Clarifying the Role and Function of the International Criminal Court regarding War Crimes Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom

There is confusion on the role and function of the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding the prosecution of war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom. What is its role on this subject?

The ICC was established in 2002 by a treaty called the Rome Statute. Although the United States participated in negotiations and signed the treaty that eventually established the court, President Bill Clinton did not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. President George W. Bush, in 2002, sent a diplomatic note to the United Nations Secretary-General that the United States intends not to ratify the treaty. There are currently 137 countries that signed the treaty, but there are 124 countries that are State Parties to the Rome Statute.

According to the Rome Statute, the 124 countries have committed to be the ones primarily responsible for the prosecution of war crimes called complementarity jurisdiction. Article 1 of the Rome Statute states that the ICC “shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.”

This principle of complementarity is implemented through Articles 17 and 53 of the Rome Statute. The principle states that the ICC will not accept a case if a State Party with jurisdiction over it is already investigating it or unless the State Party is unwilling or genuinely unable to proceed with an investigation. According to Human Rights Watch:

Under international law, states have a responsibility to investigate and appropriately prosecute (or extradite for prosecution) suspected perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other international crimes. The ICC does not shift this responsibility. It is a court of last resort. Under what is known as the “principle of complementarity,” the ICC may only exercise its jurisdiction when a country is either unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute these grave crimes.

On November 28, 2012, the Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the Rome Statute and deposited its instrument of accession with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York City the following month on December 12, 2012. Under the principle of complementarity and its responsibility to investigate war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) was established by proclamation of the Council of Regency on April 17, 2019. According to Article 2 of the proclamation:

The purpose of the Royal Commission shall be to investigate the consequences of the United States’ belligerent occupation, including with regard to international law, humanitarian law and human rights, and the allegations of war crimes committed in that context. The geographical scope and time span of the investigation will be sufficiently broad and be determined by the head of the Royal Commission.

The RCI has already conducted 18 war criminal investigations and published these war criminal reports on its website. The failure of the State of Hawai‘i to transform itself into a U.S. military government to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom has put a temporary hold on prosecutions. However, once the U.S. military government is established, prosecutions will begin. As a result, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands to investigate war crimes because the RCI has already initiated its investigative authority and published its war criminal reports.

Under the principle of complementarity, the other State Parties to the Rome Statute could initiate prosecution proceedings for those persons who were the subjects of the RCI war criminal reports when these individuals enter the territory of a State Party.

CLARIFICATION: At first glance, it would appear that Major General Hara can escape criminal culpability by not transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a U.S. military government. This is incorrect because MG Hara is not the subject of a war criminal report by the RCI yet. However, he will be the subject of a war criminal report if he does not delegate full authority to Brigadier General Stephen Logan who must establish the military government by 12 noon on July 31, 2024.

If MG Hara is derelict in the performance of his duties by not delegating authority to BG Logan, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of MG Hara’s war criminal report, BG Logan will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If BG Logan is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of BG Logan’s war criminal report, Colonel David Hatcher, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, and who is next in the chain of command below BG Logan, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

These chain of events will continue down the chain of command of the entire Hawai‘i Army National Guard, and possibly the Hawai‘i Air National Guard, until there is someone who sees the “writing on the wall” that he/she either performs their military duty or become a war criminal subject to prosecution.

10 thoughts on “Clarifying the Role and Function of the International Criminal Court regarding War Crimes Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom

  1. So… in order for Hara to be prosecuted as a war criminal, he’d need to establish the only entity which would prosecute him?

    The plan of action seems pretty clear and seamless for Hara: Do nothing.

    • If Hara establishes the military gov’t than he is not guilty of a war crime and cannot be prosecuted. If he does nothing, then he is a war criminal. A military gov’t is not the only entity that prosecutes war criminals.

  2. Fascinating. So while the US SIGNED the Rome Statute Treaty, the US (inc. Saudi Arabia & Russia) never RATIFIED it under the Bush regime- NO surprise given that the imperialist Bush (((crime))) family were regular offenders, and clearly used US mil forces to defend their poppy & oil fields & more!

    So until the faux “State of Hawaii” gets transformed into a military gov, all that HK’s RCI can essentially do is to continue their “Investigative Authority” to identify potential war criminals & publish in “Criminal Reports” (although don’t see the District Ct. judges that UN & Jen Ruggles called out to “cease & desist”).

    Mahalo for the explanation & very helpful linked docs, as always. <3

  3. Prosecution is around the corner in another country. It’s gonna get cranking here soon. Hau’oli La Ho’iho’i Ea!

  4. So say if MG Hara were to transform the state of Hawaii government into a military government himself instead of delegating to the next in command… would that make him ( Hara) like the acting Governor of the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom? Also… would that transformation steer him clear of any war crime charges? I don’t thing Commander in Chief Biden will be very happy…
    One more quick question, out of curiosity, could the Liliuokalani/ Cleveland Executive Agreement have any influence in this scenario?
    Mahalo Dr. Sai and team for your mana’o and for putting the pressure on these clowns. Looking forward to what is next… Ahui hou…

  5. 1. MG Hara (& next in line for TAG) has a duty to transform Hawai’i into a military gov for the purpose of de-occupation during the process of re-establishing a functioning Hawaiian Kingdom. 2. But, MG Hara would be representing the USA in such a role, as, in law de jure, Hawai’i is a non-existing State of the USA. 3. Therefore, it is the USA that is culpable of not performing such duty (de-occupation) and its agent, MG Hara, is the USA’s central figure for war crimes, etc. 4. Why then can’t the ICC be the venue to bring MG Hara to justice as a representative of the USA? 5. Doesn’t the Hawaiian Kingdom, represented by its acting Council, have standing to bring the case to the ICC as is similar to the Larsen matter, esp in light of the HK’s occupied status? / It seems to me that MG Hara is merely the extension and embodiment of the USA…it’s the USA that has the duty to de-occupy & ensure, facilitate, aid, compensate, etc, domestic HK subjects a pathway to restoration. Wouldn’t ICC involvement post 31 Jul 24 be where the next steps go toward in order to exert pressure on the USA to comply (in response to the court of world opinion)? [The ICC’s role still alludes me a bit, so pls excuse any of my misunderstandings.] Aloha!

  6. Customarily in the Hawaiian Islands war and peace was decided by choosing between a black pohaku or white ko’a. In America, the choices this election year is between Blackrock and Blackstone. With Congress backing Bibi, it’s clear Wall Street doesn’t want peace.

Leave a Reply