Why the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, Continues to Exist

Posted on March 1, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

In 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands verified the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State. The Court stated, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.” Under international law all States have sovereign equality. States have equal rights and duties and are co-equal members of the international community regardless of their economic, social and political differences. Sovereign equality means:

States are judicially equal;
Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
Each State has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
The territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable;
Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its own political, social, economic and cultural systems; and
Each State has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.

The claim of State continuity on the part of the Hawaiian Kingdom has to be opposed as against a claim by the United States as to its succession. Principles of succession may operate even in cases where continuity is not called into question, such as with the cession of a portion of territory from one State to another, or occasionally in case of unification. Continuity and succession are, in other words, not always mutually exclusive but might operate in tandem. It is evident, furthermore, that the principles of continuity and succession may not actually differ a great deal in terms of their effect.

It is generally held that there are three principles that have some bearing upon the issue of continuity. First, that the continuity of the State is not affected by changes in government even if of a revolutionary nature. Secondly, that continuity is not affected by territorial acquisition or loss, and finally, continuity is not affected by military occupation. Professor Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2006), p. 34, points out that, “There is a strong presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations, despite revolutionary changes in government, or despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government. Belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.”

Each of these principles reflects upon one of the key incidents of statehood—territory, government (legal order) and independence—making clear that the issue of continuity is essentially one concerned with the existence of States: unless one or more of the key constituents of Statehood are entirely and permanently lost, State identity will be retained. Their negative formulation, furthermore, implies that there exists a general presumption of continuity. According to Hall, A Treatise of International Law (1895), p. 22, a State retains its identity “so long as the corporate person undergoes no change which essentially modifies it from the point of view of its international relations, and with reference to them it is evident that no change is essential which leaves untouched the capacity of the state to give effect to its general legal obligations or to carry out its special contracts.”

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. It might be objected that formally speaking, the survival or otherwise of a State should be regarded as independent of the legitimacy of any claims to its territory on the part of other States. It is commonly recognized that a State does not cease to be such merely in virtue of the existence of legitimate claims over part or parts of its territory. Nevertheless, where those claims comprise the entire territory of the State, as they do in case of Hawai’i, and when they are accompanied by effective governance to the exclusion of the claimant, it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two questions. The survival of the Hawaiian Kingdom is premised upon the “legal” basis of present or past United States claims to sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands.

To sum it up, any claim to State continuity will be dependent upon the establishment of two legal facts: first, that the State in question existed as a recognized entity for purposes of international law at some relevant point in history; and, secondly, that intervening events have not been such as to deprive it of that status. It should be made very clear, however, that the issue is not simply one of “observable” or “tangible facts,” but more specifically of “legally relevant facts.” It is not a case, in other words, simply of observing how power or control has been exercised in relation to persons or territory, but of determining the scope of “authority,” which is understood as “a legal entitlement to exercise power and control.” Authority differs from mere control by not only being essentially rule governed, but also in virtue of the fact that it is not always entirely dependent upon the exercise of that control.

Under international law, a State who claims to be the successor of another State, when not at war, must take place by cession. Professor Oppenheim, International Law (vol. 1, 1948), p. 499, explains that, “cession of State territory is the transfer of sovereignty over State territory by the owner-State to another State.” He further states that the “only form in which a cession can be effected is an agreement embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State (p. 500).” The United States only claim to have extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom is by a joint resolution of annexation passed by its Congress.

A joint resolution, however, is not a treaty or agreement between two States, but rather an agreement between the House of Representatives and the Senate in Washington, D.C. A joint resolution is a municipal law of the United States whose effect is limited to United States territory. The United States Supreme Court, The Apollon, 22 U.S. 362, 370 (1824), affirmatively stated, that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory” for it would be “at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations” In U.S. v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 332 (1937), the Court also stated that, “our Constitution, laws and policies have no extraterritorial operation.” And in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., (1936), the Court concluded, “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…. [T]he court recognized, and in each of the cases cited [involving the exercise of the sovereign power of the United States] found, the warrant for its conclusions not in the provisions of the Constitution, but in the law of nations.”

If a joint resolution is limited to United States territory, how can a joint resolution annex a foreign State? Simply answered, it can’t and it didn’t.

When the House of Representatives and the Senate were debating the joint resolution in 1898, the Congressional record clearly showed that even the Representatives and Senators knew the limitation of congressional laws. On June 15, 1898, Congressman Thomas H. Ball (D-Texas) stated,

“The annexation of Hawai‘i by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unwise. If the first proposition be true, sworn to support the Constitution, we should inquire no further. I challenge not the advocates of Hawaiian annexation, but those who advocate annexation in the form now presented, to show warrant or authority in our organic law for such acquisition of territory. To do so will be not only to subvert the supreme law of the land but to strike down every precedent in our history. …Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully.”

And on June 20, 1898, Senator Augustus Bacon (D-Georgia) stated,

“That a joint resolution for the annexation of foreign territory was necessarily and essentially the subject matter of a treaty, and that it could not be accomplished legally and constitutionally by a statute or joint resolution. If Hawaii was to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method it can not be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation sufficiently to induce him to give his support to an unconstitutional measure.” Senator Bacon further explained, “Now, a statute is this: A Statute is a rule of conduct laid down by the legislative department, which has its effect upon all of those within the jurisdiction. In other words, a statute passed by the Congress of the United States is obligatory upon every person who is a citizen of the United States or a resident therein. A statute can not go outside the jurisdiction of the United States and be binding upon the subjects of another power. It takes the consent of the subjects of the other power, speaking or giving their consent through their duly authorized government, to be bound by a certain thing which is enacted in this country; and therein comes the necessity for a treaty.”

Nearly 100 years later, the United States Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel was befuddled by Congress’s annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by a joint resolution. In a 1988 memorandum titled “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea,” the Office of Legal Counsel addressed the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by joint resolution. Douglas Kmiec, Acting Assistant Attorney General, authored the memorandum for Abraham D. Sofaer, legal advisor to the U.S. State Department. After covering the limitation of Congressional authority and the objections made by members of the Congress, Kmiec concluded,

“Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable. … It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.”

The United States very own Attorney General’s office in 1988 clearly undermines the claim of sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands by the United States. If the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel is “unclear” as to the authority of Congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands, it surely cannot be considered as a “valid demonstration of legal title” by the United States to be the successor of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law. If the United States is not the successor, then the presumption of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as an independent State is maintained. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence is protected by international law even when it has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States since the Spanish-American War in 1898.

State Attributes of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on February 22, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

The Hawaiian Kingdom received the recognition of its independence and sovereignty by joint proclamation from the United Kingdom and France on November 28, 1843, and by the United States of America on July 6, 1844.

At the time of the recognition of Hawaiian independence, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s government was a constitutional monarchy that developed a complete system of laws, both civil and criminal, and have treaty relations of a most favored nation status with the major powers of the world, including the United States of America.

A. Permanent Population
According to Professor Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed. (2006), p. 52, “If States are territorial entities, they are also aggregates of individuals. A permanent population is thus necessary for statehood, though, as in the case of territory, no minimum limit is apparently prescribed.” Professor Giorgetti, A Principled Approach to State Failure (2010), p. 55, explains “Once recognized, States continue to exist and be part of the international community even if their population changes. As such, changes in one of the fundamental requirements of statehood do not alter the identity of the State once recognized.”

In his report to U.S. Secretary of State Walter Gresham, Special Commissioner James Blount reported on June 1, 1893, “The population of the Hawaiian Islands can but be studied by one unfamiliar with the native tongue from its several census reports. A census is taken every six years. The last report is for the year 1890. From this it appears that the whole population numbers 89,990. This number includes natives, or, to use another designation, Kanakas, half-castes (persons containing an admixture of other than native blood in any proportion with it), Hawaiian-born foreigners of all races or nationalities other than natives, Americans, British, Germans, French, Portuguese, Norwegians, Chinese, Polynesians, and other nationalities. Americans numbered 1,928; natives and half-castes, 40,612; Chinese, 15,301; Japanese, 12,360; Portuguese, 8,602; British, 1,344; Germans, 1,034; French, 70; Norwegians, 227; Polynesians, 588; and other foreigners 419. It is well at this point to say that of the 7,495 Hawaiian-born foreigners 4,117 are Portuguese, 1,701 Chinese and Japanese, 1,617 other white foreigners, and 60 of other nationalities.”

The permanent population has exceedingly increased since the 1890 census and according to the last census in 2011 by the United States that number was at 1,374,810. International law, however, protects the status quo of the national population of an occupied State during occupation. According to Professor von Glahn, The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation (1957), p. 60, “the nationality of the inhabitants of occupied areas does not ordinarily change through the mere fact that temporary rule of a foreign government has been instituted, inasmuch as military occupation does not confer de jure sovereignty upon an occupant. Thus under the laws of most countries, children born in territory under enemy occupation possess the nationality of their parents, that is, that of the legitimate sovereign of the occupied area.” Any individual today who is a direct descendent of a person who lawfully acquired Hawaiian citizenship prior to the U.S. occupation that began at noon on August 12, 1898, is a Hawaiian subject. Hawaiian law recognizes all others who possess the nationality of their parents as part of the alien population.

B. Defined Territory
According to Judge Huber, in the Island of Palmas arbitration case, “Territorial sovereignty…involves the exclusive right to display the activities of a State.” Crawford, p. 56, also states, “Territorial sovereignty is not ownership of but governing power with respect to territory.”

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

The Islands constituting the defined territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893, together with its territorial seas whereby the channels between adjacent Islands are contiguous, its exclusive economic zone of two hundred miles, and its air space, include:

Island: Location: Square Miles/Acreage:

Hawai‘i                 19º 30′ N 155º 30′ W             4,028.2 / 2,578,048
Maui                      20º 45′ N 156º 20′ W             727.3 / 465,472
O‘ahu                    21º 30′ N 158º 00′ W             597.1 / 382,144
Kaua‘i                   22º 03′ N 159º 30′ W             552.3 / 353,472
Molokai                 21º 08′ N 157º 00′ W             260.0 / 166,400
Lana‘i                    20º 50′ N 156º 55′ W             140.6 / 89,984
Ni‘ihau                  21º 55′ N 160º 10′ W             69.5 / 44,480
Kaho‘olawe           20º 33′ N 156º 35′ W             44.6 / 28,544
Nihoa                    23º 06′ N 161º 58′ W             0.3 / 192
Molokini             20º 38′ N 156º 30′ W             0.04 / 25.6
Lehua                    22º 01′ N 160º 06′ W             0.4 / 256
Ka‘ula                   21º 40′ N 160º 32′ W             0.2 / 128
Laysan                   25º 50′ N 171º 50′ W             1.6 / 1,024
Lisiansky             26º 02′ N 174º 00′ W             0.6 / 384
Palmyra                 05º 52′ N 162º 05′ W             4.6 / 2,944
Ocean                    28º 25′ N 178º 25′ W             0.4 / 256

TOTAL: 6,427.74 (square miles) / 4,113,753.6 (acres)

C. Government
According to Crawford, p. 56, “Governmental authority is the basis for normal inter-State relations; what is an act of a State is defined primarily by reference to its organs of government, legislative, executive or judicial.” Since 1864, the Hawaiian Kingdom fully adopted the separation of powers doctrine in its constitution, being the cornerstone of constitutional governance.

Article 20, Hawaiian Constitution. The Supreme Power of the Kingdom in its exercise, is divided into the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial; these shall always be preserved distinct, and no Judge of a Court of Record shall ever be a member of the Legislative Assembly.

Article 31, Hawaiian Constitution. To the King belongs the executive power.

Article 45, Hawaiian Constitution. The Legislative power of the Three Estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative Assembly; which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the People, sitting together.

Article 66, Hawaiian Constitution. The Judicial Power shall be divided among the Supreme Court and the several Inferior Courts of the Kingdom, in such manner as the Legislature may, from time to time, prescribe, and the tenure of office in the Inferior Courts of the Kingdom shall be such as may be defined by the law creating them.

1. Power to Declare and Wage War & to Conclude Peace
The power to declare war and to conclude peace is constitutionally vested in the office of the Monarch pursuant to Article 26, Hawaiian Constitution, “The King is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and for all other Military Forces of the Kingdom, by sea and land; and has full power by himself, or by any officer or officers he may judge best for the defense and safety of the Kingdom. But he shall never proclaim war without the consent of the Legislative Assembly.”

2. To Maintain Diplomatic Ties with Other Sovereigns
Maintaining diplomatic ties with other States is vested in the office of the Monarch pursuant to Article 30, Hawaiian Constitution, “It is the King’s Prerogative to receive and acknowledge Public Ministers…” The officer responsible for maintaining diplomatic ties with other States is the Minister of Foreign Affairs whose duty is “to conduct the correspondence of [the Hawaiian] Government, with the diplomatic and consular agents of all foreign nations, accredited to this Government, and with the public ministers, consuls, and other agents of the Hawaiian Islands, in foreign countries, in conformity with the law of nations, and as the King shall from time to time, order and instruct.” §437, Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall also “have the custody of all public treaties concluded and ratified by the Government; and it shall be his duty to promulgate the same by publication in the government newspaper. When so promulgated, all officers of this government shall be presumed to have knowledge of the same.” §441, Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

3. To Acquire Territory by Discovery or Occupation
Between 1822 and 1886, the Hawaiian Kingdom exercised the power of discovery and occupation that added five additional islands to the Hawaiian Domain. By direction of Ka‘ahumanu in 1822, Captain William Sumner took possession of the Island of Nihoa. On May 1, 1857; Laysan Island was taken possession by Captain John Paty for the Hawaiian Kingdom; on May 10, 1857 Captain Paty also took possession of Lysiansky Island; Palmyra Island was taken possession of by Captain Zenas Bent on April 15, 1862; and Ocean Island was acquired September 20, 1886, by proclamation of Colonel J.H. Boyd.

4. To Make International Agreements and Treaties and Maintain Diplomatic Relations with other States
Article 29, Hawaiian Constitution, provides, “The King has the power to make Treaties. Treaties involving changes in the Tariff or in any law of the Kingdom shall be referred for approval to the Legislative Assembly.” As a result of the United States of America’s recognition of Hawaiian independence, the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Dec. 20, 1849; Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Jan. 13, 1875; Postal Convention Concerning Money Orders, Sep. 11, 1883; and a Supplementary Convention to the 1875 Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Dec. 6, 1884.

The Hawaiian Kingdom also entered into treaties with Austria-Hungary (now separate States), June 18, 1875; Belgium, October 4, 1862; Denmark, October 19, 1846; France, September 8, 1858; Germany, March 25, 1879; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, March 26, 1846; Italy, July 22, 1863; Japan, August 19, 1871, January 28, 1886; Netherlands, October 16, 1862; Portugal, May 5, 1882; Russia, June 19, 1869; Spain, October 9, 1863; Sweden-Norway (now separate States), April 5, 1855; and Switzerland, July 20, 1864.

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.

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.

Hawaiian Legations accredited to foreign States included the United States of America in the city of Washington, D.C.; Great Britain in the city of London; France in the city of Paris, Russia in the city of Saint Petersburg; Peru in the city of Lima; and Chile in the city of Valparaiso.

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

Acting Government On Course to Secure a Protecting Power

Posted on February 17, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Since meeting with officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on December 17, 2013 at its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, the acting government has been actively involved in securing a Protecting Power under the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocol 1. This process includes the ICRC and an unnamed State party to both the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocol, but due to the sensitivity of the situation and negotiations the acting government is unable to provide a status report until a Protecting Power has been secured. A Protecting Power protects the interest of a third State and its citizenry during occupation.

The acting government deposited its instrument of accession to the Fourth Geneva Convention with the Swiss government on January 14, 2013 followed by its accession to the Additional Protocol 1 on December 16, 2013. As a party to the Geneva Convention, it is the duty of the acting government to secure a Protecting Power, being another party to the Geneva Conventions that is independent and not a party to the conflict. Article 5(1) of the Additional Protocol 1 provides: “It is the duty of the Parties to a conflict from the beginning of that conflict to secure the supervision and implementation of the Conventions and of this Protocol by the application of the system of Protecting Powers, including ‘inter alia’ the designation and acceptance of those Powers… Protecting Powers shall have the duty of safeguarding the interests of the Parties to the conflict.”

Article 1 of both the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocol 1 provides that the “High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for [the Convention and Protocol] in all circumstances.” According to the ICRC’s commentaries “the duty to respect implies that of ensuring respect by civilian and military authorities, the members of the armed forces, and in general, by the population as a whole.” The acting government has diligently worked to ensure compliance by these parties, but these authorities have recklessly disregarded the heeded warnings of compliance and have instead committed war crimes on a grand scale siding with the United States presence. This is directly attributable to the United States’ willful failure, as the occupying Power, to comply with the laws of occupation since the occupation began in 1898.

On this note, the ICRC comments, “In the event of a Power failing to fulfill its obligations, each of the other Contracting Parties, (neutral, allied or enemy) should endeavor to bring it back to an attitude of respect for the Convention. The proper working of the system of protection provided by the Convention demands in fact that the States which are parties to it should not be content merely to apply its provisions themselves, but should do everything in their power to ensure that it is respected universally.”

As stated on the acting government’s website:

“The primary objective of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government is to expose the occupation of our nation within the framework of the 1907 Hague Conventions IV and V and our domestic statutes, and to provide a foundation for transition and the ultimate end of the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV mandates that the occupying government, being the United States of America, must administer the laws of the occupied State, being the Hawaiian Kingdom, and any deviation of this mandate is a violation of international law.”

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Destroying or seizing the Occupied State’s property

Posted on February 4, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

War crimes are actions taken by individuals, whether military or civilian, that violates international humanitarian law, which includes the 1907 Hague Conventions, 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. War crimes include “grave breaches” of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which also applies to territory that is occupied even if the occupation takes place without resistance. Protected persons under International Humanitarian Law are all nationals who reside within an occupied State, except for the nationals of the Occupying Power. The International Criminal Court and States prosecute individuals for war crimes.

War Crimes: Destroying or seizing the [Occupied State’s] property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war

On August 12, 1898, the United States of America seized approximately 1.8 million acres of land that belonged to the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to the office of the Monarch. These lands were called Government lands and Crown lands, respectively, whereby the former being public lands and the latter private lands. These combined lands constituted nearly half of the entire territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Beginning on July 20, 1899, President McKinley began to set aside portions of these lands by executive orders for “installation of shore batteries and the construction of forts and barracks.” Below are the schematics for defense of the popularly known Diamond Head crater at Waikiki.

The first executive order set aside 15,000 acres for two Army military posts on the Island of O‘ahu called Schofield Barracks and Fort Shafter. According to Van Brackle’s “Pearl Harbor from the First Mention of ‘Pearl Lochs’ to Its Present Day Usage,” this soon followed the securing of lands for Pearl Harbor naval base in 1901 when the U.S. Congress appropriated funds for condemnation of 719 acres of private lands surrounding Pearl River, which later came to be known as Pearl Harbor. By 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.

Military training locations include Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, and Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion on the Island of Kaua‘i; the entire Islands of Ni‘ihau and Ka‘ula; Pearl Harbor, Lima Landing, Pu‘uloa Underwater Range—Pearl Harbor, Barbers Point Underwater Range, Coast Guard AS Barbers Point/Kalaeloa Airport, Marine Corps Base Hawai‘i, Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, Hickam Air Force Base, Kahuku Training Area, Makua Military Reservation, Dillingham Military Reservation, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Schofield Barracks on the Island of O‘ahu; and Bradshaw Army Airfield and Pohakuloa Training Area on the Island of Hawai‘i.

The United States Navy’s Pacific Fleet headquartered at Pearl Harbor hosts the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) every other even numbered year, which is the largest international maritime warfare exercise. RIMPAC is a multinational, sea control and power projection exercise that collectively consists of activity by the U.S. Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Naval forces, as well as military forces from other foreign States. During the month long exercise, RIMPAC training events and live fire exercises occur in open-ocean and at the military training locations throughout the Hawaiian Islands. In 2012, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore and South Korea participated in the RIMPAC exercises.

In 2006, the United States Army disclosed to the public that depleted uranium (DU) was found on the firing ranges at Schofield Barracks on the Island of O‘ahu. It subsequently confirmed DU was also found at Pohakuloa Training Area on the Island of Hawai‘i and suspect that DU is also at Makua Military Reservation on the Island of O‘ahu. The ranges have yet to be cleared of DU and the ranges are still used for live fire. This brings the inhabitants who live down wind from these ranges into harms way because when the DU ignites or explodes from the live fire, it creates tiny particles of aerosolized DU oxide that can travel by wind. And if the DU gets into the drinking water or oceans it would have a devastating effect across the islands.

The Hawaiian Kingdom has never consented to the establishment of military installations throughout its territory and these installations and war-gaming exercises stand in direct violation of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4, 1907 Hague Convention, V, Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land.

The deliberate and willful decision by the United States of America’s administration, as the occupant State, not to comply with international law and establish a military government since 1893 to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, being the occupied State, has led to grave breaches and war crimes on an grand scale equal to none in the history of the world and the ramifications are world wide.

As a consequence of the illegal presence of United States military installations throughout the Hawaiian Islands, the United States of America consequently placed the Hawaiian Kingdom and its population in perilous danger from military attack by foreign States. On December 7, 1941, Japan’s military attacked United States military sites on the Island of O‘ahu.

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 six (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 called Halawa. According to FEMA, the entire Island of O‘ahu would be obliterated if a nuclear attack were to take place.

The United States military presence also incurs the threat of attack from States and non-State actors who are adversaries of the United States of America. On March 26, 2013, the New York Times reported, “North Korea said on Tuesday that all of its strategic rocket and long-range artillery units ‘are assigned to strike bases of the U.S. imperialist aggressor troops in the U.S. mainland and on Hawaii and Guam and other operational zones in the Pacific as well as all the enemy targets in South Korea and its vicinity.’” The Christian Science Monitor also reported, “North Korea announced today in a blizzard of threats that it is ready to target US military bases in Guam and Hawaii as part of a full-alert military posture.”

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Compulsion to Serve in the Occupier’s Military

Posted on January 27, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

War Crimes: Compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of an Occupying Power

The United States Selective Service System is an agency of the United States government that maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. Under the Military Selective Service Act, “it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.”

Conscription of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands unlawfully inducted into the United States Armed Forces through the Selective Service System occurred since the First World War to the Vietnam War. The 1907 Hague Convention, V, “Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land,” also prohibits the Occupying Power from establishing recruiting stations on the territory of a neutral Occupied State (Article 4).

There were 4,336 residents of the Hawaiian Islands drafted in the United States military during the First World War (September 1917-November 1918) and 32,197 of Hawai‘i’s residents drafted during the Second World War (November 1940-October 1946). There are no statistics available as to the number of Hawai‘i’s residents drafted during the Korean War (June 1950-June 1953) and the Vietnam War (August 1964-February 1973), but there were over 25,000 of Hawai‘i’s residents who served during the Korean War and 13,000 of Hawai‘i’s residents who served during the Vietnam War.

Although induction into the United States Armed Forces has not taken place since February 1973, the requirements to have residents of the Hawaiian Islands who reach the age of 18 to register with the Selective Service System for possible induction is unlawful and therefore war crimes are still being committed. The Selective Service System in the Hawaiian Islands is headquartered on the Island of O’ahu.

Big Island Video News Series: Defected – Testing Hawaiian Sovereignty

Posted on December 18, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Go to this link to view Big Island Video News feature story: Defected – Testing Hawaiian Sovereignty

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

Posted on November 29, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Registrar of the International Court of Justice Acknowledges Hawaiian Complaint But Won’t Take Action Until Hawaiian Kingdom Covers Court Expenses

Posted on November 7, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

139

The International Court of Justice is one of three principal organs of the United Nations together with the General Assembly and the Security Council. It is located in the city of The Hague, Netherlands, and sits within the Peace Palace along with the Permanent Court of Arbitration. According to its website, “The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The Court is composed of 15 judges who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French.”

Only States, which are independent countries, can initiate legal proceedings against other States for violations of international law. The ICJ, however, is also open for States which are not members of the United Nations. Switzerland did not become a member of the United Nations until 2002 but initiated legal proceedings with the ICJ in 1957 as a non-Member State against the United States of America. The case lasted for 2 years and final judgment was entered on March 21, 1959 in favor of the United States, whereby the subject of the international dispute, being a Swiss corporation, has not exhausted its local remedies against the United States, therefore making the complaint against the United States premature.

If a private individual or group attempts to file an Application Instituting Proceedings against a State with the ICJ, the Registrar does not acknowledge receipt of the Application, but rather sends a template letter, either by mail or email, that states:

Dear ___,

In reply to your email or mail, I have to inform you that the International Court of Justice is not authorized, in view of its functions strictly defined by its Statute (Article 34) and Rules, to give advice or make observations on questions such as those raised in your communication.

The Court’s activities are limited to rendering judgments in legal disputes between States submitted to it by the States themselves and giving advisory opinions when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized agencies of the UN system.

It follows that neither the Court nor its Members can consider applications from private individual or groups, provide them with legal advice or assist them in their relations with the authorities of any country.

That being so, you will, I am sure, understand that, to my regret, no action can be taken on your communication.

Yours faithfully,

Département de l’information | Information Department – Cour internationale de Justice | International Court of Justice

The Registrar of the ICJ, Philippe Couvreur, serves in similar fashion to a Clerk of a Court that receives and file stamps civil and criminal complaints. The Registrar’s duty is to ensure that the party filing an Application (Complaint) is a State, whether a member or non-member of the United Nations, and that it meets the compliance provided for in the Statute and Rules of the ICJ. Once it meets the requirements and before it is submitted to the Judges, the Application must be translated by the Registrar’s office into both the English and French languages, a bilingual version of the State’s Application must be printed and a copy sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations and other States who have access to the ICJ, the case must be listed on the ICJ General List, and a press release must be sent to the media announcing the filing of the Application.

In order for the Registrar to complete these tasks he has a staff that includes a Deputy Registrar, a Legal Matters Department, a Linguistic Matters Department, an Information Department and 5 Technical Divisions comprised of Finance, Publications, Information and Communications Technology, Archives-Indexing and Distribution, and Text Processing and Reproduction. The funding of the ICJ is a portion drawn from the Regular Budget of the United Nations. The 2013 Regular Budget of the United Nations was $5.2 billion US dollars, and the proportionate budget for the ICJ was $47.7 million US dollars, which pays for these tasks to be completed by the Registrar’s office before the Court can take any action. If the State is a non-Member of the United Nations, it would have to contribute to cover the expenses of the Registrar’s office and Judges before the Court can taken any action. Article 35, paragraph 3 of the Statute of the ICJ states “When a state which is not a Member of the United Nations is a party to a case, the Court shall fix the amount which that party is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court. This provision shall not apply if such state is bearing a share of the expenses of the Court.”

On September 25, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom submitted to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice an “Application Instituting Proceedings” against 45 States for treaty violations and violations of international law. In addition, a “Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection” was also submitted requesting the Court to issue an order compelling the 45 States named in the complaint to no longer recognize the United States presence in Hawai‘i as legal. The Hawaiian Kingdom had previously deposited its declaration accepting jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with the Secretary General of the United Nations on September 6, 2013 in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute of the Court.

The Registrar’s office was very reluctant to acknowledge receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Application because it was under the assumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom was not an independent State but rather a part of the United States of America. In fact, it received the template letter from the ICJ before the Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom, Dr. David Keanu Sai, departed for the Netherlands to file the Application. While at The Hague, however, events transpired at the Peace Palace whereby the Registrar’s office was unable to deny the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as a State and the Application was accepted by the personal assistant to the Registrar of the ICJ.

As a non-Member State of the United Nations, the Hawaiian Kingdom is responsible for covering the expenses of the Court as required under Article 35 of the Statute and, without providing its share to cover these costs, the Registrar’s office would not be able translate the Application into the French language and print out a bilingual version of the Application for the other States named in the Application, the Judges of the ICJ and the Secretary General of the United Nations. In other words, the Court cannot take any action on the case until the matter of costs is settled.

In order to address these costs, the Hawaiian Kingdom submitted a formal request on October 16, 2013 to have the President of the International Court of Justice convene the other Judges of the Court to fix the amount, which the Hawaiian Kingdom is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court. The paradox to this request is that for the President to convene the Court in order to determine the amount the Hawaiian Kingdom is to contribute, there would be an expense for the Court to convene which the Hawaiian Kingdom was to pay beforehand.

In a letter to the Hawaiian Kingdom from the International Court of Justice dated October 18, 2013, the Registrar formally acknowledged receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Application and Request for Interim Measures of Protection but stated the Court cannot take action at this time. In the letter, the Registrar alluded to this paradox by stating the Court can take no action and made specific reference to Article 35, which addresses the costs that must be paid by the Hawaiian Kingdom first. The last sentence of Article 35, paragraph 3, states the Court would not have to convene if the Hawaiian Kingdom provided its share to cover the expenses of the Court.

On September 28, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom provided a cashier’s check made out to the International Court of Justice to cover the expenses of the Court in the Hawaiian case. The Hawaiian Kingdom arrived at this amount by following the calculations used by the United Nations for member States to contribute their share to the 2013 Regular Budget, which included the proportionate share to the International Court of Justice.

After further thought on the matter, the Hawaiian Kingdom concluded that the United States of America has already paid its share to the Court for 2013. The United Nations measurement of costs incurred by member States is based on the country’s gross national income (GNI), which is also called the gross nation product (GNP). The United States has unlawfully seized control of the Hawaiian GNI and a large portion of the United States revenue derives from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) taxes. In 2012, the IRS collected $2.2 trillion dollars, of which residents and businesses in the Hawaiian Islands paid $5.1 billion dollars. As an occupier, the United States cannot collect taxes in a foreign country for its own benefit, and if it does it is called plundering. Unlawful appropriation of private property is plundering and extensive appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, is a war crime. In other words, the United States’ contribution of $618.5 million made to the United Nations 2013 Regular Budget, of which $5.7 million went to the International Court of Justice, is tainted with stolen property from the residents of an illegally occupied State.

On November 4, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom notified the Registrar of the severity of the situation. In its notice to the Registrar, the Hawaiian Kingdom stated that due to the “inability at the moment to have access to verifiable data and sources to arrive at a specific amount it could claim from the United States contribution to the International Court of Justice of its proportionate share pursuant to Article 35, the Hawaiian Kingdom requests Your Excellency to assess from the United States’ contribution of $5,710,018.66, which the Court has already received, and determine with verifiable data the specific amount of illegally appropriated monies derived from the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to place that entire amount in an interest bearing account under the International Court of Justice for reparations that the Hawaiian Kingdom seeks as provided in paragraph 4(l) of its Application.” The Hawaiian Kingdom maintained that the contribution it provided to the Court on September 28 should cover the expenses required by Article 35 of the Statute.

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

Posted on October 7, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OHA Trustee Apoliona, among Others, Reported for War Crimes by Filipino Citizen

Posted on August 26, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

KAILUA, O‘AHU, August 26, 2013 — On August 15, 2013, a complaint for war crimes was filed with the Philippine government on behalf of my client, Mrs. Maria Alma Pilapil, pursuant to Philippine Republic Act no. 9851 (2009), known as the “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity,” with the Philippines Consulate in Honolulu. The complaint alleges that the war crimes of “unfair trial” and “pillaging” were committed against Mrs. Pilapil by Circuit Judge Ronald Ibarra, Bank of Hawai‘i officers and directors Peter M. Biggs, Sharon M. Crofts, Wayne Y. Hamano, Kent T. Lucien, Mark A. Rossi, Mary E. Sellers, Donna A. Tanoue, Haunani Apoliona, Mary G.F. Bitterman, Mark A. Burak, Michael J. Chun, Clinton R. Churchill, David A. Heenan, Peter S. Ho, Robert Huret, Martin Stein, Donald M. Takaki, Barbara J. Tanabe, Raymond P. Vara, Jr., Robert W. Wo, and Alton T. Kuioka. Also named in the complaint is Mitzi A. Lee, attorney for Bank of Hawai‘i, attorney Robert D.S. Kim, Kevin Shiraki, Jeannie Jorg Domingo, and Lieutenant Patrick Kawai of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Public Safety Sheriff’s Department, Hawai‘i Division, to include his superiors and deputies.

When Mrs. Pilapil, also known as Maria Alma Barbaso Schwartz, wife of Stephen Michael Schwartz, a U.S. citizen, took out a loan from Bank of Hawai‘i with her husband, Bank of Hawai‘i required the Schwartz’s to purchase a title insurance policy in the amount of the money borrowed, which was $1,499,999.00. The Schwartz’s paid a premium of $3,735.00 to Title Guaranty of Hawai‘i. Title insurance insures the accuracy of the title search done by Title Guaranty of Hawai‘i, and if the search is inaccurate and the title to the property is defective, the insurance pays off the balance of the loan. Evidence of a defect in title produced by Laulima Title Search and Claims, LLC, was provided to Bank of Hawai‘i, but it was willfully disregarded and the foreclosure proceedings continued.

A motion to dismiss was filed during the foreclosure proceedings based on evidence that the court is unlawful, under both international law and United States constitutional law, as a result of the United States illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893, and its prolonged and illegal occupation since the Spanish-American War in 1898. Mitzi Lee, attorney for Bank of Hawai‘i, provided no rebuttal evidence, and, without cause, Judge Ronald Ibarra denied the motion. This action constituted an “unfair trial” and a criminal complaint was filed with the Hawai‘i Police Department and the International Criminal Court. On June 29, 2013, Bank of Hawai‘i “pillaged” my clients’ property with the assistance of Lieutenant Kawai of the State of Hawai‘i Sheriff’s Department. The eviction was based on an unlawful order stemming from a court that did not have lawful authority in the Hawaiian Islands. My clients’ possession was valued at $2.2 million dollars.

In 2009, the Congress of the Philippines enacted the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity. In this Act the “State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime defined and penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is committed, provided…the accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.” The war crimes of “unfair trial” and “pillaging” are punishable offenses under the Act, and since the alleged crimes were committed outside of Philippine territory the alleged perpetrators are subject to extradition to the Philippines under the 1994 U.S.-Philippines Extradition Treaty (1994 U.S.T. Lexis 185). According to the Act:

“The most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level, in order to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes, it being the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.”

Once the warrant for war crime(s) have been charged, my client demands the alleged perpetrators be extradited to the Philippines for prosecution to the full extent of the law.

Indian Country Today: “And without a Treaty, there is no State of Hawaii”

Posted on August 22, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Click here to view the article.

1893 Executive Agreements and Their Profound Impact Today

Posted on August 3, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

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 May 28, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

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.

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.

After 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 cannot 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 May 27, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

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:

1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation;
1875 Treaty of Reciprocity;
1893 Lili‘uokalani Assignment & Agreement of Restoration;
1907 Hague Convention, IV;
1907 Hague Convention, V;
1949 Geneva Convention, IV; and the
1998 Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court.

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

Joint Resolution To provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, July 7, 1898 (30 U.S. Stat. 750);
Revenue Act, October 3, 1913 (38 U.S. Stat. 114)
Merchant Marine Act, June 5, 1920 (41 U.S. Stat. 988)
An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai‘i into the Union, March 18, 1959 (73 U.S. Stat. 4).

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.

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 March 23, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

119

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 Kingdom Blog

Weblog of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands.

Category Archives: Treaties

Why the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, Continues to Exist

State Attributes of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Acting Government On Course to Secure a Protecting Power

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Destroying or seizing the Occupied State’s property

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Compulsion to Serve in the Occupier’s Military

Big Island Video News Series: Defected – Testing Hawaiian Sovereignty

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

Registrar of the International Court of Justice Acknowledges Hawaiian Complaint But Won’t Take Action Until Hawaiian Kingdom Covers Court Expenses

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

OHA Trustee Apoliona, among Others, Reported for War Crimes by Filipino Citizen

Indian Country Today: “And without a Treaty, there is no State of Hawaii”

1893 Executive Agreements and Their Profound Impact Today

Island of O‘ahu Targeted for Nuclear Strikes

War Crimes: Federal Taxes and Costs Incurred from Jones Act

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

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: