Category Archives: National

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the National Lawyers Guild Enter Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden Federal Court Case

Posted on by
6

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and the Water Protector Legal Collective (WPLC) entered the federal case of Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden, et al., at the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i. This morning, the three organizations collectively filed a “Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of Nongovernmental Organizations with Expertise in International Law and Human Rights Law.” Lawyers for the IADL, NLG and WPLC, are Natali Segovia, Joseph Chase, and Charles Heaukulani. Segovia and Chase are also members of the NLG.

The Legal Information Institute explains that amicus curiae is “Latin for ‘friend of the court.’ Frequently, a person or group who is not a party to an action, but has a strong interest in the matter, will petition the court for permission to submit a brief in the action with the intent of influencing the court’s decision. Such briefs are called ‘amicus briefs.’”

The Motion states:

Counsel for amici curiae International Association for Democratic Lawyers, National Lawyers Guild, and the Water Protector Legal Collective—nongovernmental organizations with expertise in International Law and Human Rights Law, hereby move this Court for an order allowing it to file the attached amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiff, the Hawaiian Kingdom. In support of this motion, the movant states:

1. The nongovernmental organizations whose views are represented in this brief have expertise in public international law, international human rights, humanitarian law, and norms regarding statehood, sovereignty, and self-determination.

2. Movants submit this brief to ensure a proper understanding and application of the international law and historical precedent relevant to this case regarding Article II occupation courts. The amici are additionally human rights organizations that have an interest in ensuring an informed interpretation of international human rights law in domestic jurisprudence.

3. Plaintiff has consented to the filing of this brief. Defendant County of Kaua‘i has indicated it opposes the filing of this brief. Other Defendants have either not taken a position or not entered an appearance in this case.

4. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request the Court’s permission to file the amicus brief attached hereto. In the alternative, we request a pre-motion conference with the Court for leave to file such a brief.

The IADL/NLG/WPLC supports the Hawaiian Kingdom’s position that since the U.S. District Court is located within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and not within the territory of the United States, it’s authority can only come as an Article II Court and not an Article III Court. Articles II and III refers to the U.S. Constitution where Article II describes the authority of the President and Article III describes the authority of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. According to Professor Bederman, who authored a law article titled “Article II Courts,”:

What, then, is distinctive about a court established under Article II of the Constitution? First, executive tribunals are established without an act of Congress or any other form of legislative concurrence. Congressional intent concerning the status of a presidential court is irrelevant because no congressional approval is needed. The fact that the President alone can create an executive court places it outside the scope of Article III of the Constitution, which demands that Congress shall establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Second, the executive courts are created pursuant only to the power and authority granted to the President in Article II of the Constitution. In practice, the only presidential power that would call for the creation of a court is that arising from his responsibility as Commander in Chief of the armed services and his consequent war-making authority.

Article II courts were established in Germany after the Nazis surrendered in 1945. Since then, western Germany was occupied by the United States, France and Great Britain until 1955 when a treaty of peace came into effect between Germany and the three occupying States that changed the state of affairs under international law from a state of war to a state of peace. During the occupation, these Article II Courts had jurisdiction “over all persons in the occupied territory,” except for Allied armed forces, their dependents, and civilian officials, for “all offenses against the laws and usages of war, all offenses under any proclamation, law, ordinance, notice or order issued by or under the authority of the Military Government or of the Allied Forces, and all offenses under the laws of the occupied territory or any part thereof.”

In its amicus, the IADL/NLG/WPLC explain, “Most importantly, functioning as an Article II court here would not undermine all this Court’s past judgments; previous judgments and laws of the United States would remain in effect unless they are at odds with the laws of the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom.” They then cite the 2014 proclamation of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Provisional Laws:

We do hereby proclaim that from the date of this proclamation all laws that have emanated from an unlawful legislature since the insurrection began on July 6, 1887 to the present, to include United States legislation, shall be the provisional laws of the Realm subject to ratification by the Legislative Assembly of the Hawaiian Kingdom once assembled, with the express proviso that these provisional laws do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to July 6, 1887, the international laws of occupation and international humanitarian law, and if it be the case they shall be regarded as invalid and void.

The amicus concludes with:

Under the concept of void ab initio, there are structures that have no legal effect from inception. The United States occupation of Hawai‘i began with unclean hands, and this can only be remedied by a clean slate and a new beginning. Recognition of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States through Declaratory Judgment is not only a redressable claim, it is long overdue and would only be consistent with what is already known to the international community and clear under international law. Additionally, granting the Hawaiian Kingdom injunctive relief would acknowledge the Kingdom’s continuous sovereignty, mitigate the United States’ liability for its war crimes against the Hawaiian people, and apply local law as required of an occupying power by the international law of war. Acknowledging extraterritoriality and occupation would have the practical effect of applying the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom but as was the case with prior occupation courts, this would not nullify any prior decisions of any of the courts currently operating in Hawai‘i, so long as they are not inconsistent with local law.

AHEC Holds Workshop on Resolution of State of War between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the U.S.

Posted on by
7

On June 14, 2021, the Association of Hawaiian Evangelical Churches (AHEC) held a workshop on 128 Years of White Supremacy in Hawai‘i. AHEC is an association of 30 native churches and 6 partnerships that include, as partnership ministries, the State Sunday School Association, Pacific Justice and Reconciliation, Kamehameha Schools, State Council of Hawaiian Congregational Churches, Christian Endeavor and the Pacific American Ministries.

AHEC is a successor of the ‘Ahahui ‘Euanelio o Hawai‘i, also known as the Hawaiian Evangelical Association, that was established in 1854 in the Hawaiian Kingdom. Well known churches such as Kawaiaha‘o and Kaumakapili are members of AHEC.

The workshop was intended to explain AHEC’s Resolution Encouraging to End 128 Years of War Between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom. The resolution was submitted by AHEC of the Hawai‘i Conference United Church of Christ to be considered at the 33rd General Synod of the United Church of Christ in July 2021.

Presenters included Wendell Davis (AHEC Papa Makua), Ron Fujiyoshi, Pualani Muraki, Kalaniakea Wilson, and special guests Joyclynn Costa, Rev. Dr. David Popham, Dr. Ron Williams, Dr. Keanu Sai.

Hawaiian Kingdom files Complaint against the United States and the State of Hawai‘i in U.S. Federal Court

Posted on by
26

Since the United States Congress enacted a joint resolution purporting to annex the Hawaiian Islands, which was signed by President McKinley into U.S. law on July 7, 1898, American municipal laws have been illegally imposed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom. U.S. constitutional scholar, Westel Willoughby, wrote at the time of the purported annexation by legislative act:

The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in the Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act…Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.

westel woodbury willoughby, the constitutional law of the United states §239 (1929).

Along the same lines, the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court, in In re Francis de Flanchet in 1858, stated that the “laws of a nation cannot have force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction. And however general and comprehensive the phrases used in the municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted in construction, to places and persons upon whom the Legislature have authority and jurisdiction.” There is no treaty transferring Hawaiian territory to the United States. As such, the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as an independent State that was acknowledged by the United States in arbitral proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom despite the unlawful overthrow of its government by the United States on January 17, 1893.

On the subject of the 1898 joint resolution of annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, after covering the territorial limits of legislative acts, concluded in a 1988 legal opinion, “It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.” The complaint states:

If it was unclear how Hawai‘i was annexed by legislation, it would be equally unclear how the Congress could create a territorial government, under an An Act to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii in 1900, within the territory of a foreign State by legislation. It would also be unclear how the Congress could rename the Territory of Hawai‘i to the State of Hawai‘i in 1959, under an Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai‘i into the Union by legislation.

International law at the time obligated the United States to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law after it unlawfully overthrew the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. The law of occupation was triggered after the United States, as the occupying State, secured effective control over Hawaiian territory. This effective control began when Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to the United States President on January 17, 1893. The Queen stated:

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

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 53RD CONGRESS, EXECUTIVE DOCUMENTS ON AFFAIRS IN HAWAII: 1894-95 (1895), 586.

President Cleveland initiated a presidential investigation on March 11, 1893 by appointing Special Commissioner James Blount to travel to the Hawaiian Islands and to provide periodic reports to the U.S. Secretary of State Walter Gresham. Commissioner Blount arrived in the Islands on March 29th, where he “directed the removal of the flag of the United States from the government building and the return of the American troops to their vessels.” His first report was dated April 6, 1893, and his final report was dated July 17, 1893. On October 18, 1893, Secretary of State Gresham notified the President:

The Provisional Government was established by the action of the American minister and the presence of the troops landed from the Boston, and its continued existence is due to the belief of the Hawaiians that if they made an effort to overthrow it, they would encounter the armed forces of the United States.

The earnest appeals to the American minister for military protection by the officers of that Government, after it had been recognized, show the utter absurdity of the claim that it was established by a successful revolution of the people of the Islands. Those appeals were a confession by the men who made them of their weakness and timidity. Courageous men, conscious of their strength and the justice of their cause, do not thus act. …

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…

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.

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 53RD CONGRESS, EXECUTIVE DOCUMENTS ON AFFAIRS IN HAWAII: 1894-95 (1895), 462-463.

When negotiations began at the U.S. Legation in Honolulu on November 13, 1893, U.S. Minister Albert Willis stated to the Queen the position taken by the President after a full investigation. Willis expressed “the President’s sincere regret that, through the unauthorized intervention of the United States, she had been obliged to surrender her sovereignty, and his hope that, with her consent and cooperation, the wrong done to her and to her people might be redressed.” “To this,” Willis noted, “she bowed her acknowledgements.” Negotiations continued for another month. The illegality of the overthrow was due to the international principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another State.

President Cleveland delivered a manifesto to the Congress on his investigation into the overthrow of the Hawaiian Government on December 18, 1893.  The President concluded that the “military occupation of Honolulu by the United States…was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property.” He also determined “that the provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.” Finally, the President admitted that by “an act of war…the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown.” Referring to the annexation plot of the insurgents, Cleveland concluded “that the United States could not, under the circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly incurring the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable methods.”

Unbeknownst to the President, an agreement of peace was reached on the very same day Cleveland gave his manifesto to the Congress. Gresham acknowledged receipt of Willis’ dispatch of the agreement dated December 20, 1893, in a telegram of January 12, 1894, in which he stated, “Your reports show that on further reflection the Queen gave her unqualified assent in writing to the conditions suggested.” According to the executive agreement, by exchange of notes, the President committed to restoring the Queen as the constitutional sovereign, and the Queen agreed, after being restored, to grant a full pardon to the insurgents. As a constitutional monarch, however, the agreement required an additional signature of a cabinet minister to make it binding under Hawaiian constitutional law. Article 42 of the 1864 Constitution provides, “No act of the [Monarch] shall have any effect unless it be countersigned by a Minister, who by that signature makes himself responsible.”

The United States neither complied with international humanitarian law and the law occupation nor did it carry out the international agreement of restoring Queen Lili‘uokalani as the Executive Monarch. Instead, the United States concealed this history and the unlawful seizure of Hawaiian territory by embarking on a sinister plan of denationalization through Americanization across the Hawaiian Islands in 1906. This plan was implemented throughout the schools, both public and private, in a deliberate effort to brainwash school children into believing they are American citizens and that Hawai‘i sought to be incorporated as a U.S. territory.

Within three generations since its implementation, the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom had become erased. This was the ultimate aim of the insurgency, which was evidenced in the record of a Council of State meeting of the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i in 1895. Samuel Damon, who served as the group’s Vice-President, stated, “If we are ever to have peace and annexation the first thing to do is to obliterate the past.” According to political scientist Lorenz Gonschor,

American indoctrination of the people of Hawai‘i had profound negative consequences not only on Hawaiian culture and identity, but also on the islands’ historiography. As soon as the Missionary Party—or, as loyalist newspaper editor Edmund Norrie called them, the American Mafia—had taken the reins of power, they began to systemically rewrite the country’s history and obscure and discredit the achievements of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Lorenz Gonschor, a Power in the world: the Hawaiian Kingdom in Oceania (2019), 158.

This obliteration of Hawaiian national consciousness had effectively erased, in the minds of generations to date, the United States invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 16, 1893, and the unlawful overthrow of Hawaiian government the day after. In order to better understand the effects of denationalization download Dr. Keanu Sai’s article published by the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa’s Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics titled “Setting the Record Straight on Hawaiian Indigeneity.”

International humanitarian law views denationalization within the occupied territory as a war crime. According to Professor William Schabas, denationalization is one of the war crimes currently being committed in Hawai‘i, which are “actions directed at the destruction of the national identity and national consciousness of the population” of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The unlawful imposition of American municipal laws for over a century since 1898 is also the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. Professor Schabas also stated, “the Occupying Power must not change the demographic, social and political situation in the territory it has occupied to the social and economic detriment of the population living in the occupied territory.” The unlawful imposition of American municipal laws did radically change the “demographic, social and political situation” of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

To fully understand the scope and magnitude of the prolonged American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom download the free eBook titled “The Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom (2000). Activities and reports by the Royal Commission of Inquiry can be accessed here.

On May 20, 2021, Dexter Ka‘iama, Attorney General for the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden et al.). Defendants named in the complaint include President Joseph Biden and other officers of the United States Federal government, the State of Hawai‘i and Counties and its officers, as well as 32 foreign consulates unlawfully established in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which include Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, and Thailand.

What is significant about this action taken by the Council of Regency, as the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is that the United States Federal Court cannot invoke the political question doctrine that would be the basis for dismissal. The political question doctrine is where there is a question as to the sovereignty of a country, the federal courts will defer the answer to this question by the President as head of the executive branch. Once the President, through its Department of State, explicitly recognizes the sovereignty of a country the courts are bound by that recognition.

In other words, since the United States, by its embassy in the Netherlands which is a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Administrative Council, explicitly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a non-Contracting State in accordance with article 47 of the 1907 PCA Convention in the Administrative Council’s annual reports from 2000 to 2011, it answered the political question in the affirmative that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an independent State and the Council of Regency is its government. The complaint explains:

102. The explicit recognition by the United States of the continued existence of the HAWAIIAN KINGDOM as a State and the Council of Regency as its government prevents the denial of this civil action in the courts of the United States under the political question doctrine. In Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Co., the Supreme Court rhetorically asked whether there could be “any doubt, that when the executive branch of the government, which is charged with our foreign relations…assumes a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any island or country, it is conclusive on the judicial department. In Sai v. Clinton and in Sai v. Trump the court erred when it invoked the political question doctrine. In both cases the plaintiff provided evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continuity by virtue of the proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom.

103. In Jones v. United States, the Supreme Court concluded that “[w]ho is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but is a political, question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government. This principle has always been upheld by this Court, and has been affirmed under a great variety of circumstances.” As a leading constitutional scholar, Professor Corwin, concluded, “[t]here is no more securely established principle of constitutional practice than the exclusive right of the President to be the nation’s intermediary in its dealing with other nations.” The ‘executive’ did determine ‘[w]ho is the sovereign’ of the HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, and, therefore, since there is no political question, it ‘binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government.’

Not only did the United States explicitly recognized the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a member of the PCA Administrative Council but also the other 32 countries that have unlawfully established foreign consulates in Hawaiian territory. These 32 countries along with the United States are members of the PCA Administrative Council. As a result, the named defendants and the U.S. Federal Court are prevented from raising the political question doctrine. To understand how the United States explicitly recognized the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom see the Preliminary Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

Under the first Count (Supremacy Clause) of the cause of action in the complaint, the Defendant State of Hawai‘i is prohibited from “any curtailment or interference” of the Defendant United States of America’s explicit recognition of the Council of Regency as the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Under the second Count (Usurpation of Sovereignty) of the cause of action in the complaint, in enacting and implementing the laws of the United States, to include the laws of the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties, i.e., the United States constitution, State of Hawai‘i constitution, Federal and State of Hawai‘i statutes, County ordinances, common law, case law, administrative law, and the maintenance of United States military installations, Defendants who are officers of the Federal, State and County governments have exceeded their statutory authority, engaged in violating the 1849 Hawaiian-American Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, the 197 Hague Regulations, the 1907 Hague Convention, V, and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, and has failed to comply with international humanitarian law by administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which include the 1864 constitution, statutes, common law, case law, and administrative law.

Under the third Count (Pillaging and Destruction of Property) of the cause of action in the complaint, international humanitarian law prohibits pillaging and destruction of property through the collection of taxes that are exacted from the residents of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the Internal Revenue Service of the Defendant United States of America and the Department of Taxation of the Defendant State of Hawai‘i in violation of Article 8 of the 1849 Hawaiian-American Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, and Article 64 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.

Under the final Count (Exequaturs) of the cause of action in the complaint, international humanitarian law prohibits usurpation of sovereignty by granting exequaturs to foreign consulates under American municipal law within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of the Article 8 of the 1849 Hawaiian-America Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, and Article 64 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Hawaiian Kingdom is asking the Court to:

Declare that all laws of the Defendants United States of America and the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties, to include the United States constitution, State of Hawai‘i constitution, Federal and State of Hawai‘i statute, County ordinances, common law, case law, administrative law, and the maintenance of Defendant United States of America’s military installations are unauthorized by, and contrary, to the Constitution and Treaties of the United States;

Enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing all laws of the Defendant United States of America and the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties, to include the United States constitution, State of Hawai‘i constitution, Federal and State of Hawai‘i statute, County ordinances, common law, case law, administrative law, and the maintenance of Defendant United States of America’s military installations across the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, to include its territorial sea;

Enjoin Defendants who are or agents of foreign diplomats from serving as foreign consulates within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom until they have presented their credentials to the Hawaiian Kingdom Government and received exequaturs; and

Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.

On May 21, 2021, an Order was signed by Chief Judge J. Michael Seabright setting a scheduling conference over the telephone at 9:00am on July 19, 2021 before Magistrate Judge Rom Trader.

The Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

Posted on by
3

The Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics (HJLP) at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa just published its third volume. Itʻs last edition, volume 2, was published back in the summer of 2006. The journal is published by the Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics (HSLP) which is a student organization at the university comprised of students, faculty and staff at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

HSLP was founded as a registered independent organization under Co-curricular Activities, Programs, and Services at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa in October 30, 2003. In 2014, the organization had disbanded, only to be revived in the Spring of 2021 with an all-new membership.

Volume 3 of the HJLP has three original articles and reprints of articles and chapters that were authored by alumni of HSLP. These alumni all have Ph.D. degrees. Of the original articles, Dr. Kalawai‘a Moore is the Editor of HJLP and is the author of the “Editorʻs Notes,” and the article “American Hegemonic Discourse in Hawai‘i: Rhetorical Strategies in Support of American Control Over Hawai‘i.” Dr. Keanu Sai is the author of “Setting the Record Straight on Hawaiian Indigeneity.” And Dr. Umi Perkins is the author of “Negotiating Native Tenant Rights.”

Authors of the reprint of articles and chapters include Dr. Keao NeSmith who is the author of “Tūtūtʻs Hawaiian and the Emergence of a Neo Hawaiian Language.” Dr. Sydney Iaukea is the author of “The Queen and I: a Story of Dispossessions and Reconnections in Hawai‘i.” And Dr. Lorenz Gonschor is the author of “The Subtleties of a Map and a Painting.”

Professor Niklaus Schweizer is the author of a book review of the “Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

Dr. Keanu Sai is the author of “The Royal Commission of Inquiry.” Professor William Schabas is the author of the “Legal Opinion on War Crimes Related to the United States Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 17 January 1893.” And Professor Federico Lenzerini is the author of the “Legal Opinion on the Authority of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

It is recommended to first read Dr. Kalawaiʻa’s “Editor’s Note” where he explains the hiatus of the HJLP since 2006 and why this volume is dedicated to the late Professor Kanalu Young who served as the faculty advisor for HSLP. Followed by Dr. Sai’s article “Setting the Record Straight on Hawaiian Indigeneity,” Dr. Kalawai’s article “American Hegemonic Discourse,” and Dr. Perkins’ article “Negotiating Native Tenant Rights.”

Dr. Keanu Sai to Present to Maui County Council on Title Insurance in light of Hawai‘iʻs Legal Status under International Law

Posted on by
7

The Committee meeting can be viewed live on Maui television Akaku Channel 53 or you can view online at Maui County Agendas. In the County’s agenda webpage go to Planning and Sustainable Land Use Committee meeting January 19, 2021, and click the “video” link.

Dr. Keanu Sai to Present to Maui County Council Land Use Committee on Thursday, December 17, on Title Insurance in Hawai‘i

Posted on by
18

After Fidelity National Title Insurance Company withdrew from providing an overview of title insurance to the Maui County Council’s Planning and Sustainable Land Use Committee scheduled for December 17, 2020, the Committee’s chairwoman, Tamara Paltin, invited Dr. Keanu Sai to present an overview of title insurance as it applies to Hawai‘i.

Dr. Sai accepted the invitation. His presentation to the Committee will stem from the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Preliminary Report on Legal Status of Land Titles throughout the Realm (June 16, 2020), and its Supplemental Report on Title Insurance (October 28, 2020). Dr. Sai is the Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The meeting will start at 9am, Thursday, December 17, 2020. The meeting of the Planning and Sustainable Land Use Committee will be online. The Committee meeting can be viewed live on Maui television Akaku Channel 53 or you can view online at Maui County Agendas. In the County’s agenda webpage go to Planning and Sustainable Land Use Committee meeting December 17, 2020, and click the “video” link.

National Holiday – Independence Day (November 28)

Posted on by
2

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.

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

George Simpson
Haalilio

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.”

Royal Commission of Inquiry Calls Upon the State of Hawai‘i to Comply with International Law and to Work with the Council of Regency

Posted on by
9

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM – After returning from oral hearings held at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, where the Council of Regency represented the Hawaiian Kingdom in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom in December of 2000, the Council of Regency focused its attention on the effects of denationalization—Americanization where the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom was obliterated.

Denationalization was formally initiated in 1906 by the Board of Education and carried into effect within the public and private schools throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Within three generations, Hawaiian Kingdom national consciousness had been effectively replaced with American national consciousness and the national language of Hawaiian replaced with English. As part of this inculcation, young students were led to falsely believe that the Hawaiian Islands had become a part of the United States, and they were now American citizens.

According to Professor William Schabas, recognized expert in international criminal law, who provided a legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry, denationalization, among other international crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands, is a war crime under customary international law. War crimes have no statutes of limitations and criminal culpability will last up to 80 years after the war crime was committed.

The Royal Commission was established, by proclamation of the Council of Regency, on April 17, 2019. Its mandate is to investigate war crimes and human rights violations committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom since the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government in 1893, and the subsequent belligerent occupation by the United States ever since.

The lawful authority of the Council of Regency has also been the subject of a recent legal opinion by Professor Federico Lenzerini, a professor of international law from the University of Siena, Italy. The American treatise, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States,, §103(2)(c), recognizes that “writings of scholars” are a source of international law in determining, in this case, whether the Council of Regency has been established in conformity with the rules of international humanitarian law. In his opinion, Professor Lenzerini concluded that:

1. the Council of Regency possesses the constitutional authority to temporarily exercise the Royal powers of the Hawaiian Kingdom;

2. the Council of Regency has the authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, which has been under a belligerent occupation by the United States of America since 17 January 1893, both at the domestic and international level; and

3. the Council of Regency is exactly in the same position of a government of a State under military occupation, and is vested with the rights and powers recognized to governments of occupied States pursuant to international humanitarian law. 

Professor Lenzerini further concludes:

Under international humanitarian law, the proclamations of the Council of Regency are not divested of effects as regards the civilian population of the Hawaiian Islands. In fact, considering these proclamations as included in the concept of “legislation”…they might even, if the concrete circumstances of the case so allow, apply retroactively at the end of the occupation, on the condition that the legislative acts in point do not “disregard the rights and expectations of the occupied population.” It is therefore necessary that the occupied government refrains “from using the national law as a vehicle to undermine public order and civil life in the occupied area.”

Imposition of United States legislative and administrative measures constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty under customary international law. This includes the legislative and administrative measures of the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties.

Professor Schabas also identified usurpation of sovereignty as a war crime that has and continues to be committed in the Hawaiian Islands. His legal opinion was also incorporated in a book published by the Royal Commission as chapter 4—War Crimes Related to the United States Belligerent Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This publication is downloadable as an eBook at no charge.

In 2015, Dr. David “Keanu” Sai met with State of Hawai‘i Governor Ige’s Chief of Staff, Mike McCartney, on three occasions at his office in the Executive Chambers regarding the subject of war crimes and the American occupation. After the meetings, Dr. Sai provided Mr. McCartney a report on July 2, 2015, on the duty and obligation of the State of Hawai‘i to transform itself into a Military government in order to come into compliance with international law. This transformation would take place when the governor declares martial law in accordance with the provisions of the State of Hawai‘i Constitution.

Governor Ige at the time did not take the necessary steps to comply with international law and the law of occupation. Consequently, the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties have continued to commit war crimes and human right violations, as well as violations of international law. As such, the actions and conduct of State of Hawai‘i and County officials have come under the purview of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The Royal Commission, however, sees as its priority the establishment of the Military government in order to administer the laws of the occupied State, and, thereby, bringing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties into compliance with international law of occupation. This is the only way for war crimes and human rights violations to cease.

Members of the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties are not the insurgents of 1893, but rather individuals that found themselves in a tenuous situation without any fault of their own. Their actions viewed through the lens of international humanitarian law, however, have led to the commission of war crimes against the civilian population who have been made aware of the prolonged occupation, and when they were asserting their rights, they were maliciously attacked. Awareness of the American occupation satisfies the mental element necessary for the prosecution of a war crime.

The awareness of the prolonged occupation has reached the National Education Association (NEA) by a resolution introduced in 2017 by the Hawai‘i State Teachers Association at the NEA’s annual convention in Boston. This resulted in three articles that were published by the NEA on its website in 2018. 

Also, the National Lawyers Guild, “the oldest and largest progressive bar association in the United States, calls upon the United States to immediately begin to comply with international humanitarian law in its prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1893.”

The Royal Commission recognizes that war crimes and human rights violations cannot continue to be committed with impunity and the perpetrators must be held accountable, but it does recognize that the Council of Regency must have, as Professor Lenzerini stated in his opinion, a “cooperative relationship aimed at guaranteeing the realization of the rights and interests of the civilian population and the correct administration of the occupied territory.”

To this end, a letter of correspondence was sent by Dr. Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, to State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Clare Connors on June 2, 2020. In his letter, Dr. Sai ends with:

These are not normal times but you are the legal advisor to the Governor, and due to the severity of the situation under international criminal law and the material elements of mens rea and actus reus, I respectfully implore you to carefully review the information I have provided you and to advise the office of the Governor accordingly. Under international humanitarian law, decisions on this matter are not with the federal government nor is it with its military here in the islands, but solely on the shoulders of the State of Hawai‘i as it is the entity in effective control of Hawaiian territory thereby triggering the law of occupation. I should also note that the governmental infrastructure of the State of Hawai‘i is that of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The only change was in name, e.g. the Department of Land and Natural Resources is the Ministry of the Interior. All that was changed in 1893 was the Queen and her cabinet, and the top law enforcement of the kingdom, being forcibly replaced by insurgents calling themselves the Executive and Advisory Councils.

Notwithstanding the warrantless attacks against myself and other officers of the Council of Regency by the State of Hawai‘i, I am hopeful that its current leadership, as the administration of the occupying State, will begin to meet with the Council of Regency in order to establish a “cooperative relationship” provided by international humanitarian law. In the meantime, the Royal Commission will continue to fulfill its mandate of investigating war crimes and human rights violations and providing periodic reports with the purpose of holding perpetrators accountable under international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Far too long the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties, whether by mistake or design, mischaracterized the Council of Regency as a self-declared sovereignty group. Rather, it is assured to be the interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom established by proclamation on February 28, 1997, and is vested with the rights and powers afforded to a government of an occupied State in accordance with international humanitarian law. A recent documentary, which won several awards at independent film festivals, covers the Council of Regency and its strategy to engage the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Royal Commission of Inquiry’s mandate is to investigate war crimes and human rights violations and report its findings to countries or international venues for prosecution, which is evidence based. Because war crimes have no statutes of limitations, investigations can occur within 80 years after the commission of the crime because of human longevity. In other words, the Royal Commission can investigate crimes that have been committed 80 years ago. Because war crimes are considered a peremptory norm, which is a serious violation of international law, all countries are obligated to prosecute the alleged perpetrators through their national institutions and may invoke universal jurisdiction. For those countries that a parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, they are obligated to prosecute alleged perpetrators who enter their territories for war crimes committed outside of their territory after 2002. According to Article 1 of the Rome Statute, the signatory countries must first investigate and prosecute war crimes, leaving the International Criminal Court the court of last resort. This is called complementary.

Legal Opinion Affirms Authority of the Council of Regency Under International Law

Posted on by
4

In light of the severity of the mandate of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, established by the Hawaiian Council of Regency on April 17 2019, to investigate war crimes and human rights violations committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the “authority” of the Council of Regency to appoint the Royal Commission is fundamental and, therefore, necessary to address within the rules of international humanitarian law, which is a component of international law. As the United States Supreme Court in The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900), explained:

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

According to Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, “the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, [are] subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.” Furthermore,  §103(2)(c), Restatement Third—Foreign Relations Law of the United States, recognizes that “writings of scholars” are a source of international law in determining, in this case, whether the Council of Regency has been established in conformity with the rules of international humanitarian law. The writing of scholars, “whether a rule has become international law,” are not prescriptive but rather descriptive “of what the law really is.”

As head of the Royal Commission, Dr. Keanu Sai provided a narrative of the authority of the Council of Regency in its recent publication Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom (p. 18-23), a process that was unprecedented, for purposes of explanation and understanding, but it may not be considered authoritative as to whether it meets the rules of international law. Therefore, in order to satisfy this requirement and to remove any questions as to the authority of the Council of Regency, Federico Lenzerini, Ph.D., a professor of international law from the University of Siena, Italy, was requested, by letter dated May 11, 2020, to provide a legal opinion on the following:

First, does the Regency have the authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State that has been under a belligerent occupation by the United States of America since 17 January 1893?

Second, assuming the Regency does have the authority, what effect would its proclamations have on the civilian population of the Hawaiian Islands under international humanitarian law, to include its proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration of the occupying State on 3 June 2019?

Third, can you provide comment on the working relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State under international humanitarian law?

On May 24, 2020, Professor Lenzerini completed his legal opinion. His opinion begins by stating:

In order to ascertain whether the Regency has the authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, it is preliminarily necessary to ascertain whether the Hawaiian Kingdom can actually be considered a State under international law. To this purpose, two issues need to be investigated, i.e.: a) whether the Hawaiian Kingdom was a State at the time when it was militarily occupied by the United States of America, on 17 January 1893; b) in the event that the solution to the first issue would be positive, whether the continuous occupation of Hawai’i by the United States, from 1893 to present times, has led the Hawaiian Kingdom to be extinguished as an independent State and, consequently, as a subject of international law.

After addressing the historical record and citing the Permanent Court of Arbitration, he concluded, “[i]t is therefore unquestionable that in the 1890s the Hawaiian Kingdom was an independent State and, consequently, a subject of international law. This presupposed that its territorial sovereignty and internal affairs could not be legitimately violated by other States.”

After concluding the Hawaiian Kingdom did exist as a subject of international law, Professor Lenzerini stated, “it is now necessary to determine whether the continuous occupation of Hawai‘i by the United States from 1893 to present times has led the Hawaiian Kingdom to be extinguished as an independent State and, consequently, as a subject of international law.” He addressed this issue “by means of a careful assessment carried out through ‘having regard inter alia to the lapse of time since the annexation [by the United States], subsequent political, constitutional and international developments, and relevant changes in international law since the 1890s.’”

Aside from all speculative arguments, Professor Lenzerini concludes, “the argument which appears to overcome all the others is that a long-lasting and well-established rule of international law exists establishing that military occupation, irrespective of the length of its duration, cannot produce the effect of extinguishing the sovereignty and statehood of the occupied State.” On this subject, he provides an English translation of a statement made by the Swiss arbitrator Eugène Borel in the 1925 Ottoman Public Debt case:

Whatever are the effects of the occupation of a territory by the enemy before the re-establishment of peace, it is certain that such an occupation alone cannot legally determine the transfer of sovereignty […] The occupation, by one of the belligerents, of […] the territory of the other belligerent is nothing but a pure fact. It is a state of things essentially provisional, which does not legally substitute the authority of the invading belligerent to that of the invaded belligerent.

Professor Lenzerini also cites renowned jurist Oppenheim who stated that “[t]he only form in which a cession [of sovereignty] can be effected is an agreement embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State. Such treaty may be the outcome of peaceable negotiations or of war.” Without a treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom ceding its territory to the United States, he concludes that, “according to a plain and correct interpretation of the relevant legal rules, the Hawaiian Kingdom cannot be considered, by virtue of the prolonged US occupation, as extinguished as an independent State and a subject of international law, despite the long and effective exercise of the attributes of government by the United States over Hawaiian territory.” Therefore, the Hawaiian Kingdom “has been under uninterrupted belligerent occupation by the United States of America, from 17 January 1893 up to the moment of this writing.”

After confirming the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Professor Lenzerini reviewed the process by which the Council of Regency was formed, he further concludes “on the basis of the doctrine of necessity,…the Council of Regency possesses the constitutional authority to temporarily exercise the Royal powers of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” He further concludes “that the Regency actually has the authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, which has been under a belligerent occupation by the United States of America since 17 January 1893, both at the domestic and international level.” In international proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration from 1999-2001, the Council of Regency did represent the Hawaiian Kingdom in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, and the Dr. Sai served as the Hawaiian Kingdom’s agent and head of its legal team.

In its capacity as representing the Hawaiian Kingdom, Professor Lenzerini concludes that “the Council of Regency is exactly in the same position of a government of a State under military occupation, and is vested with the rights and powers recognized to governments of occupied States pursuant to international humanitarian law.” Therefore, “the ousted government being the entity which represents the ‘legitimate government’ of the occupied territory…may ‘attempt to influence life in the occupied area out of concern for its nationals, to undermine the occupant’s authority, or both. One way to accomplish such goals is to legislate for the occupied population.’”

Regarding legislation by governments of occupied States, Professor Lenzerini cites the Swiss Federal Tribunal which held that “[e]nactments by the [exiled government] are constitutionally laws of the [country] and applied [from the beginning] to the territory occupied […] even though they could not be effectively implemented until the liberation.” He explains that “[a]though this position was taken with specific regard to exiled governments, and the Council of Regency was not established in exile but in situ, the conclusion, to the extent that it is considered valid, would not substantially change as regards the Council of Regency itself.” Hence,

under international humanitarian law, the proclamations of the Council of Regency are not divested of effects as regards the civilian population of the Hawaiian Islands. In fact, considering these proclamations as included in the concept of “legislation”…they might even, if the concrete circumstances of the case so allow, apply retroactively at the end of the occupation, on the condition that the legislative acts in point do not “disregard the rights and expectations of the occupied population.” It is therefore necessary that the occupied government refrains “from using the national law as a vehicle to undermine public order and civil life in the occupied area.”

When the legislative function is exercised by the Council of Regency, through its proclamations, it “is subjected to the condition of not undermining the rights and interests of the civilian population,” and therefore “may be considered applicable to local people, unless such applicability is explicitly refuted by the occupying authority.” “In this regard,” states Professor Lenzerini, “it is reasonable to assume that the occupying power should not deny the applicability of the…proclamations when they do not undermine, or significantly interfere with the exercise of, its authority.”

Addressing the June 3, 2019 proclamation of the Council of Regency recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties as the administration of the Occupying State, Professor Lenzerini states, “this Proclamation pursues the clear purpose of ensuring the protection of the Hawaiian territory and the people residing therein against the prejudicial effects which may arise from the occupation.” He explains that “it represents a legislative act aimed at furthering the interests of the civilian population through ensuring the correct administration of their rights and of the land. As a consequence, it has the nature of an act that is equivalent, in its rationale and purpose (although not in its precise subject), to a piece of legislation concerning matters of personal status of the local population, requiring the occupant to give effect to it.” He, therefore, concludes that “the proclamations of the Council of Regency—including the Proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration of the occupying State on 3 June 2019—have on the civilian population the effect of acts of domestic legislation aimed at protecting their rights and prerogatives, which should be, to the extent possible, respected and implemented by the occupying power.”

In his commentary on the working relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State, Professor Lenzerini establishes that the law of occupation “allows for authority to be shared by the Occupying Power and the occupied government, provided the former continues to bear the ultimate and overall responsibility for the occupied territory.” By implementing the legislation of the Council of Regency, “the occupying power would better comply with its obligation, existing under international humanitarian law and human rights law, to guarantee and protect the human rights of the local population. It follows that the occupying power has a duty—if not a proper legal obligation—to cooperate with the [Council of Regency] to better realize the rights and interest of the civilian population, and, more in general, to guarantee the correct administration of the occupied territory.” Professor Lenzerini concludes:

[T]he working relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State should have the form of a cooperative relationship aimed at guaranteeing the realization of the rights and interests of the civilian population and the correct administration of the occupied territory, provided that there are no objective obstacles for the occupying power to cooperate and that, in any event, the “supreme” decision-making power belongs to the occupying power itself. This conclusion is consistent with the position of the latter as “administrator” of the Hawaiian territory, as stated in the Council of Regency’s Proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration of the occupying State of June 3, 2019 and presupposed by the pertinent rules of international humanitarian law.

This cooperative relationship, however, is “premised on both the Council of Regency and the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties [to] ensure [their] compliance with international humanitarian law.” Compliance with the law of occupation requires the State of Hawai‘i to transform itself into a government recognized under international humanitarian law. United States practice during occupations requires the establishment of a Military government, which “is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory. The necessity for such government arises from the failure or inability of the legitimate government to exercise its functions on account of the military occupation (U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, para. 362).” The establishment of Military government is not limited to the United States military, but also applies to a proxy of the occupying power that is in effective control of Hawaiian territory such as the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties. United States practice recognizes that an occupying power “has the duty of establishing [a Military government] when the government of such territory is absent or unable to function properly (U.S. Army and Navy Manual of Civil Affairs Military Government, Field Manual 27-5, p. 4).”

Furthermore, “[i]t is immaterial whether the government over an [occupied State’s] territory consists in a military or civil or mixed administration. Its character is the same and the source of its authority is the same. It is a government imposed by force, and the legality of its acts is determined by the law of war (FM 27-10, para. 368).” And “restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent government cannot be avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or local, to carry out acts which would be unlawful if performed by the occupant. Acts induced or compelled by the occupant are nonetheless its acts (FM 27-10, para. 366).”

In the current state of things, the State of Hawai‘i is not a Military government but rather a “puppet government” or proxy of the United States that continues to commit the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty by unlawfully imposing or applying “legislative or administrative measures of the occupying power going beyond those required by what is necessary for military purposes of the occupation (Royal Commission of Inquiry, p. 155-57, 167).” The volitional element, or criminal intent, of usurpation of sovereignty, according to Professor William Schabas, is that the “perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of the armed conflict and subsequent occupation (RCI, p. 167).” There is no statute of limitation for war crimes but it is customary for individuals to be prosecuted for the commission of war crimes up to 80 years after the alleged war crime was committed given the life expectancy of individuals (RCI, p. 155).

In 2012, member States of the United Nations committed themselves to “ensuring that impunity is not tolerated for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and for violations of international humanitarian law and gross violations of human rights law, and that such violations are properly investigated and appropriately sanctioned, including by bringing the perpetrators of any crimes to justice, through national mechanisms or, where appropriate, regional or international mechanisms, in accordance with international law.”

According to the applicable rules of international law, as provided in the legal opinion of Professor Lenzerini, the Council of Regency, first, does have the lawful authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State that has been under a belligerent occupation by the United States since January 17, 1893; second, its proclamations do have legal effects on the civilian population of the Hawaiian Islands, to include its proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration of the occupying State on June 3, 2019; and, third, international humanitarian law does provide for a cooperative relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State—the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties. Furthermore, the mandate of the Royal Commission, which was established by “legislation” of the Council of Regency, is also confirmed by the legal opinion and the applicable rules of international law.