 1865

Posted on by
2

A1C65120A38111DCTwenty years ago, Kauikeaouli emerged from the grounds of Kanaina; he and Kekuanaoa, Paki, Keoniana, Kanoa, Kivini, and some foreigners on horseback, and they rode for Kulaokahua.

Admiral Thomas was there with his troops and mounted guns in all his grandeur, and also there were the young chiefs, and a crowd of natives and foreigners awaiting the arrival of the King.

When he arrived, Admiral Thomas came to him holding the Hawaiian flag in his hands. The King and all his people dismounted and the Admiral came and opened the flag to the wind, and then gave it to Kauikeaouli’s flag bearer.

Right then, 21 mounted guns fired as a salute to the Flag, and the British flag was lowered on Puowaina, while the Hawaiian flag was drawn up again, whereupon 21 guns of Puowaina sounded. Then the British flag was pulled down at the Fort and the Hawaiian flag was raised, so the Fort fired a 21 gun salute, followed by 21 guns from the ship Carysfort, 21 from the Dublin, 21 more from the Hazzard, and then the American ship Constellation fired a 21-gun salute. When that was over, the 21 mounted guns fired a salute in honor of the King.

The British soldiers stood in a circle saluting the King, and when that was done the King returned to the palace. At 3[1] o’clock the King, his soldiers and the crowd of people all went to the church of Kawaiaha’o and gave thanks to God for his grace in restoring the sovereignty of the Nation.

At three o’clock, the King went aboard the ship Dublin to a dinner hosted by the Admiral, and when the Carysfort saw the King’s flag on the launches, a 21-gun salute was fired, followed by 21 guns from the Hazzard, then the Dublin, and then a final 21 gun salute came from the Constellation.

When the dinner on board the ship was finished, the King and his retinue came ashore and the Dublin fired a salute, followed by the Carysfort, then the Hazzard and the Constellation, 21 guns each.

The next day the great feast at Luakaha was held for the Admiral, and Kauikeaouli decided that the 31st of July would become a holiday for the Nation and the people. What was the reason for this great festivity?

What was the reason for the resounding of 315 guns, startling the mountains and roiling the seas? It was because the flag, once pulled down, had been raised up again.

I should perhaps recount the source of this entanglement. It was the desire of British foreigners here ashore for Britain to take this island chain. It would not then remain independent, so Consul [Charlton] sought to petition the Admiral, whereupon the Admiral ordered Lord George Paulet to sail here to Hawaii and do everything according to the terms of the Consul, and he intended to take the land by war, but, the King gave in advance the sovereignty of the land to the two of them, so as to escape battle, in the manner of a mortgage until such time as the British government could decide about the entanglements that the foreigners had made up.

The Admiral perhaps recognized his own entanglement because of the transfer to George Paulet under Consul, therefore he was concerned and restored the sovereignty of the Nation.

Therefore, the chiefs and the common people are joyful on this day because of the victory of righteousness over wrong, and the religious ones praise God, their Savior, for allowing them not to live as prisoners under Britain. Glory! Glory!! Glory!!!

Speech of His Highness William Charles Lunalilo at the Celebration – July 31, 1865

Posted on by
2

LunaliloLadies and Gentlemen:

This is the day we commemorate the return of the Hawaiian Flag by Admiral Thomas. Twenty-two years have passed since that officer arrived at these shores, restoring the Flag to our King and the nation. Our hearts were filled with joy on that day that is forever remembered, and many tears were shed, not from sadness, but from joy. How very different from the previous February 25. I recall what I saw as I stood in the grounds of the old Fort with our current King and his younger brothers, now deceased; we witnessed our Flag being brought down. On that day, these islands were surrendered to the Crown of Great Britain, and on that day the flying star flag of Albion waved victoriously over these Islands. Many here probably heard the short speech King Kamehameha III gave regarding that event.

“Attention, Nobles, people, and subjects from my ancestors’ time, as well as those of foreign lands! Pay heed all of you! I say to you all that I am in distress as a result of predicaments into which I have been drawn without cause, therefore I have surrendered the sovereignty of our land, and so you should all heed that! However, my reign over all of you, my people, and your rights, will continue because I am hopeful that the sovereignty of the land will yet be restored, if my actions are just.”

That speech by the King to his people was short, but important nonetheless. He expressed his sadness about what he had seen. There were many tears that day. Those were dark and fearful days. The entire nation mourned during those months of investigation, thinking that the government might have been lost for all time to the hands of a foreign power. For five long months all remained calm, as at the outset, and on the 31st of July, the day we now commemorate, we saw “the flag for which they had dared for a thousand years to valiantly face war and the wind” brought down by one of the own sons of England.

As Doctor Gulick clarified, “America gaining independence was not something that simply came to be, nor was it some short-lived foolishness. Instead, it was something that came about and will be remembered for centuries, and is something that will continue on into the future.” The same is true of this, our restoration day, it is not something that just came to be. Admiral Thomas did not simply come here regarding trouble that was occurring and seek the facts as they have done before, but he heard, from a high-level source, of actions happening between this Government and those under its domain. He carefully considered it, and the setting was perfectly clear to him prior to his sailing here and his return of the land to its King who had acted justly. The people (though I speak as an individual) had acted appropriately, were thoughtful and vigilant in the workings of the Government, and if they had spoken or acted irresponsibly, they would certainly have incurred the wrath of the opposition. Something real that was witnessed was whether the assets that the nation had entrusted to someone in a certain department would continue to exist. It was assumed they had not. The books of every kind, which were critical, were taken away from the offices and hidden, then taken to the Royal Crypt, there to be left among the residents of that eerie place. Night and day, the work was carried out there, and the casket of Good Ka’ahumanu became the desk for writing.

But the sun rose again, brighter than ever. The hopes of the good and benevolent Kauikeaouli were fulfilled (you will likely never forget the short speech he gave with the wishes for his people on the day he surrendered the land to Great Britain, and his hopes that once his actions on behalf of his Kingdom were justified, it would be restored to him as before). At this time, we are an independent modern nation, and we are seen as such, and though we have only recently emerged from darkness into enlightenment, our status has grown, and continues to expand through righteousness.

Each of the many peoples of the earth has things of which they may be proud. England has promoted its powerful navy and through its colonies all around the world (and it is said to be true) the sun never sets on its bounds. France glorifies its Bonaparte, and the way all of Europe trembled while that soldier of a hundred wars sat on the French throne. Rome prided itself on its strength and its wealth. The United States of America was boastful that when it moved toward liberty, it gained its independence, and in recent years, stamped out both rebellion and slavery, never to rise again. Of what do we boast? I say sincerely, indeed there is something, for in the few, short years since the light of God’s word reached our shores, the tree of knowledge and wisdom has been planted, the roots have expanded out, the branches have spread wide, and now its fruits are being sent out among the benighted peoples of this great Pacific Ocean. The brightness of our enlightenment grows every day, and I am proud to say that we are assuming a position among the learned and civilized peoples of the world. I call this the true beauty of this land, Hawai’i.

As a closure to my reflections, I say that we should give our love to Him, the Judge of all things, because of his love for us, in our hours of strife and in times of good fortune and joy.

“May God Save The King With His Eternal Love.”

National Holiday – Restoration Day (July 31)

Posted on by
9

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

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

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

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

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

Hawai‘i’s Lawful Status Educating Our Community

Posted on by
11

In this edition of “Kanaka Express,” the host, Kale Gumapac, asks Dexter K. Kaiama, Esq. to elaborate on the points he brought up when he was on a panel hosted by Dan Boylan on PBS television called “Insights.” With Kaiama is another guest of the show Dr. Keanu Sai who is a political scientist specializing in international relations and public law.

PBS Hawai‘i – Insights: Native Hawaiian Sovereignty

Posted on by
64

Dan Boylan asks, “Is an independent Native Hawaiian government within reach?” To date, no sovereignty effort has managed to truly galvanize the Native Hawaiian population. Now armed with the state’s approval, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission has high hopes that will change. However, the commission is falling far short of its yearlong goal of signing up 200,000 eligible Hawaiians to help establish an independent government. Will a six-month extension change the tide and bring Native Hawaiians closer to self-governance?

Dan Boylan hosts a discussion with the following scheduled guests: Sen. Clayton Hee, Chairman of the State Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee; Dexter Kaiama, Honolulu Native Hawaiian rights attorney; Esther Kiaaina, Deputy Director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources; and Former Gov. John Waihee, Chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.

The Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi

Posted on by
121

We’ve received many inquiries requesting commentary on the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi because of the recent news conference at the United Nations Indigenous Forum as well as local news coverage. The purpose for this blog entry is to correct historical inaccuracies especially in light of legal matters now before the United Nations General Assembly,  the International Criminal Court, and State of Hawai‘i Courts.

The term “Atooi” is not a Hawaiian word, but rather a British word spelled out with British phonics. The word “Attooi” was first uttered by the crew of Captain James Cook’s Third Voyage when his ships arrived in the Islands in 1778. Today we call these islands the Hawaiian Islands, but in 1778 there were four separate and distinct kingdoms: Islands of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau under Ka‘eo; Islands of O‘ahu and Molokai under Kahahana; Islands of Maui, Lanai and Kaho‘olawe under Kahekili; and the Island of Hawai‘i under Kalaniopu‘u.

Cook was tasked by the British Admiralty to map the Pacific Islands and find the northwest passage that could link the north Pacific Ocean with the north Atlantic Ocean. Cook was not only a British explorer, but also cartographer, which is a map maker. Cook sailed north from the Island of Borabora in the Society Islands on December 9, 1777 and came upon the Island of O‘ahu on a Sunday on January 19, 1778, and soon after came upon the island of Kaua‘i the next day. His first encounter with the natives in canoes took place off the coast of Kaua‘i, where they bartered fish and vegetables for nails and iron. According to Cook’s journal (p. 221), “Their language differed from that of every other people we had before visited; but we had learnt to converse by signs, and very soon made ourselves understood.”  It was probably at this point that the natives were asked what was the name of the island in order to map it, and to the British ear they spelt what they heard using British phonics–Atooi (Kaua‘i). It wasn’t until after 1820 that Hawaiian phonics was formally established through collaboration of the missionaries and Hawaiian chiefs.

The first publication of the island names using British phonics was published in London in 1781 titled “Journal of Captain Cook’s Last Voyage to the Pacific Ocean on Discovery,” identifying the Island of Hawai‘i as “O-why-e,” the Island of Maui as “Maw-whee,”  the Island of O‘ahu as “O-aa-ah,” and the island of Ni‘ihau as “Ne-hu.” Three years later, the island names were refined using British phonics in the first map of the islands published in London in 1784. On this map the islands were named oWhyhee (Hawai‘i), Mowee (Maui), Tahoorowa (Kaho‘olawe), Ranai (Lanai), Morotoi (Molokai), Woahoo (O‘ahu), Atooi (Kaua‘i), and Oneeheow (Ni‘ihau). Later maps using the British names of the islands were published in the French and German languages.

Cook's map

On the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi website, it is claimed that “Atooi” is translated in the native language to mean “Light of God,” but this is not correct because “Atooi” is not a Hawaiian word, but rather a British version of a Hawaiian word spelled using British phonics. The website also claims “Atooi was the ancient name for, Hawaii, the head [po’o] of the Polynesian Triangle.” This is also not correct because the word is not ancient, but rather  a British invention by Captain Cook’s crew.

It has also been commonly stated that Kaua‘i was never conquered by Kamehameha. Yes this is true, but it was conquered by Ka‘ahumanu who was serving at the time as Regent while Kamehameha II was in London. After Kahekili invaded and conquered the O‘ahu Kingdom in 1783, there were no longer four separate kingdoms, but now three. In 1795, Kamehameha, successor to Kalaniopu‘u, invaded and conquered the Maui Kingdom, and in 1810, Kaumuali‘i, successor to Ka‘eo of the Kaua‘i Kingdom, peacefully acknowledged Kamehameha as his superior, thereby consolidating all of the former kingdoms into the Kingdom of the Sandwich Islands. On August 8, 1824, the Kaua‘i chiefs unsuccessfully rebelled under the leadership of George Humehume, successor and son of Kaumuali‘i, the late King of Kaua‘i. Humehume was removed to the Island of O‘ahu under the watch of Kalanimoku, the Prime Minister, and all of the Kaua‘i chiefs were dispersed throughout the islands and the lands were seized by Hawai‘i Islands chiefs.

Additional blog entries will address misinformation on the Hawaiian national flag, the United Nations Forum on Indigenous Peoples, and the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories.