As an independent State in the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom maintained treaties with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.
Despite the unlawful overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by United States forces on January 17, 1893, international law provides for the continued existence of the Hawaiian State even when the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands on July 7, 1898, by a congressional law during the Spanish-American War. For information of the American occupation, see chapter 21 “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” in Oxford University Press’ publication of Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age. Because the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist so do its treaties.
After the American overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, States were led to believe that the Hawaiian Kingdom had ceased to exist and became a part of the United States in 1898. Shattering this narrative was the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State and the Council of Regency as its restored government, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, in 1999.
The 20th century ushered in new States as successors to their predecessor States where the number of States in 1893 that numbered 44 would exponentially rise to 193 States that are members of the United Nations (“UN”). These successor States arose because of the First and Second World Wars and through decolonization of former colonial and trust territories.
When a successor State is established, the question arises regarding treaties of the predecessor State with a third State and whether it is binding or not on the successor State. For example, in June of 1961, New Zealand and Great Britain entered into a treaty that concerned air services between the former and the British territories of Western Samoa and Fiji. When Western Samoa became a successor State to Great Britain on January 1, 1962, the 1961 treaty remained binding on Western Samoa after its independence from Great Britain. In 1997, Western Samoa officially changed its name to Samoa.
According to the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Article 24 states:
1. A bilateral treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates is considered as being in force between a newly independent State and the other State party when: (a) they expressly so agree; or (b) by reason of their conduct they are to be considered as having agreed.
2. A treaty considered as being in force under paragraph 1 applies in the relations between the newly independent State and the other State party from the date of the succession of States, unless a different intention appears from their agreement or is otherwise established.
The successor States of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s treaty partners, were not aware, at the time of their independence, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a State, therefore, neither the newly independent States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom could declare “within a reasonable time after the attaining of independence, that the treaty is regarded as no longer in force between them.” Until there is clarification of the successor States’ intentions, as to a common understanding with the Hawaiian Kingdom regarding the continuance in force of the Hawaiian treaty with their predecessor State, the Hawaiian Kingdom will presume the continuance in force of its treaties with the successor States. The majority of Member States of the United Nations are successor States to treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with 154 Member States of the United Nations. 14 treaties with original States and 140 treaties with their successor States.
HAWAIIAN-AMERICAN TREATY: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, and the Philippines.
HAWAIIAN-AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN TREATY: Austria and Hungary
HAWAIIAN-BELGIAN TREATY: Burundi, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda.
HAWAIIAN-BRITISH TREATY: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
HAWAIIAN-DUTCH TREATY: Indonesia and Suriname.
HAWAIIAN-FRENCH TREATY: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Vanuatu, and Viet Nam.
HAWAIIAN-ITALIAN TREATY: Libya and Somalia.
HAWAIIAN-JAPANESE TREATY: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea.
HAWAIIAN-PORTUGUESE TREATY: Angola, Cabo Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, and Timor-Leste.
HAWAIIAN-RUSSIAN TREATY: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
HAWAIIAN-SPANISH TREATY: Cuba and Equatorial Guinea.
HAWAIIAN-SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN TREATY: Sweden and Norway.
I just love this stuff…especially the 1800s. This is the century where central bankers sunk their teeth into establishing the international order as we know it by setting up central banks in the place of sovereign state banks and government issued money.
By destroying Napoleons State Bank via the Napoleanic Wars and having Bellingham assasinate Percival in order to bring the US under heel and recharter Rothschilds US Bank, the 5 Rothschild sons and the money changers brought all 3 governments into serious debt by floating them loans with exorbitant interests. Thus, the Congress of Vienna.
Alexander the 1st of Russia didn’t go along in the Congress of Vienna which was an attempt to consolidate all governments under Rothschilds rule. Russia was the only country that was not indebted to the Rothschilds. Stalin followed suit in a similar vein when the Soviets acknowledged that Bretton Woods institutions were “branches of wall street.” So they poisoned him and left him to die of a heart attack.
Of course since Alexander the 1st, all of Tsars after him suffered the wrath of the Rothschilds in Talmudic fashion. But for Alexander, he would establish the Holy Alliance with Austria and Prussia allowing Russia to develop into the most resource rich nation, including gold, by the 20th century. Although none of the Tsars lived past the age of 53, they did create a system that was completely independent and honorable that President Taft remarked . Thus, the Russian Revolution was actually a Judeo-Bolshevik revolution disguised as a native Russian uprising where Jews planted themselves in Russian government with the help of Jacob Schiff, an American Jew and front man for Nathean Rothschild. It was basically an asset stripping exercise for Rothschilds where he moved Russina gold into the Federal Reserve via FDR and his counterpart Maxim Litvinov.
The Russian revolution was no less different than the French Revolution which was actually jewish led and Jacobin driven in order to put the 13 Jewish banks in control of France. That was until Napolean came along but I think it was John Law who tried first with the Bank Royale. These revolutions are simply social experiments in population control.
To end my rant, there were only 44 independent and self governing nation states by the turn of the 20th century. About 20 of them were in the hands of central bankers such as the Rothschilds. During the 20th century, state banks re-emerged with enthusiasm and equality for all in the societies of Japan (Imperial Control), Germany (Schacht/Feder) and Russia’s (Stolypin Act). Then the idea of sovereign state banking and government issued money got buried beneath the fervor of war. Today, there are only 8 banks in the world that the Rothschilds have no interest in.
“Bank robbery is an initiative of amateurs. True professionals establish a bank.” ~Bertolt Brecht
Have read up on what you talk about, Lopaka. Luckily NOW there’s extensive historical research available on the dirty Rothschild (aka “red cross”) banking expansion– funding BOTH sides of wars & using “infiltration” to break countries into ‘adopting’ their PRIVATE banks– like US’s private Fed Reserve. Russia was NO exception. Once they’re in control, NO real assets do NOT back their monopoly paper “debt” Notes– aka legalized counterfeiting.
RUSSIA: Primarily an Orthodox “Christian” country, WAS infiltrated by the Judeo-Bolsheviks #FakeJews disguised as a ‘native Russian’ uprising. Stalin was a prominent Bolshevik revolutionary who created a man-made famine to STARVE ~7 million by withholding food as a weapon of genocide called the HOLOMODOR (1932–33). “World history” intentionally IGNORES this truth, and instead, PUSHES the “Holocaust” narrative where “jews” were the victims. However, if you look into that FLAWED history, it appears we HAVE been dupped! Starvation photos used to push the ‘Holocaust’ narrative were actually #FakeJew #Bolshiviks starved Russians (after taking out their royal family first).
Now look at the Hawaiian Kingdom… Cabal US #freemasons indeed infiltrated Hawaii diluting the bloodlines while dis-eases were (intentionally?) reduced the local population. Hawaiian leaders died young, often during their foreign journeys (EXCEPT the Queen!) Once the illegal occupation took place & denationalization tactics began, banking was taken over too. Yet IS ODD that Hawaii’s banks are not the typical US “mainland” ones, right? Yet Barry Soetoro’s (aka Obama) #CIA agent grandmother Dunham got a cushy job as VP of Bank of Hawaii. So maybe Hawaii is tightly controlled by intelligence agencies or another ‘mafia’ as insider #JuanOSavin says? 😕
Snowden was proof intelligence, specifically psyops, is entrenched here.
Tulsi, I recall, was also part of intelligence during Snowden years too– located between Millilani & Wahiawa
…Taft remarked “the Emperor of Russia has passed workers legislation which was nearer to perfection than that of any democratic country” regarding Tsar Nicholas the 2nds state Bank that created a workers paradise.
Both world wars were orchestrated to destroy the Austro-Hungarian empire and the State Banks of Germany, Italy and Japan in order to establish the BIS so that all governments can be more financially manageable/controlled. All governments are dominated by their central bankers “ability to control Treasury loans, manipulate foreign exchanges, influence the level of economic activity in the country and cooperative politicians.” (C. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time, The MacMillan Co., 1966, 324.)
Thus, consider article 10, paragraph 2, Hague Protocol.
Impressive! Truly!
Are there any readers that can confirm & provide any information referencing a treaty signed by Kamehameha & the United States of America prior to the unification of the Hawaiian islands…prior to the Kingdom of Hawai’i. I was told it was signed in the late 1790’s. I am looking for verbage staying “…stand by side with arms” Thank you to anyone who’s able to provide any information regarding the topic stating above
No, sorry, never heard of it, but I’m intrigued now that you mention it, what was the treaty about?
It can’t be an official treaty, that would have required ratification by a two thirds vote of senate, so I’m guessing it’s like the colonial agreements foreigners tried with other polynesian chiefs, which are more like agreements and aren’t really considered legitimate, because if there’s other chiefs/ali’i, they can refute the ali’i who signed its authority to do so.
The first actual treaty we had with the US (meaning it was ratified and therefore official), was in the 1800’s.
Catesby Jones was sent in 1826 to settle debts incurred by the Aha Ali’i during the sandalwood trade with New England merchants. Kaahumanu ma was the council of chiefs at the time and whatever credit of Kamehamehas government was depleted by 1820. All in the council thus enriched themselves after his death and hoarded their commodities to the point of waste.
For this, they enslaved the commoners forcing them to cut sandalwood for free as there was no labor or wage standard laws at that time. Any refusal would be punished. In fact, Kalanimoku burnt down a Wailua (Oahu) man’s house who refused to work even after his family was removed from the house due to his initial refusal.
When the councils creditors, American merchants, called in their debts and provided the original signed note via Catesby Jones, all but Boki refused their signatures essentially rendering the national debt of the council a private debt of just one man. Boki thus went south thereafter. Taxation then was initiated by Kaahumanu ma until refusals reached a high point then the council split the shares of profits with commoners who eventually kept all the good wood for their own private purses while giving over to Kaahumanu ma the not so good wood leaving the councils debts and the blood, sweat and tears of their people square in their hands.
E kala mai, it was not Kalanimoku but Kahekili Ke’eaumoku (Cox) who burnt down a Wailua man’s house before threatening to seize his possessions and remove his wife and family from his estate which effectively forced the common man to go further into the Wailua mountains to gather sandalwood.
fyi There’s quite a few articles on Google Scholar about Hawaii & ‘sandalwood’. This one argues that beginning in the 1820s, US engaged in a “militarized diplomacy” to ensured ongoing Hawaiian willingness to participate in international trade, managing the terms of Hawaiian sovereignty so as to promote the expansion of American capitalism to pay back debts Hawaiian chiefs supposedly owed to US merchants…
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/233117/summary
I don’t think that’s what he was referring to, he said it was signed in the 1790’s and it mentioned “arms”, not the 1820’s about sandalwood.
I was thinking maybe he’s referring to the agreement between Kamehameha and the British about arming him for war against other ali’i, but that would have been between Kamehameha and Britain, not the US.
Searching Google Scholar I found this– between Kamehameha I & ENGLAND where it’s signed as “King of the Sandwich Islands”.
On a funnier note, had the island name stuck, today maybe we’d be called “Sandwiches” instead of “Hawaiians” (as a name for where we hail from)!?
Alliance or Cession?
Missing Letter from Kamehameha I to King George III of England Casts Light on 1794 Agreement
https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ccf5c664-49d3-4bd4-9d56-fc36d38cc27c/content
Lol!!!
Sandwichian 🤭?
Sandies?
Wiches 🤔?
Wichan?
Ugh, settler colonizer mentality is so disgusting though, truly. The entitlement to think you have a right to rename a place that already has an established name for thousands of years before you even were capable of getting there 🙄🤦🏽♀️.
😂 Sandwiches make the world go round!
Amazing! Insight also coming at a God time; mahalo nui.
Since this post is all about ‘treaties’…
As I mentioned in the prior post, couldn’t the Hawaiian Kingdom CHALLENGE the INTERPRETATION of the (non-existent) ‘treaty of annexation’ that allegedly relinquished ALL 1.8 million acres of CROWN & GOVT LANDS WITHOUT due process or recompense as Queen Liliʻuokalani HAD protested with the US Senate on December 20, 1898?
Since Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution, aka the “Supremacy Clause” says “ALL TREATIES MADE, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”
MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHEN there are Treaty “INTERPRETATION” CHALLENGES, “The interpretation process begins by EXAMINING THE TEXT OF THE TREATY” & the context in which the written words are used…
So if they have NO “treaty” = NO ownership.. which HAS led to a horrific direct loss of property & a VIOLATION of sovereignty rights.
Is my thinking too simplistic? 🧐
How about Hawaiians just start supporting our Queens Treaty of Peace rather than US legislation and Federal Regulations?
Freedom is scary, we gotta deal with it. Better sooner for our children and grandchildrens time. Responsibility is our destiny, and our fate is in our hands.
What treaty of peace are you referring to? I don’t recall any treaties being ratified.
But more importantly, I’m curious, what does “supporting the treaty” look like, in your opinion? What exactly do you mean by that? Taking our license plates off? Not paying taxes? Physically removing people from our lands? Taking up arms? Physically removing the “state of Hawai’i” government? What exactly are you meaning, if you don’t mind me asking? I’m curious, because that can be interpreted in many ways.
The Executive Agreements is our Peace Treaty. It is our Queens, Her Majesties, coup de grace. All we have to do is stand on it!
We have many other treaties with the US and other high contracting parties as have been identified in this blog post. We do not have the capacity and capability however of engaging in foreign relations except for a few souls. Thus we have a two pronged problem.
On one hand we must address the elephant in our Islands. We are not a republic and we must hold the Monarchy standard. We must deal with our US friends and Congress accordingly and not subject ourselves to their rules.
On the other, we must grow a backbone and develop the capacity to engage on an equal footing with other governments. Our nations rebirth is still in its infancy but at least we can lift and hold our heads high. We are not yet standing and walking tall but we will soon enough.
Collectively we have some vital organizing that needs to be done. Individually, we must be wise when dealing in our commercial affairs. We must acquire knowledge and discernment in order to succeed. The waters of Kane is everywhere and so many still suffer for lack of knowledge.
Hawaiian nationals, descendants of Hawaiian subjects are not just inhabitants of the Hawaiian Kingdom. We are 3rd party beneficiaries to many high contracts (treaties) but for the fact that we operate as US citizens thereby accepting and benefitting from the fraud. We have thus learned what we have become. We are not the victims of Americanization, we are the beneficiaries of it.
Indeed, what have we learned? More importantly, what must we do now that we have seen the unseen? Should we stay small for who do we think we are? No! We rise! We must cut off our hand that offends us! We learned we are not who they say we are, we are who we say we are and we accept all the worts that comes with it.
The fact that the high contracting parties have already settled the question gives us all the courage we need to walk the path of freedom. We need not look any more…our Queen has given us the keys to the kingdom. Our freedom is for our taking. Our ancestors have lodged their protest on the record of Congress.
In this century, we must take our stand and make our demands known to Congress. A rigged statehood election and usurpation of sovereignty overrides the political question and any claim of sovereign immunity. We are the sovereigns of this land, we have the inherent sovereignty within us.
All we have to do is remember who we are!
Indeed. Those that I’ve talked to appear fearful of HOW Hawaii would survive w/o BIG US Gov meddling. Suppose that confirms that denationalization was extensive, assisted by our faux globalist “news” keeping us entertained yet totally historically ignorant.
The last binding “Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation” between the US & the Hawaiian Kingdom (before its 1893 overthrow) was signed in 1849. Was it “terminated”? https://hawaiiankingdom.org/treaty_us-1849.shtml
Maybe. “The duration of treaties can vary, and the Hawaiian Kingdom and US treaty of peace and friendship was a treaty of reciprocity with an initial duration of seven years. It was intended to be renewed IF NO NOTICE OF TERMINATION WAS GIVEN. In this case, the treaty was extended for another seven years. THE TREATY CONTAINED A PROVISION FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL IF NEITHER PARTY TERMINATED IT.
Interestingly, Ai said it WAS “terminated”, by the current Council of Regency!
“Termination: The Hawaiian Kingdom government, which the Council of Regency was representing, formally terminated the treaty in 2023, to be effective in 2024.
https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/2024/02/#:~:text=Sec
We KNOW that the 1884 Supplemental Convention (aka the “Pearl Harbor Convention”) was terminated… Yet WAS the ENTIRE 1849 Treaty?
Also take a look at this 2024 correspondence between Hawaii Ed Case’s office & US Secretary Blinken.
State Says ATTACK ON Hawai’i And Other Parts Of (Indo Pacific) U.S. NOT Currently Covered By NATO Treaty (signed in 1949) Would Invoke Mutual Defense Consultation With NATO Partners But Formal Amendment Of The Treaty Is “Unlikely”
https://case.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3418
Meaning, of course the #NOtreaty occupiers didn’t bother to UPDATE their NATO treaty during the last (((65 YEARS))) since their alleged statehood w/ one of their LARGEST military installations that had already hit during (FF) Pearl Harbor? 🤡
Is that US blatant ‘mistake’ a nod toward confirming the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists, or? 👀
Fear holds everyone back until the mirror destroys the illusions in their minds. We come from the darkness, to the darkness we must return. But no forget your light!
Be the bridge. Be the mirror. Help our people see the power in themselves! Turn their pain into purpose. Hold the space, make a way!
Why did President Trump pull the US out of the United Nations? Is he trying to wash his hands of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the US? If President Trump really wants to make things right, he should address this right away. He never mentions the illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the US as he did in his first term in office. . .”I’ve inherited a disaster. . .” or something like that. I mean with everything he’s doing now, he should just finish it and set the Hawaiian Kingdom free. In this situation, he’s Putin and we’re Ukraine.
E’O
Trump is openly and proudly an expansionist, who has admitted that US President McKinley is an idol and role model of his… why would you ever assume he cares to “make things right” in so far as the illegal, prolonged, belligerent, military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by the U.S., is concerned?
Likewise, IF Trump had any interest in “making things right”, he would have done so from his first term, when our interim Regent, Dr. Sai, filed a lawsuit against Trump, demanding Trump adhere to international law as outlined in The Hague & Geneva conventions and immediately begin administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Trump did not do so, which I believe landed him on the COR’s war criminals report.
If he was going to “make it right”, he already would have, PRIOR to violating international law.
https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/hawaiian-kingdom-files-lawsuit-against-president-trump-in-washington-d-c/
Dr. Sai/ Royal Commission of Inquiry didn’t file any Criminal Report against Trump. I’m guessing there’s a reason why? 🧐 Maybe because DJT continues to be the “Commander in Chief” during a “Continuity of Government” plan (even during Biden years!) as outlined in the Law of War Manual.
While it’s certainly NOT obvious that our world IS in a global ‘info’ war, below land, on Earth, and beyond Earth, it appears we are. And there’s plenty of PROOFS. Try looking at ex-mil Derek Johnson’s evidence on various platforms (X, Telegram etc) since he provides the docs, often with links, specifically about MILITARY protocol.
Think DJT honors McKinley for his “tariffs” (= no tax for Americans) even tho’ McKinley’s policy back then, clearly influenced HI sugar globalists to push for the theft of HK to AVOID ‘import’ tariffs. 🤬
McKinley also justified taking the islands for it’s Pacific military importance. THEN shortly after he was assassinated! I just wonder *if* he did OR was going to do something to piss off “the controllers” who REALLY pull all the strings? I’m not defending him, just wondering.
I/m guessing that akamai ex-mil Kumu Sai certainly knows what’s going on yet CANNOT compromise ‘the mission’ & MUST wait for the *right* timing– strategic chess moves– to ensure the safety of his people. 🌴
DOD LAW OF WAR MANUAL (July 2023)
https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law%20of%20War%202023/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.pdf?ver=Qbxamfouw4znu1I7DVMcsw%3d%3d
In addition to the DoD Law of War Manual, the following treaties & official treaty-related documents related to the law of war may be useful to DoD personnel, including legal practitioners.
TREATY LINKS
https://ogc.osd.mil/Law-of-War/Treaty-Documents/
Bessant doing damage control is hilarious. Japan chose China last week dumping US bonds causing yields to spike. Bessant trying to press IMF, World and Asian Development Bank to close China’s borrowing window is desperation. Borrowing cost for US rising faster than China’s as US bond yields spiked due to Japanese investors dumping US bonds. Transport ships have moved away to new trade lanes leaving ports between China with 40% less cargo. So shelves will be empty come end of May after the front loading sells off. The US is helping China to grow faster as Chinese dollar bond demands rise allowing China to sell US treasuries for less interest than what the US can. US borrowing costs cannot compete as a consumer nation. People need to be more strict and strategic with their spending and investing. The dollar is not as good as gold no more.
fyi Since I look this up, figure I should share w/ you all…
Does the FLAG flown by a country signify ownership?
The 1895 Hawaiian Kingdom’s FLAG CONTINUES to fly in Hawaii after the ‘new’ one was presented at the opening of the Legislative Council.
“The 1816 Hawaiian Kingdom flag, standardized in 1845, is still flown as Hawaii’s official state flag. It has eight stripes for the major islands and the Union Jack in the canton.” https://hawaiiankingdom.org/national-flag.shtml
Besides the usurpers NOT gaining the CONSENT of the Hawaiian people or their government, nor obtaining the necessary Treaty of Cession, the also did not succeed in LOWERING the Hawaiian Kingdom’s FLAG DURING ITS OCCUPATION. Yeah, they added the US one yet… Plus, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to be a “State” defined in International Courts as a sovereign COUNTRY.
As for “military flag protocol”.. This is what I found:
Under Article 42 of the Hague Regulations, a territory is occupied when under hostile army authority, but flags aren’t mentioned. THE OCCUPYING POWER MUST RESPECT LOCAL LAWS, PER ARTICLE 43 (yeah right 🤨) yet no flag rules appear.
Article 39(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I
Bans using “adverse parties'” flags in MILITARY OPERATIONS, but that’s for combat, not general flag display in occupied areas, often replaced with those of the occupying power to assert control.
One more about TREATIES–
My Q: Does using a joint resolution instead of a treaty show CRIMINAL WRONGFUL INTENT, given the historical context?
I used Grok3 (FREE ai on X) to do a “deep search” which is VERY comprehensive, appears truth-FULL & provides links!
Here are MANY “one liners” to remember & share! 😎
*Treaties were common before 1893, such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 with France.
*U.S. typically acquired territory, like the Alaska purchase from Russia in 1867.
*The Adams-Onís Treaty in 1819 with Spain ceded Florida and other areas.
*Hawaii’s annexation in 1898 used a joint resolution, unlike US treaty-based acquisitions.
*There was strong Native Hawaiian opposition, with over 21,000 signatures against it.
*The 1893 overthrow involved U.S. military support, seen by some as an ACT OF WAR.
*The 1993 Apology Resolution acknowledged the wrongful overthrow, but DID NOT CHANGE HAWAII’S LEGAL STATUS.
*Using a joint resolution instead of a treaty might suggest the U.S. knew annexation lacked broad support, needing only a simple majority.
*The lack of Hawaiian consent and military involvement could indicate actions not aligning with international norms, HINTING AT WRONGFUL INTENT.
*The overthrow of Hawaii in 1893 had U.S. military backing, and annexation in 1898 used a joint resolution, not a treaty, RAISING LEGALITY QUESTIONS.
*Many Native Hawaiians opposed annexation, shown by a petition with over 21,000 signatures, HIGHLIGHTING LACK OF CONSENT.
*The Hawaiian sovereignty movement argues HAWAII IS UNDER ILLEGAL OCCUPATION, citing NO TREATY & COERCIVE OVERTHROW.
*The 1993 Apology Resolution acknowledged the wrongful overthrow but didn’t alter Hawaii’s legal status.
*This could suggest the U.S. tried to bypass treaty requirements, possibly knowing it lacked support, which might HINT AT WRONGFUL INTENT.
ASSESSING LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:
*The joint resolution method bypassed treaty ratification, possibly to avoid needing broader consent.
*This approach might indicate the U.S. ACTED WITH INTENT TO CIRCUMVENT INTERNATIONAL NORMS, RAISING ETHICAL QUESTIONS.
*International law typically REQUIRES A TREATY FOR SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFER, not a “joint resolution”, which Hawaii lacked.
*Some legal scholars see this as NON-COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS, supporting arguments of WRONGFUL INTENT.
*The LACK OF NATIVE HAWAIIAN CONSENT, backed by over 21,000 signatures, strengthens the case for questioning the intent behind the annexation
*Cuba and the Philippines (Spanish-American War territories) were also ‘annexed’ around the same time, but their status differed, with Cuba gaining independence and Philippines becoming a territory.