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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation;

war crime of compulsory enlistment;

war crime of denationalization;

war crime of pillage;

war crime of confiscation or destruction of property;

war crime of deprivation of fair and regular trial;

war crime of deporting civilians of the occupied territory; and

war crime of transferring populations into an occupied territory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and the Water Protectors Legal Collective (WPLC), who the authors of the amicus brief as to why the court must transform itself into an Article II Occupation Court in Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden, filed a Motion for Leave to File a Letter Supplement to Amended Amicus Curiae Brief.

Attached to the Motion is a copy of the  joint letter by the IADL and the American Association of Jurists—Asociación Americana de Juristas, sent to all the Embassies accredited to the United Nations in New York City and in Geneva on February 16, 2022.

In their Motion, the IADL-NLG-WPLC state, “Movants wish to supplement their amicus brief with a letter, dated February 16, 2022, from two international organizations with special consultative status with the U.N. Economic and Social Council and accredited before the Human Rights Council—the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the American Association of Jurists—which was sent to all Permanent Missions to the United Nations in New York City and Geneva, Switzerland. The letter addresses the ongoing illegal occupation of Hawai‘i under international law and will be presented before the United Nations Human Rights Council at its 49th session in Geneva beginning on February 28, 2022.”

They also state “The letter is provided for informational purposes to the Court and to provide additional context for the urgent and serious issues raised by this case, which are also the current subject of discussion in international forums.”

The Court will have to grant permission for the filing of the joint letter so that it becomes a part of the record. The decision by the judge is forthcoming.

UPDATE: Last night, Magistrate Judge Rom Trader entered an order denying the IADL-NLG-WPLC’s request to file the IADL-AAJ joint letter. The Court stated, “The letter is not being submitted in support of any moving papers, not all drafters of the letter have been approved as amicus, and the movants do not provide any concrete information as to why the letter is even needed.”

As the IADL-NLG-WPLC did state in its motion, “The letter is provided for informational purposes to the Court and to provide additional context for the urgent and serious issues raised by this case, which are also the current subject of discussion in international forums.”

Aside from the procedural matters as stated by Judge Trader, the letter, for informational purposes, can be accessed by the defendants in this case. The Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden lawsuit is a case of first impression where proceedings are taking place during a prolonged belligerent occupation by the United States outside of its territory. “In a case of first impression, the exact issue before the court has not been addressed by that court, or within that court’s jurisdiction, thus there is no binding authority on that matter.” The letter provides “additional context.”

Yesterday, the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i entered default for the State of Hawai‘i, Governor David Ige, Securities Commissioner Ty Nohara, and Director of the Department of Taxation Isaac Choy, in federal lawsuit Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden.

In talks with Hawaiian Kingdom Attorney General Dexter Ka‘iama, the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General’s office requested an extension of time to file a response to the Amended Complaint that was filed on August 11, 2021. It was mutually agreed that the filing of a response was due no later than January 10, 2022.

The entry of default against the State of Hawai‘i and its officials prevents them from participating in the proceedings, and, more importantly, an entry of default is an acceptance of the allegations made against them by the Hawaiian Kingdom to be true. The next step is for the Hawaiian Kingdom to file a motion with the Court for default judgment so that it can grant the relief as stated in the Amended Complaint.

Before the Hawaiian Kingdom can file a motion for default judgment, the Court needs to first transform itself into an Article II Occupation Court so that it has jurisdiction over the case.

The Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Judicial Notice of Civil Law on Juridical Fact of the Hawaiian State and the Consequential Juridical Act by the Permanent Court of Arbitration is critical for the Court to transform itself into an Article II Occupation Court, similar to Federal Article II Courts that were established in occupied Germany from 1945-1955.

The Hawaiian Kingdom did not file a Motion for Judicial Notice but rather a Request for Judicial Notice of the Civil Law. It was the Court that transformed the Request into a Motion and gave a timeline for the United States to respond and the Hawaiian Kingdom to reply to that response. A Request for Judicial Notice is considered by the Court alone. The United States filed their response on January 14, 2022, and the Hawaiian Kingdom is preparing to file their reply on January 28.

Instead of refuting the information provided in the Motion for Judicial Notice, the United States argues that it is the legitimate sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands because the “United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, and Hawaii entered the union as a state in 1959.” From this position it then argues that this “Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the courts of the state of Hawaii have repeatedly ‘rejected arguments asserting Hawaiian sovereignty’ distinct from its identity as a part of the United States.”

The Hawaiian Kingdom views the actions taken by the Court regarding the Motion for Judicial Notice as a matter of due diligence on the part of the Court, and, therefore, will be responding to the United States arguments and show why it is without merit.

The legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State predates, not postdates, 1898. The United States fails to address in its filing that President John Tyler on July 6, 1844, explicitly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State by letter from Secretary of State John C. Calhoun to the Hawaiian Commission. This was confirmed by the arbitral tribunal in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom:

“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.”

On January 17, 1893, by an act of war, the United States unlawfully overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. President Grover Cleveland entered into an executive agreement with Queen Lili‘uokalani on December 18, 1893, in attempt to restore the government but was politically prevented from doing so by members of Congress. The failure to restore the government, however, did not affect the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State under international law.

In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court stated that a “‘state,’ in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” The Supreme Court further stated that a “plain distinction is made [in the U.S. Constitution] between a State and the government of a State.”

Therefore, when the rebels seized control of the Texas government and joined the Confederacy in the Civil War it did not affect or change the State of Texas under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court’s position is consistent with international law where the “state must be distinguished from the government. The state, not the government, is the major player, the legal person, in international law.”

According to Judge Crawford, “Pending a final settlement of the conflict, belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State. The governmental authorities may be driven into exile or silenced, and the exercise of the powers of the State thereby affected. But it is settled that the powers themselves continue to exist. This is strictly not an application of the ‘actual independence’ rule but an exception to it…pending a settlement of the conflict by a peace treaty or its equivalent.” There is no peace treaty or its equivalent between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States.

In its reply, the Hawaiian Kingdom will expound on the legal presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law, why the United States cannot invoke its internal law as a justification for not complying with international obligations, and distinguishing the institutional jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration from the subject matter jurisdiction of the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration tribunal, when it acknowledged the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a juridical fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Government of Hawaii surrendered its authority under a threat of war, until such time only as the Government of the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, should reinstate the constitutional sovereign…

Should not the great wrong done to a feeble but independent State by an abuse of the authority of the United States be undone by restoring the legitimate government? Anything short of that will not, I respectfully submit, satisfy the demands of justice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hawaiian Kingdom is asking the Court to:

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

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

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

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

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