Category Archives: Treaties

1893 Executive Agreements and Their Profound Impact Today

Posted on by
10

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

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

Island of O‘ahu Targeted for Nuclear Strikes

Posted on by
49

The United States prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Islands is a direct violation of Hawai‘i’s neutrality. Article 1 of the 1907 Hague Convention, V, provides “The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable,” and Article 2 provides “Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.” The United States’ violation of these Articles have placed the residents of the Hawaiian Islands into harms way when Japan attacked U.S. military installations on O‘ahu on December 7, 1941, and continue to place Hawai‘i’s residents in harms way in the event of a nuclear attack.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Base Structure Report for 2012, the U.S. military has 118 military sites that span 230,929 acres of the Hawaiian Islands, which is 20% of the total acreage of Hawaiian territory. As the headquarters for the U.S. Pacific Command, being the largest unified command in the world, the Hawaiian Islands is targeted for nuclear strikes by Russia and China. At present the concern is North Korea, as well as any adversary of the United States.

In 1990, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published Risks and Hazards: A State by State Guide. One of the subjects included nuclear targets and identified 6 nuclear targets on the island of O‘ahu that coincided with the locations of military posts of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Also included as a target is the Headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command at Camp Smith that lies in the back of a residential area in Halawa. According to FEMA, the entire Island of O‘ahu would be obliterated if a nuclear attack were to take place.

hi-nu

Americanization has desensitized Hawai‘i’s population and has made the presence of the U.S. military in the islands normal. Americanization has also erased the memory of the U.S. invasion in 1893 and portrayed the military presence as protecting the islands from an aggressor country intent on invasion, when in fact the Hawaiian Islands were seized in 1898 to serve as a defense to protect the United States west coast from invasion.

NewlandsAfter the defeat of the Spanish Pacific Squadron in the Philippines, U.S. Congressman Francis Newlands (D-Nevada), submitted House Resolution 259 annexing the Hawaiian Islands (also known as the Newlands Resolution), to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 4, 1898.

Six days later, hearings were held on the Newlands Resolution, and U.S. Naval Captain Alfred Mahan’s testimony explained the military significance of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States:

“It is obvious that if we do not hold the islands ourselves we Mahancannot expect the neutrals in the war to prevent the other belligerent from occupying them; nor can the inhabitants themselves prevent such occupation. The commercial value is not great enough to provoke neutral interposition. In short, in war we should need a larger Navy to defend the Pacific coast, because we should have not only to defend our own coast, but to prevent, by naval force, an enemy from occupying the islands; whereas, if we preoccupied them, fortifications could preserve them to us. In my opinion it is not practicable for any trans-Pacific country to invade our Pacific coast without occupying Hawai‘i as a base.”

The Hawaiian Islands was and continues to be the outpost to protect the United States and their presence in the Hawaiian Islands is in violation of international law and the laws of occupation.

War Crimes: Federal Taxes and Costs Incurred from Jones Act

Posted on by

According to United States constitutional law, the federal government is separated into three distinct and separate branches, commonly referred to as the separation of powers doctrine. The Congress is the legislative branch that enacts federal statutes, the President heads the executive branch that executes or enforces federal statutes and treaties, and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch that interprets federal statutes and treaties. Under the separation of powers doctrine, the United States Supreme Court is the highest authority in the interpretation of federal statutes and treaties. In other words, when the Supreme Court makes a decision on a particular issue it is binding over everyone in the United States including the President and Congress.

In 1936, a very important case was heard by the United States Supreme Court that centered on the limitation of U.S. laws that became a binding precedent. The case was U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, where the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens; and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.” Expressed in a different way, the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect outside of the United States and actions taken by the United States government in foreign territories are governed by international law and treaties.

For Hawai‘i, a few of the treaties include:

Federal statutes that were passed in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution by Congress regarding Hawai‘i include, but are not limited to:

Without a treaty of cession, the Hawaiian Islands remain a foreign territory and therefore the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect. Two particular federal statutes, the 1913 Revenue Act that established the Internal Revenue Service and the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, also known as the Jones Act, are not only illegal but are the driving forces behind Hawai‘i’s high cost of living.

TAXES

According to the Tax Foundation 2013 Facts & Figures, the current taxes paid by residents of Hawai‘i under United States laws, which includes the laws of the State of Hawai‘i, with an average income of $42,925.00 are on average $16,311.00. This is $.38 on the dollar (38%), which is a conservative estimate. Here’s the breakdown:

  • $.13 cents/dollar (13%) – U.S. Federal Income Taxes;
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – U.S. Social Security & Medicaid (actual rate is 15.3% but employers cover half);
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – State Income Taxes;
  • $.05 cents/dollar (5%) – State Corporate Income Taxes; and
  • $.04 cents/dollar (4%) – State Sales Tax.

JONES ACT

The Jones Act is a restraint of trade and commerce in violation of international law and treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and other foreign States. According to the Jones Act, all goods, which includes tourists on cruise ships, whether originating from Hawai‘i or being shipped to Hawai‘i must be shipped on vessels built in the United States that are wholly owned and crewed by United States citizens. And should a foreign flag ship attempt to unload foreign goods and merchandise in the Hawaiian Islands will have to forfeit its cargo to the to the U.S. Government, or an amount equal to the value of the merchandise or cost of transportation from the person transporting the merchandise.

As a result of the Jones Act there is no free trade in the Islands. 90% of Hawai‘i’s food is imported from the United States, which has created a dependency on outside food. The three major American carriers for Hawai‘i are Matson, Horizon Lines, and Pasha Hawai‘i Transport Services, as well as several low cost barge alternatives. Under the Jones Act, these American carriers travel 2,400 miles to ports on the west coast of the United States in order to reload goods and merchandise delivered from Pacific countries on foreign carriers, which would have otherwise come directly to Hawai‘i ports. The cost of fuel and the lack of competition drives up the cost of shipping and contributes to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living. Gas tax is $.47 per gallon as a result of the Jones Act because only American carriers can transport oil to Hawai‘i to be converted into gas. And according to the USDA Food Cost, Hawai‘i residents pay an extra $296 per month for food than families in the United States.

Pacific countries with the highest number of carriers are led by Panama with 6,413; China with 2,771; Hong Kong with 1,644; Singapore with 1,599; Marshall Islands with 1,593; Indonesia with 1,340; South Korea with 786; Japan with 684; Vietnam with 579; Cambodia with 544; Philippines with 446; United States with 393; Thailand with 363; India with 340; Malaysia with 315; Canada with 181; North Korea with 158; Taiwan 112; Vanuatu with 77; Kiribati with 77; Tuvalu with 58; Mexico with 52; Australia with 41; Cook Islands with 35; Papua New Guinea with 31; Peru with 22; New Zealand with 15; French Polynesia with 12; Fiji with 11; Tonga with 7; New Caledonia with 3; Federated States of Micronesia with 3; Samoa with 2; Costa Rica with 1; Timor-Leste with 1.

Pacific_Carriers

The Jones Act functions as a barrier to entry for low-cost foreign carriers that Hawai‘i merchants could utilize to trade food and merchandise from other countries throughout the Pacific. This also includes purchasing oil at a much cheaper rate for conversion to gas. Free trade would also increase jobs here in the islands, especially after converting Pearl Harbor Naval Base into a commercial port similar to Subic Bay Free Port Zone in the Philippines, which used to be the second largest United States Naval Base in the world. Subic Bay “continues to be one of the country’s major economic engines with more than 700 investment projects, including the 4th largest shipbuilding facility in the world.” The military housing would also be converted to civilian housing.

Under the laws of occupation, U.S. Federal taxes cannot be collected in a foreign territory. If the State of Hawai‘i taxes were converted to Hawaiian Kingdom taxes in order to maintain government services, the taxes to be paid would be $.17 cents on the dollar, which is $7,297.25 for an income of $42,925.00, a savings of $9,013.75. Illegally collecting taxes in a foreign territory is a war crime called “appropriation of property [money]” (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Title 18 U.S.C. §2441) not justified under the laws of occupation. The International Criminal Court also prosecutes individuals for committing the war crime of “appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” Adding to this unlawful “appropriation of property [money]” is the collection of monies paid out by the Hawai‘i consumer as a direct result of the Jones Act.

The United States government is liable to compensate Hawai‘i’s residents, which includes foreign nationals, for these violations.

KITV News: Man Goes to Court to Fight for More Than Traffic Citations

Posted on by
119

KITV News_Brown

Watch KITV News Man Goes to Court to Fight for More Than Traffic Citations.

Yesterday, Lopaka Brown, through his attorney Dexter Kaiama, esq., provided evidence and argument in District Court that the court is not lawfully constituted according to United States constitutional law and international law because there exists no treaty of annexation that would have incorporated the Hawaiian Islands into the United States of America. Without a treaty, U.S. law enacted by the Congress have no force and effect beyond U.S. territory, which nullifies the 1898 Joint Resolution of Annexation and the 1959 Statehood Act. The District Court derives its authority from the 1959 Statehood Act. The proper Court is a military commission established by the U.S. Pacific Command that administers Hawaiian Kingdom law and the laws of occupation.

Additional evidence provided to the court were two executive agreements entered into between Queen Lili‘uokalani and President Grover Cleveland that settled the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. The first agreement, called the Lili‘uokalani assignment, binds the U.S. President, through the Pacific Command, to administer Hawaiian law and the laws of occupation. The second agreement, called the Agreement of restoration, binds the U.S. President to restore the government and thereafter the Queen to grant amnesty. Both agreements are treaties and under U.S. constitutional law are called sole-executive agreements. Sole-executive agreements are also binding upon successor Presidents for their faithful execution. See also War Crimes: The Role of the International Criminal Court during the Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

If the Court disregards the evidence, it would be committing a felony by denying Brown a fair trial according to Title 18, U.S.C., §2441. In 1996, Congress enacted the War Crimes Act that criminalized war crimes identified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions as felonies. Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that failure to provide a fair trial in an occupied territory is a war crime. See also War Crimes are Felonies under U.S. Federal Law. The War Crimes Act is enforceable “outside” of U.S. territory when the United States military is the occupant of an occupied State.

Hawaiian Legations and Consulates in 1893

Posted on by
11

On January 17, 1893, Foreign Legations accredited to the Court of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the city of Honolulu included the United States of America, Portugal, Great Britain, France and Japan. A Legation is a diplomatic mission in a foreign country headed by an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. After the Second World War legations were considered embassies. Foreign Consulates in the Hawaiian Kingdom included the United States of America, Italy, Chile, Germany, Sweden-Norway, Denmark, Peru, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, Mexico and China.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

Hawaiian Legations accredited abroad to foreign States included:

  1. United States of America in the city of Washington, D.C.;
  2. Great Britain in the city of London;
  3. France in the city of Paris,
  4. Russia in the city of Saint Petersburg;
  5. Peru in the city of Lima; and
  6. Chile in the city of Valparaiso.

Hawaiian Consulates abroad in foreign States included:

  1. United States of America in the cities of New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, San Diego, Boston, Portland, Port Townsend and Seattle;
  2. Mexico in Mexico city and the city of Manzanillo; Guatemala;
  3. Peru in the city of Callao;
  4. Chile in the city of Valparaiso;
  5. Uruguay in the city of Monte Video;
  6. Philippines (former Spanish territory) in the city of Iloilo and Manila;
  7. Great Britain in the cities of London, Bristol, Hull, Newcastle on Tyne, Falmouth, Dover, Cardiff and Swansea, Edinburgh and Leith, Glasgow, Dundee, Queenstown, Belfast;
  8. Ireland (former British territory) in the cities of Liverpool, and Dublin;
  9. Canada (former British territory) in the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Bellville, Kingston Rimouski, St. John’s, Varmouth, Victoria, and Vancouver;
  10. Australia (former British territory) in the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Hobart, and Launceston;
  11. New Zealand (former British territory) in the cities of Auckland and Dunedin;
  12. China in the cities of Hong Kong and Shanghai;
  13. France in the cities of Paris, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Dijon, Libourne and Papeete;
  14. Germany in the cities of Bremen, Hamburg, Frankfort, Dresden and Karlsruhe;
  15. Austria in the city of Vienna;
  16. Spain in the cities of Barcelona, Cadiz, Valencia Malaga, Cartegena, Las Palmas, Santa Cruz and Arrecife de Lanzarote;
  17. Portugal in the cities of Lisbon, Oporto Madeira, and St. Michaels;
  18. Cape Verde (former Portuguese territory) in the city of St. Vincent;
  19. Italy in the cities of Rome, Genoa, and Palermo;
  20. Netherlands in the cities of Amsterdam and Dordrecht;
  21. Belgium in the cities of Antwerp, Ghent, Liege and Bruges;
  22. Sweden in the cities of Stockholm, Lyskil, and Gothemburg;
  23. Norway in the city of Oslo (formerly known as Kristiania);
  24. Denmark in the city of Copenhagen; and
  25. Japan in the city of Tokyo.

United States of America—1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
1

US Treaty

On December 20, 1849, the Treaty between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom was concluded and signed in Washington, D.C. Ratifications by both countries were exchanged in Honolulu on the Island of O‘ahu, on August 24, 1850. Article VIII of the treaty provides:

“…each of the two contracting parties engages that the citizens or subjects of the other residing in their respective States shall enjoy their property and personal security in as full and ample manner as their own citizens or subjects, or the subjects or citizens of the most favored nation, but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively.”

In addition, Article XVI of the said treaty provides that any:

“…citizen or subject of either party infringing the articles of this treaty shall be held responsible for the same, and the harmony and good correspondence between the two governments shall not be interrupted thereby, each party engaging in no way to protect the offender, or sanction such violation.”

Neither the United States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVI of the 1849 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former United States territories, which acquired their independence from the United States, are successor States to, at the very least, Article VIII of the Hawaiian-American Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Federated States of Micronesia. Independence from American trusteeship on November 3, 1986.
  2. Marshall Islands. Independence from American trusteeship on October 21, 1986.
  3. Palau. Independence from American trusteeship on October 1, 1994.
  4. Philippines.  Independence:  July 4, 1946

Sweden and Norway—1852 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
1

Sweden_Norway Treaty

On July 1, 1852, a Treaty was signed between Sweden and Norway and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Honolulu and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article II of the treaty provides:

“there shall be between all the dominions of His Swedish and Norwegian Majesty, and the Hawaiian Islands, a reciprocal freedom of commerce.  The subjects of each of the two contracting parties, respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports and rivers in the territories of the other, where trade with other nations in permitted.  They may remain and reside in any part of the said territories, respectively, and hire and occupy houses and warehouses and my trade, by wholesale or retail, in all kinds of produce, manufactures or merchandise of lawful commerce, enjoying the same exemptions and privileges as native subjects, and subject always to the same laws and established customs as native subjects.”

Following the separation of Austria-Hungary into two separate States, both States remained parties to the 1852 Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom. Neither Norway nor Sweden nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of their intentions to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVII of the 1852 Treaty.  Therefore, the treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.

Switzerland—1864 Treaty of Friendship, Establishment and Commerce

Posted on by
3

Swiss Treaty

On July 20, 1864, a Treaty was signed between the Swiss Confederation and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Berne and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article III of the treaty provides:

“the citizens of each of the contracting parties shall enjoy on the territory of the other the most perfect and complete protection for their persons and their property.  They shall in consequence have free and easy access to the tribunals of justice for their claims and the defense of their rights, in all cases and in every degree of jurisdiction established by the law.”

Neither the Swiss Confederation nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XIII of the 1864 Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.

Spain—1863 Treaty of Peace and Friendship

Posted on by
4

Spanish Treaty

On October 29, 1863, a Treaty was signed between Spain and the Hawaiian Kingdom in London and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article IV of this treaty provides:

“the respective citizens of the two countries shall enjoy the most constant and complete protection for their persons and property.  Consequently, they shall have free and easy access to the courts of justice in the pursuit and defense of their rights, in every instance and degree of jurisdiction established by the laws.”

Neither Spain nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XXVII of the 1863 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date day. Former Spanish territories, which acquired their independence from Spain, are successor States to, at the very least, Article IV of the Hawaiian-Spanish Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Cuba.  Independence:  May 20, 1902.
  2. Equatorial Guinea.  Independence:  October 12, 1968.

Russia—1869 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
Reply

Russia Treaty

On June 19, 1869, a Treaty was signed between Russia and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Paris and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article II of this treaty provides:

“the subjects of His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and the subjects of His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, shall be treated reciprocally on the footing of the most favored nation.”

Neither Russia nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the principles of customary international law.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Russian territories, which acquired their independence from Russia, are successor States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Russian Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Armenia.  Independence:  September 23, 1991.
  2. Azerbaijan.  Independence:  August 30, 1991.
  3. Belarus.  Independence:  August 25, 1991.
  4. Estonia. Independence. February 24, 1918.
  5. Finland.  Independence:  December 6, 1917.
  6. Georgia.  Independence:  April 9, 1991.
  7. Kazakhstan.  Independence:  December 6, 1991.
  8. Kyrgyzstan.  Independence:  August 31, 1991.
  9. Latvia.  Independence:  November 18, 1918.
  10. Lithuania.  Independence:  February 16, 1918.
  11. Poland. Independence: November 11, 1918.
  12. Republic of Moldova.  Independence:  August 27, 1991.
  13. Tajikistan.  Independence:  September 9, 1991.
  14. Turkmenistan.  Independence:  October 27, 1991.
  15. Ukraine.  Independence:  August 24, 1991.
  16. Uzbekistan.  Independence:  August 31, 1991.

Portugal—1882 Treaty of Friendship and Commerce

Posted on by
Reply

Portugal Treaty

On May 5, 1882, a Provisional Convention was signed between Portugal and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Lisbon and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article I of this convention provides:

“the Consular Agents, the subjects, the ships and products of the soil, or of the industry of one of the two countries, will enjoy on the territory of the other the same exemptions, privileges, and immunities which other Consular Agents, subjects, ships and products of the soil, or of the industry of the most favored nation, enjoy.”

Neither Portugal nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this Provisional Convention in accordance with the principles of customary international law.  Therefore, this Portuguese Provisional Convention is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Portuguese territories, which acquired their independence from Portugal, are successor States to, at the very least, Article I of the Hawaiian-Portuguese Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Angola.  Independence:  November 11, 1975.
  2. Cape Verde.  Independence:  July 5, 1975.
  3. Guinea-Bissau.  Independence:  September 24, 1973.
  4. Mozambique.  Independence:  June 25, 1975.
  5. Sao Tome and Principe.  Independence:  July 12, 1975.
  6. Timor-Leste. Independence: November 28, 1975. May 20, 2002 is the official date of international recognition of Timor-Leste’s independence by the United Nations.

Netherlands-Luxembourg—1862 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
Reply

Dutch Treaty

On October 16, 1862, a Treaty was signed between the Netherlands and the Hawaiian Kingdom in The Hague and thereafter ratified by both governments. The King of the Netherlands, William III, was also Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Article II of this treaty provides:

“the respective subjects of the two high contracting parties shall be perfectly and in all respects assimilated on their establishment and settlement, whether for a longer or shorter time in the States and Colonies of the other party on the terms granted to the subjects of the most favored nation in all which concerns the permission of sojourning, the exercise of legal professions, imposts, taxes, in a word, all the conditions relative to sojourn and establishment.”

Neither the Netherlands nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article VI of the 1862 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Dutch territories, which acquired their independence from the Netherlands, are successor States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Dutch Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Indonesia.  Independence:  August 17, 1945.
  2. Suriname.  Independence:  November 25, 1975.

Japan—1871 Treaty of Amity and Commerce

Posted on by
1

Japan Treaty

On August 19, 1871, a Treaty was signed between Japan and the Hawaiian Kingdom in the city of Yedo and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article II of this treaty provides:

“the subjects of each of the two high contracting parties, respectively, shall have the liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports and rivers in the territories of the other, where trade with other nations is permitted;  they may remain and reside in any such ports, and places respectively, and hire and occupy houses and warehouses, and may trade in all kinds of produce, manufactures and merchandise of lawful commerce, enjoying at all times the same privileges as may have been, or may hereafter be granted to the citizens or subjects of any other nation, paying at all times such duties and taxes as may be exacted from the citizens or subjects of other nations doing business or residing within the territories of each of the high contracting parties.”

Neither Japan nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article VI of the 1871 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Japanese territories, which acquired their independence from Japan, are successor States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Japanese Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. The successor States are:

  1. North Korea.  Independence:  August 15, 1945.
  2. South Korea. Independence: August 15, 1945.

Italy—1863 Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
Reply

Italy Treaty

On July 22, 1863, a Treaty was signed between Italy and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Paris and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article IV of this treaty provides:

“the respective citizens of the two countries shall enjoy the most constant and complete protection for their persons and property.  Consequently, they shall have free and easy access to the courts of justice in the pursuit and defense of their rights, in every instance and degree of jurisdiction established by the laws.”

Neither Italy nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XXVII of the 1863 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Italian territories, which acquired their independence from Italy, are successor States to, at the very least, Article IV of the Hawaiian-Italian Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. The successor State is:

  1. Libya.  Independence:  December 24, 1951.
  2. Somalia.  Independence:  July 1, 1960, from a merger of British Somaliland that became independent from the United Kingdom on 26 June 1960 and Italian Somaliland that became independent from the Italian-administered UN trusteeship on 1 July 1960 to form the Somali Republic.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island—1851 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
Reply

British Treaty

On July 10, 1851, a Treaty was signed between the United Kingdom and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Honolulu and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article VIII of this treaty provides:

“the subjects of either of the contracting parties, in the territories of the other, shall receive and enjoy full and perfect protection for their persons and property, and shall have free and open access to the courts of justice in the said countries, respectively, for the prosecution and defense of their just rights…”

Neither Great Britain nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the principles of customary international law.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former British territories, which acquired their independence from Great Britain, are successor States to, at the very least, Article VIII of the Hawaiian-British Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States, which includes mandate territories, are:

  1. Afghanistan.  Independence:  August 19, 1919.
  2. Antigua and Barbuda.  Independence:  November 1, 1981.
  3. Australia.  Independence:  January 1, 1901.
  4. Bahamas.  Independence:  July 10, 1973.
  5. Bahrain.  Independence:  August 15, 1971.
  6. Bangladesh.  Independence from Pakistan on December 16, 1971.  Pakistan acquired Independence from Great Britain on August 14, 1947.
  7. Barbados.  Independence:  November 30, 1966.
  8. Belize.  Independence:  September 21, 1981.
  9. Bhutan.  Independence from India on August 8, 1949.  India acquired Independence from Great Britain on August 15, 1947.
  10. Botswana.  Independence:  September 30, 1966.
  11. Brunei Darussalam. Independence: January 1, 1984.
  12. Canada. Independence: December 11, 1931.
  13. Cyprus.  Independence:  August 16, 1960.
  14. Dominica.  Independence:  November 3, 1978.
  15. Egypt.  Independence:  February 28, 1922.
  16. Fiji.  Independence:  October 10, 1970.
  17. Gambia.  Independence:  February18, 1965.
  18. Ghana.  Independence:  March 6, 1957.
  19. Grenada.  Independence:  February 7, 1974.
  20. Guyana.  Independence:  May 26, 1966.
  21. India.  Independence:  August 15, 1947.
  22. Iraq. Independence from British Mandate: October 3, 1932.
  23. Ireland.  Independence:  December 6, 1921.
  24. Israel. Independence from British Mandate: May 14, 1948.
  25. Jamaica.  Independence:  August 6, 1962.
  26. Jordan. Independence from British Mandate: May 25, 1946.
  27. Kenya.  Independence:  December 12, 1963.
  28. Kiribati.  Independence:  July 12, 1979.
  29. Kuwait.  Independence:  June 19, 1961.
  30. Lesotho.  Independence:  October 4, 1966.
  31. Malawi.  Independence:  July 6, 1964.
  32. Malaysia.  Independence:  August 31, 1957.
  33. Maldives.  Independence:  July 26, 1965.
  34. Malta.  Independence:  September 21, 1964.
  35. Mauritius.  Independence:  March 12, 1968.
  36. Myanmar.  Independence:  January 4, 1948.
  37. Namibia.  Independence from South African Mandate on March 21, 1990. South Africa acquired Independence from Great Britain on May 31, 1910.
  38. Nauru. Independence from Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain Trusteeship on January 31, 1968. New Zealand acquired Independence from Great Britain on September 26, 1907, and Australia acquired Independence from Great Britain on January 1, 1901.
  39. New Zealand.  Independence:  September 26, 1907.
  40. Nigeria.  Independence:  October 1, 1960.
  41. Pakistan.  Independence:  August 14, 1947.
  42. Papua New Guinea. Independence from Australian Trusteeship on September 16, 1975. Australia acquired Independence from Great Britain on January 1, 1901.
  43. Qatar.  Independence:  September 3, 1971.
  44. Saint Kitts and Nevis.  Independence:  September 19, 1983.
  45. Saint Lucia.  Independence:  February 22, 1979.
  46. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.  Independence:  October 27, 1979.
  47. Samoa. Independence from New Zealand Trusteeship on January 1, 1962. New Zealand acquired Independence from Great Britain on September 26, 1907.
  48. Seychelles.  Independence:  June 29, 1976.
  49. Sierra Leone.  Independence:  April 27, 1961.
  50. Singapore.  Independence from Malaysia on August 9, 1965. Malaysia acquired Independence from Great Britain on August 31, 1957.
  51. Solomon Islands.  Independence:  July 7, 1978.
  52. Somalia.  Independence:  July 1, 1960, from a merger of British Somaliland that became independent from the UK on 26 June 1960 and Italian Somaliland that became independent from the Italian-administered UN trusteeship on 1 July 1960 to form the Somali Republic.
  53. South Africa.  Independence:  May 31, 1910.
  54. .South Sudan. Independence from Sudan on July 9, 2011. Sudan acquired Independence from Great Britain on January 1, 1956.
  55. Sri Lanka.  Independence:  February 4, 1948.
  56. Sudan.  Independence:  January 1, 1956.
  57. Swaziland.  Independence:  September 6, 1968.
  58. Tonga.  Independence:  June 4, 1970.
  59. Trinidad and Tobago.  Independence:  August 31, 1962.
  60. Tuvalu.  Independence:  October 1, 1978.
  61. Uganda.  Independence:  October 9, 1962.
  62. United Arab Emirates.  Independence:  December 2, 1971.
  63. United Republic of Tanzania. Tanganyika became independent on December 9, 1961 from British Trusteeship; Zanzibar became independent on December 19, 1963; Tanganyika united with Zanzibar on April 26, 1964 to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar; renamed United Republic of Tanzania.
  64. Vanuatu.  Independence from both France and Great Britain on July 30, 1980.
  65. Zambia.  Independence:  October 24, 1964.
  66. Zimbabwe.  Independence:  April 18, 1980.