Originally posted on August 31, 2018. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, “The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols form the core of international humanitarian law, which regulates the conduct of armed conflict and seeks to limit its effects. They protect people not taking part in hostilities and those who are no longer doing so.” Coverage of the Geneva Conventions also apply to occupied territories where there is no actual fighting. Amnesty International defines war crimes as “crimes that violate the laws or customs of war defined by the Geneva and Hague Conventions.”

Internationally, “protected persons” is a legal term under international humanitarian law that refers to specific protections afforded to civilians in occupied territory whose rights are protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and its Additional Protocol. According to Article 4 of the Geneva Convention:

“Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”

Under this definition, civilians who possess the nationality of the occupying State while they reside in the territory of the occupied State are not protected under the Geneva Convention. Article 147 of the Geneva Convention provides a list of grave breaches, called war crimes, which would apply to protected persons as defined under Article 4.

“Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a [occupying] Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

The relevant grave breaches and explanations that would apply to the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom can be found in paragraphs 190 through 205 of the Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. If you are a protected person whose situation would fall under one of the explanatory paragraphs in the mandamus, a grave breach or war crime may have been committed against you.

Fifty years later, however, this definition of a protected persons was expanded to include the citizenry of the occupying State. This was an evolution of international criminal law ushered in by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The case was the prosecution and conviction of Duško Tadić who was a Bosnian Serb. After being arrested in Germany in 1994, he faced among other counts, twelve counts of grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. On May 7, 1997, he was convicted by the trial court on 11 counts but did not include the counts of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention.

In paragraph 608 of its judgment, the trial court found that Tadic was not guilty of 11 counts of grave breaches because the civilian victims possessed the same Yugoslavian citizenship as Tadic who represented the occupying Power in the war. The prosecutors appealed this decision and it was not only reversed by the Appeal Chamber of the ICTY, but it also expanded the definition of protected persons in occupied territory under international humanitarian law.

In its judgment in 1999, the Appeals Chamber concluded:

“[The] primary purpose [of Article 4] is to ensure the safeguards afforded by the [Geneva] Convention to those civilians who do not enjoy the diplomatic protection, and correlatively are not subject to the allegiance and control, of the State in whose hands they may find themselves. In granting its protection, Article 4 intends to look to the substance of relations, not their legal characterisation as such. … Hence, even if in the circumstances of the case the perpetrators and the victim were to be regarded as possessing the same nationality, Article 4 [Geneva Convention] would still be applicable.” Tadic, ICTY Appeals Chamber, Judgment (1999), para. 168 and 169.

This is an important evolution in international criminal law and has a profound impact on the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Up until 1999, protected persons in the Hawaiian Islands excluded American citizens. But since 1999, the Tadic case has expanded protection to citizens of the occupying State who reside in the territory of an occupied State. The operative word is no longer nationality or citizenship, but rather allegiance that would apply to all persons in an occupied State. This is not to be confused with an oath of allegiance, but rather the law of allegiance that applies over everyone whether they signed an oath or not. Hawaiian law only requires an oath of allegiance for government employees.

Under Hawaiian Kingdom law there is specific wording that covers allegiance. It is found in the Hawaiian Penal Code under sections 2 and 3 of  Chapter VI for the crime of treason.

“Allegiance is the obedience and fidelity due to the kingdom from those under its protection. … An alien, whether his native country be at war or at peace with this kingdom, owes allegiance to this kingdom during his residence therein, and during such residence, is capable of committing treason against this kingdom.”

By expanding the scope and application of protected persons to American citizens residing in the Hawaiian Kingdom, they, along with all other nationalities of foreign States as well as Hawaiian subjects, are afforded equal protection under the Geneva Convention and can be considered victims of grave breaches or war crimes committed against them by American citizens in violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation was listed as a war crime in a 1919 report by the Commission on Responsibilities of the Paris Peace Conference that was established by the Allied and Associated Powers at war with Germany and its allies in the First World War. The Commission was especially concerned with acts perpetrated in occupied territories against non-combatants and civilians.

Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is the imposition of the laws and administrative measures of the Occupying State over the territory of the Occupied State. Usurpation, according to Black’s Law dictionary, is “The unlawful encroachment or assumption of the use of property, power or authority which belongs to another.”

The Commission did not indicate the source of this crime in treaty law but it would appear to be Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, which states, “The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” Article 43 is the codification of customary international law that existed on January 17, 1893, when the United States unlawfully overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and began its prolonged belligerent occupation.

In the annex of its 1919 report, the Commission charged that in Poland the German and Austrian forces had “prevented the populations from organising themselves to maintain order and public security” and that they had “[a]ided the Bolshevist hordes that invaded the territories.” It said that in Romania the German authorities had instituted German civil courts to try disputes between subjects of the Central Powers or between a subject of these powers and a Romanian, a neutral, or subjects of Germany’s enemies. In Serbia, the Bulgarian authorities had “[p]roclaimed that the Serbian State no longer existed, and that Serbian territory had become Bulgarian.” It listed several other war crimes committed by Bulgaria in occupied Serbia: “Serbian law, courts and administration ousted;” “Taxes collected under Bulgarian fiscal regime;” “Serbian currency suppressed;” “Public property removed or destroyed, including books, archives and MSS (e.g., from the National Library, the University Library, Serbian Legation at Sofia, French Consulate at Uskub);” “Prohibited sending Serbian Red Cross to occupied Serbia.” It also charged that in Serbia the German and Austrian authorities had committed several war crimes: “The Austrians suspended many Serbian laws and substituted their own, especially in penal matters, in procedure, judicial organisation, etc.;” “Museums belonging to the State (e.g., Belgrade, Detchani) were emptied and the contents taken to Vienna.”

The crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation was referred to by Judge Blair of the American Military Commission in a separate opinion in the Justice Case, holding that “This rule is incident to military occupation and was clearly intended to protect the inhabitants of any occupied territory against the unnecessary exercise of sovereignty by a military occupant.” Australia, Netherlands and China enacted laws making usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation a war crime. In the case of Australia, the Parliament enacted the Australian War Crimes Act in 1945 that included the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.

The war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation has not been included in more recent codifications of war crimes, casting some doubt on its status as a crime under customary international law. And there do not appear to have been any prosecutions for that crime by international criminal tribunals of late. However, the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is a war crime under “particular” customary international law. According to the International Law Commission, “A rule of particular customary international law, whether regional, local or other, is a rule of customary international law that applies only among a limited number of States.” In the 1919 report of the Commission, the United States, as a member of the commission, did not contest the listing of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, but rather only disagreed, inter alia, with the Commission’s position on the means of prosecuting heads of state for the listed war crimes by conduct of omission.

The Hawaiian Kingdom Royal Commission Inquiry views usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation as a war crime under “particular” customary international law and binding upon the Allied and Associated Powers of the First World War—United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, principal Allied Powers and Associated Powers that include Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Thailand, Czech Republic, formerly known as Czechoslovakia, and Uruguay. Great Britain, as an empire at the time, included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa who also fought in the First World War. Therefore, as an international crime under particular customary international law, these countries are obligated to prosecute this war crime in their courts.

In the Hawaiian situation, usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation serves as a source for the commission of other war crimes within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which includes the war crimes of compulsory enlistment, denationalization, pillage, destruction of property, deprivation of fair and regular trial, deporting civilians of the occupied territory, and transferring populations into an occupied territory. The reasoning for the prohibition of imposing extraterritorial prescriptions or measures of the occupying State is addressed by Professor Eyal Benvenisti:

The occupant may not surpass its limits under international law through extra­territorial prescriptions emanating from its national institutions: the legislature, government, and courts. The reason for this rule is, of course, the functional symmetry, with respect to the occupied territory, among the various lawmak­ing authorities of the occupying state. Without this symmetry, Article 43 could become meaningless as a constraint upon the occupant, since the occupation administration would then choose to operate through extraterritorial prescription of its national institutions.

Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation came before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) in 1999. In Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, the Permanent Court of Arbitration convened an arbitral tribunal to resolve a dispute where Larsen, the claimant, alleged that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by its Council of Regency, the respondent, was liable “for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” The PCA accepted the case as a dispute between a “State” and a “private party” and acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom to be a non-Contracting State in accordance with Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention. The PCA annual reports of 2000 through 2011 specifically states that the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom proceedings were done “Pursuant to article 47 of the 1907 Convention.” According to Bederman and Hilbert of the American Journal of International Law:

At the center of the PCA proceeding was the argument that … the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that the 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 Hawai‘i [and its County of Hawai‘i].

In the situation of Hawai‘i, the usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation would appear to have been total since the beginning of the twentieth century. This is an ongoing crime where the criminal act would consist of the imposition of legislation or administrative measures by the occupying power that goes beyond what is required necessary for military purposes of the occupation. Since 1898, when the United States Congress enacted an American municipal law purporting to have annexed the Hawaiian Islands, it began to impose its legislation and administrative measures to the present in violation of the laws of occupation.

Given that this is essentially a crime involving government action or policy or the action or policies of an occupying State’s proxies such as the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties, a perpetrator who participated in the act would be required to do so intentionally and with knowledge that the act went beyond what was required for military purposes or the protection of fundamental human rights.

Usurpation of sovereignty has not only victimized the civilian population in the Hawaiian Islands for over a century, but it has also victimized the civilians of other countries that have visited the islands since 1898 who were unlawfully subjected to American municipal laws and administrative measures. These include State of Hawai‘i sales tax on goods purchased in the islands but also taxes placed exclusively on tourists’ accommodations collected by the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties.

The Counties have recently added 3% surcharges to the State of Hawai‘i’s 10.25% transient accommodations tax. Added with the State of Hawai‘i’s general excise tax of 4% in addition to the 0.5% County general excise tax surcharges, civilians who are visiting the islands will be paying a total of 17.75% to the occupying power. In addition, those civilians of foreign countries doing business in the Hawaiian Islands are also subjected to paying American duties on goods that are imported to the United States destined to Hawai‘i. These duty rates are collected by the United States according to the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

The far reach of the victims of war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands includes civilians throughout the world in various countries.

At the United Nations World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect was unanimously adopted. The principle of the Responsibility to Protect has three pillars: (1) every State has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing; (2) the wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual States in meeting that responsibility; and (3) if a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter. In 2009, the General Assembly reaffirmed the three pillars of State’s Responsibility to Protect their populations from war crimes and crimes against humanity under resolution A/63/308, and in 2021, the UN General Assembly passed resolution A/75/277 on “The responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

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

Determined to hold to account individuals who have committed war crimes and human rights violations throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Council of Regency, by Proclamation on April 17, 2019, established a Royal Commission of Inquiry in similar fashion to the United States proposal of establishing a Commission of Inquiry after the First World War “to consider generally the relative culpability of the authors of the war and also the question of their culpability as to the violations of the laws and customs of war committed during its course.”

In mid-November of 2022, the Royal Commission of Inquiry published War Criminal Reports no. 22-0002, 22-0002-1, 22-0003, 22-0003-1, 22-0004, 22-0004-1, 22-0005, 22-0005-1, 22-0007, and 22-0007-1 that provides the evidence that U.S. President Joseph Biden, Jr., Vice-President Kamala Harris, Admiral John Aquilino, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, Senator Charles Schumer, Representative Nancy Pelosi, State of Hawai‘i Governor David Ige, Commissioner Ty Nohara, Tax Director Isaac Choy, Hawai‘i County Mayor Mitchell Roth, Hawai‘i County Council Chairwoman Maile David, Maui County Mayor Michael Victorino, Maui County Council Chairwoman Alice Lee, County of Kaua‘i Mayor Derek Kawakami, and Kaua‘i County Council Chair Arryl Kaneshiro have committed the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. Accomplices to this war crime include: U.S. Attorneys Brian Boynton, Anthony Coppolino, and Michael Gerardi; State of Hawai‘i Attorneys Holly T. Shikada and Amanda J. Weston; County of Hawai‘i Attorneys Elizabeth Strance, Mark Disher and Dakota Frenz; County of Maui Attorneys Moana Lutey, Caleb Rowe and Iwalani Mountcastle; and County of Kaua‘i Attorneys Matthew Bracken and Mark Bradbury.

The reports have documented the necessary evidence that satisfies the elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation: (1) the perpetrators imposed imposed or applied legislative or administrative measures of the occupying power going beyond those required by what is necessary for military purposes of the occupation, which is the actus reus or the criminal act; (2) the perpetrators were aware that the measures went beyond what was required for military purposes or the protection of fundamental human rights, which is the mens rea or the guilty mind; (3) their conduct took place in the context of and was associated with a military occupation; and (4) the perpetrators were aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of the military occupation.

With regard to the last two elements listed for the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation: (1) there is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an armed conflict or its character as international or non-international; (2) in that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the conflict as international or non-international; and (3) there is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstance that established the existence of an armed conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with.”

According to Professor Dietrich Schindler, “the existence of an [international] armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions can always be assumed when parts of the armed forces of two States clash with each other. … Any kind of use of arms between two States brings the Conventions into effect.” Dr. Stuart Casey-Maslen, author of The War Report 2012, further concludes that an international armed conflict “also exists whenever one state uses any form of armed force against another state, irrespective of whether the latter state fights back.”

The Hawaiian Kingdom has been in an international armed conflict with the United States since January 16, 1893, when U.S. troops invaded the city of Honolulu. The Hawaiian Kingdom has been under military occupation since January 17, 1893, when Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to the United States forces. For a comprehensive legal narrative and analysis of this international armed conflict download the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s ebook The Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom (2020).

The 123 countries who are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have primary responsibility to prosecute war criminals under complementary and universal jurisdiction. This type of jurisdiction gives State Parties the first responsibility before the International Criminal Court can initiate proceedings and authority to prosecute individuals for international crimes to include the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation without regard to the place the war crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator. With the exception of the United States, China, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Thailand, the Allied Powers and Associated Powers of the First World War are State Parties to the Rome Statute.

In this situation where the citizenry of these countries have become victims of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, they can seek extradition warrants in their national courts in order for their governments to prosecute these war criminals under the passive personality principle. The passive personality principle provides countries with jurisdiction for crimes committed against their nationals while they were abroad in the Hawaiian Islands. This has the potential of opening the floodgate to lawsuits from all over the world.

The commission of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation can stop when the United States, the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties begin to comply with Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and administer the laws of the Occupied State—the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Since these proceedings were initiated 11 months ago with the filing of the initial complaint on May 20, 2021, Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden, and then the filing of the amended complaint on August 11, 2021, there was always the “800-pound gorilla in the room” that the Court did not want to directly address until last week.

That gorilla was the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State despite the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States on January 17, 1893, and being belligerently occupied by the United States for over a century. If the gorilla exists, the Court can only exist as an Article II Court under international law operating in an occupied country. If the gorilla doesn’t exist, then the Court continues to exist as an Article III Court under United States law.

The amicus brief filed by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Water Protectors Legal Collective explained why the Court’s present status as an Article III Court is unlawful because it is situated within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and not the United States. As such, it must transform itself into an Article II Occupation Court.

Neither Magistrate Judge Rom Trader nor District Judge Leslie Kobayashi directly addressed the 800-pound gorilla until Judge Kobayashi issued the first Order on March 30, 2022, partially granting a motion to dismiss filed by Nervell, as the Swedish Honorary Consul to Hawai‘i. In her Order Judge Kobayashi stated:

Plaintiff argues that “[b]efore the Court can address the substance of [Nervell’s] motion to dismiss it must first transform itself into an Article II Court…” Plaintiff bases this argument on the proposition that the Hawaiian Kingdom is a sovereign and independent state. This district has uniformly rejected such a proposition. “‘[T]here is no factual (or legal basis) for concluding that the [Hawaiian] Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.’” Plaintiff’s request for the Court to “transform itself into an Article II Court” is therefore denied.

The Court admits that it could “transform itself into an Article II Court” but for “concluding that the [Hawaiian] Kingdom” does not exist as a State it could not. Conversely, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State, the Court will then “transform itself into an Article II Court.”

The Court later noted that “Plaintiff asserts its claim against Nervell in his official capacity as Honorary Consul of Sweden to Hawai‘i. Nervell argues that, because Plaintiff’s claim is against him in his official capacity, the Court does not possess jurisdiction over him, pursuant to the Vienna Convention. The Court agrees.” The Hawaiian Kingdom at no time in these proceedings denied Sweden’s appointment of Defendant Nervell as the Honorary Consul of Sweden to Hawai‘i. Rather, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s position was that Defendant Nervell held an inchoate title as Honorary Consul because he did not receive his exequatur from the Hawaiian Foreign Ministry by virtue of Article XII of the 1852 Hawaiian-Swedish Treaty. Without accreditation by the Hawaiian Kingdom, Defendant Nervell cannot claim any “official capacity” under the Vienna Convention. Also, Defendant Nervell never provided evidence that the 1852 Hawaiian-Swedish Treaty was replaced by the 1793 United States-Swedish Treaty.

On March 31, 2022, the Court issued its second Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice. The basis of the denial was the same in its previous Order that “‘there is no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the [Hawaiian] Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,” and, therefore, “the Ninth Circuit, this district court, and Hawai‘i state courts have all held that the laws of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i apply to all individuals in this State.”

Conversely, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State, all “laws of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i” do not apply within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Judge Kobayashi initiated a legal dialogue with the 800-pound gorilla—the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The two Orders are not final, and according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as the gorilla in this case, is given an opportunity to respond to the position taken by Judge Kobayashi that the gorilla doesn’t exist.

Last night, April 7, 2022, the Hawaiian Kingdom filed a Motion for Reconsideration that explained why both Orders violate international law and the American doctrine of separation of powers.

In both Orders, Judge Kobayashi, by a general verdict, denies the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State. She cites U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. v. Fonoti, but provided no evidence or reasoning of the Court’s rejection of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. The Fonoti decision directly cites a State of Hawai‘i case—State v. French, where the State of Hawai‘i appeals court stated, “this particular kind of claim was rejected in State v. Lorenzo, which held that presently there ‘is no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the [Hawaiian] Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.”

But Judge Kobayashi’s Order omitted the word “presently” that precedes “there is no factual (or legal basis) for concluding that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists as a state.” This would be misleading because it would appear that the Order was conclusive by merely leaving the word “presently” out of the Order. In State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, the appellate court explained its use of the word “presently,” because “it was incumbent on Defendant to present evidence supporting his claim,” and that “Lorenzo has presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.”

In other words, the reason why the Lorenzo Court used “presently” was because Lorenzo did not “present evidence supporting his claim.” The Lorenzo court did not foreclose the question but rather provided, what it saw at the time, instruction for the Court to arrive at the conclusion that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State based on evidence provided to the Court. The Lorenzo Court placed the burden of proof that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist on the Defendant. The Lorenzo Court, however, acknowledged that its “rationale is open to question in light of international law.”

Because international law provides for the presumption of the continuity of the State despite the overthrow of its government by another State, it shifts the burden of proof. According to Judge Crawford, “there is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations despite a period in which there no effective government.” He also stated that “belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom would continue to exist as a State despite the American military overthrow of the Hawaiian government on January 17, 1893.

According to Professor Craven, “If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.”

The “presumption of continuity of a State” is similar to the “presumption of innocence.” A person on trial does not have the burden to prove their innocence. Rather, the prosecutor has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the person. Without proof of guilt, the person remains innocent. In international law, a recognized sovereign and independent State does not have the burden to prove it continues be a State after being belligerently occupied for over a century. Rather, the opposing State has to prove with evidence under international law that the State was extinguished. Absent the evidence, the State continues to exist.

Therefore, the Lorenzo Court’s placing of the burden on the Defendant is misplaced because international law places the burden “on the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal.” The only fact the Defendant would need to provide is evidence that the United States recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, which would be the 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation. Judge Kobayashi provided no rebuttable evidence of facts in its Orders that the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished in accordance with international law. She just stated, without evidence, there is no 800-pound gorilla, but yet she’s in dialogue with that gorilla.

In these proceedings, the Hawaiian Kingdom provided factual evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence where the Permanent Court Arbitration, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (1999-2001), acknowledged the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State.

Additional factual basis of “continuity” includes the delivering of an oral statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council on March 22, 2022, by Dr. David Keanu Sai, as Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim. Dr. Sai was accredited by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for his statement. Dr. Sai stated to the Human Rights Council, in Geneva, Switzerland:

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the American Association of Jurists call the attention of the Council to human rights violations in the Hawaiian Islands. My name is Dr. David Keanu Sai, and I am the Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim for the Hawaiian Kingdom. I also served as lead agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration from 1999-2001 where the Court acknowledged the continued existence of my country as a sovereign and independent State.

The Hawaiian Kingdom was invaded by the United States on 16 January 1893, which began its century long occupation to serve its military interests. Currently, there are 118 military sites throughout the islands and the city of Honolulu serves as the headquarters for the Indo-Pacific Combatant Command.

For the past century, the United States has and continues to commit the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty, under customary international law, by imposing its municipal laws over Hawaiian territory, which has denied Hawaiian subjects their right of internal self-determination by prohibiting them to freely access their own laws and administrative policies, which has led to the violations of their human rights, starting with the right to health, education and to choose their political leadership.

The United States, who is a member State of the Human Rights Council, did not object to Dr. Sai’s statement that “the United States has and continues to commit the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty, under customary international law, by imposing its municipal laws over Hawaiian territory,” thereby, acquiescing to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State and the United States commission of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty.

According to the International Court of Justice, in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), acquiescence “concerns a consent tacitly conveyed by a State, unilaterally, through silence or inaction, in circumstance such that a response expressing disagreement or objection in relation to the conduct of another State would be called for.” According to Professor MacGibbon, under international law, the “function of acquiescence may be equated with that of consent,” whereby the “primary purpose of acquiescence is evidential; but its value lies mainly in the fact that it serves as a form of recognition of legality and condonation of illegality and provides a criterion which is both objective and practical.”

The failure of the United States to disagree or object to the Hawaiian Kingdom being acknowledged as a State by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and its failure to disagree or object to the statement to the Human Rights Council regarding the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty are official acts by the United States under customary international law. War crimes can only be committed in an international armed conflict between two or more States, and, therefore, the United States acquiescence are official acts that bind Judge Kobayashi. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Co., stated, “when the executive branch of the government, which is charged with our foreign relations assumes a fact it is conclusive on the judicial department.”

United States President John Tyler, by letter of Secretary of State John C. Calhoun on July 6, 1844, to Hawaiian officials, recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State. And on December 20, 1849, the United States entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the Hawaiian Kingdom and maintained a Legation (Embassy) in Honolulu and Consulates throughout the islands.

In its filings, the United States has not provided any rebuttable evidence, whether factual or legal, that the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished as a State under international law. Rather it claimed that “the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898 and Hawaii entered the union as a state in 1959.” Both the 1898 Joint Resolution of annexation and the 1959 Hawai‘i Admission Act are municipal laws and, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, in The Apollon, these laws cannot “extend beyond its territory except so far as regards its citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.”

The U.S. Supreme Court also stated, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., that “neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.” In 1988, the U.S. Department of Justice, in a legal opinion titled, “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea,” it stated that “we doubt that Congress has constitutional authority to assert either sovereignty over an extended territorial sea or jurisdiction over it under international law on behalf of the United States.” The Department of Justice also concluded, “It is therefore unclear which constitutional power of Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.”

Under international law, the imposition of United States municipal laws violates the territorial integrity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and would constitute the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty under international law. According to Professor Schabas, the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty is where the “perpetrator imposed or applied legislative or administrative measures of the occupying power going beyond those required by what is necessary for military purposes of the occupation.” In these proceedings, the United States’ reliance on its municipal laws is an admission of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty.

On the topic of separation of powers, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Airports Auth. v. Citizens for Noise Abatement, explained, “the structure of our Government as conceived by the Framers of our Constitution disperses the federal power among the three branches—the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial—placing both substantive and procedural limitations on each. The ultimate purpose of this separation of powers is to protect the liberty and security of the governed.” Professor Merrill explains that “because every federal office must be located ‘in’ one of the three branches, each office is subject to whatever specific constitutional limitations apply to action by its branch.”

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.” Like the Congress, the judicial branch “is powerless to invade” the executive branch. The judicial branch is the arbiter of facts and law. It is not charged with foreign relations.

Judge Kobayashi’s two Orders not only violate international law but also the American doctrine of the separation of powers between the three branches of government. The President cannot act as a judge and a judge cannot act as a President who is in charge of foreign relations. In other words, Judge Kobayashi’s two Orders declaring the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist without providing any evidence is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. She’s supposed to provide evidence that the executive branch, not the judicial branch, extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law.

The Hawaiian Kingdom, as the 800-pound gorilla, has now placed the burden on Judge Kobayashi to show evidence of a factual or legal basis that it doesn’t exist. Under Rule 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to write “findings of fact and conclusions of law” as to why the gorilla doesn’t exist or why the gorilla does exist. If the gorilla does exist, Judge Kobayashi will have to change the two Orders and transform the Court into an Article II Occupation Court that administers Hawaiian Kingdom law and the international law of occupation.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted certain rules or norms of international law. These rules of international law include the independence of countries or States that gives rise to sovereignty, which is defined as the “supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed.” The terms country and State are interchangeable. Ukraine became an independent State on August 24, 1991, after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Hawaiian Kingdom became an independent State on November 28, 1843.

In the 1928 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands – United States of America), the sole-arbitrator, Max Huber, stated, “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.”

This rule springs another rule of international law, which is the duty of non-intervention by other States in a State’s internal affairs because of a State’s territorial integrity. These rules are foundational for the international system to operate, and because of this they are considered peremptory norms, also called jus cogens, that cannot be derogated or disparaged. To violate these rules is an internationally wrongful act.

When Russia invaded Ukraine it violated these rules of international law and transformed the state of affairs from a state of peace to a state of war. According to Judge Christopher Greenwood, “Traditional international law was based upon a rigid distinction between the state of peace and the state of war.” This separation provides the proper context by which certain rules of international law would or would not apply. The laws or war, which is also called international humanitarian law, are not applicable in a state of peace. Inherent in the rules of international humanitarian law is the co-existence of two States being that of the invading State and that of the invaded State.

War is regulated by international humanitarian law called the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, as well as customary international law. Since the latter part of the nineteenth century, violations of international humanitarian law could amount to war crimes, which are committed by individuals acting on behalf of a State and not by the government of the State as a whole. In the words of the International Military Tribunal, “crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” War crimes have no statute of limitations.

While hostilities are taking place between Russian and Ukrainian forces there are certain rules of international humanitarian that would amount to war crimes committed against the civilian population. These war crimes include:

Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; and

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

It would appear from recent news coverage that Russian forces are committing war crimes against the civilian population of Ukraine who pose no threat to the invading forces. The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has recently launched an investigation of war crimes committed by Russian forces. The ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan stated, “it is clear…directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects amounts to a war crime.” Although Russia and Ukraine are not State parties to the Rome Statute that would have authorized the ICC to investigate war crimes, the ICC was prompted to investigate by a referral of thirty-nine States that are State parties to the Rome Statute.

Should hostilities cease and certain portions of the territory of Ukraine should come under the effective control of Russian forces, international humanitarian law transforms the situation into belligerent occupation and the occupying State must continue to protect the civilian population who reside within the occupied territory. Should Russia be in effective control of territory, it will trigger the law of occupation where Russian forces are obligated to administer the laws of the Ukraine. This rule of international law would continue until the occupation comes to an end when Russian forces leave Ukrainian territory. As professor Ian Brownlie wrote:

Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of the German state [its independence and sovereignty] did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to exist, and, indeed, the legal basis of the occupation depended on its continued existence.”

War crimes committed during belligerent occupation against the civilian population include what are called “grave breaches” that are listed under Article 147 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.

Grave breaches…shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Along with the list of war crimes as “grave breaches,” there are war crimes that are listed under customary international law. In chapter three of the ebook Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, Professor William Schabas provides a list of war crimes, under customary international law, committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom. These include:

war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation;

war crime of compulsory enlistment;

war crime of denationalization;

war crime of pillage;

war crime of confiscation or destruction of property;

war crime of deprivation of fair and regular trial;

war crime of deporting civilians of the occupied territory; and

war crime of transferring populations into an occupied territory.

When United States forces invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 16, 1893, they initiated the state of war between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom. Hostilities would only last until the following day when Queen Lili‘uokalani signed a conditional surrender to the United States. She stated:

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

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

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

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

Lili‘uokalani, R.
Samuel Parker, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Wm. H. Cornwell, Minister of Finance.
John. F. Colburn, Minister of the Interior.
A.P. Peterson, Attorney General.

After completing an investigation, President Grover Cleveland notified the Congress:

And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer, Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the Government of the Queen, which at the time was undisputed and was both the de factor and the de jure government. In point of fact the existing government instead of requesting the presence of an armed force protested against it. There is little basis for the pretense that such forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government building and palace. Admiral Skerrett, the officer in command of our naval force on the Pacific station, has frankly stated that in his opinion the location of the troops was inadvisable if they were landed for the protection of American citizens whose residences and places of business, as well as the legation and consulate, were in a distant part of the city, but the location selected was a wise one if the forces were landed for the purpose of supporting the provisional government. If any peril to life and property calling for any such martial array had existed, Great Britain and other foreign powers interested would not have been behind the United States in activity to protect their citizens. But they made no sign in that direction. When these armed men were landed, the city of Honolulu was in its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no symptom of riot or disturbance in any quarter. Men, women, and children were about the streets as usual, and nothing varied the ordinary routine or disturbed the ordinary tranquillity, except the landing of the Boston’s marines and their march through the town to the quarters assigned them. Indeed, the fact that after having called for the landing of the United States forces on the plea of danger to life and property the Committee of Safety themselves requested [US] Minister [John Stevens] to postpone action, exposed the untruthfulness of their representations of present peril to life and property. The peril they saw was an anticipation growing out of guilty intentions on their part and something which, though not then existing, they knew would certainly follow their attempt to overthrow the Government of the Queen without the aid of the United States forces.

From this date, the United States was in effective control of Hawaiian territory and international humanitarian law at the time obligated the United States to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Instead of complying with international humanitarian law, the United States unilaterally seized the Hawaiian Islands and transformed it into a military outpost to protect the United States from its adversaries. Since 1898, the United States has committed the war crime of “usurpation of sovereignty,” which is the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This imposition of American laws is what caused the commission of the other war crimes identified by Professor Schabas.

Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed Russian troops were being sent into Ukraine to protect people who were subjected to bullying and genocide and that Russia was aiming for the “demilitarization and de-Nazification” of Ukraine. The BBC reported, “There has been no genocide in Ukraine: it is a vibrant democracy, led by a president who is Jewish.”

It would appear that Russia’s justification is not credible, just as the United States justification for the invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom was not credible as well. The difference, however, is that President Cleveland, who was President of the invading force, completed a presidential investigation and acknowledged that the invasion was “illegal” under international law. Consequently, there is no need for an investigation into the invasion and unlawful overthrow of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Rather, the issue is the United States non-compliance with international humanitarian law for over a century, which has led to the commission of war crimes and human rights violations.

The restored government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Council of Regency, brought this to the attention by a diplomatic note to the foreign embassies accredited to the United Nations in New York City. This information was also brought to the attention of the foreign embassies in both New York City and Geneva by a joint letter from the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the American Association of Jurists—Asociación Americana de Juristas, both of whom have consultative status with the United Nations Human Rights Council.