International Law and its Significance for the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Continued Existence

International law comprises a body of rules by custom or treaty that govern the relations and conduct of sovereign and independent States in their relations with each other. At the core of international law is the sovereign equality among States despite the physical size of the different States. So, despite the difference in the size of their territory, the sovereignty of the United States is equal to the sovereignty of Luxemburg, which is the size of the Island of O‘ahu.

Because of this equality, there is no higher order or institution above the States, and there is no legislative body. International law is comprised of customary law that the States recognize as binding, and treaties that bind the States when they become a contracting party to the treaty. However, provisions in a treaty can become customary law when all States, which include States that did not sign the treaty, recognize its binding nature. Examples include the provisions in the 1907 Hague Regulations and 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention that regulate warfare and belligerent occupations.

The bedrock of international law is the sovereignty of an independent State. Black’s Law dictionary defines sovereignty as the “supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.” For the purposes of international law, Wheaton explains:

Sovereignty is the supreme power by which any State is governed. This supreme power may be exercised either internally or externally. Internal sovereignty is that which is inherent in the people or any State, or vested in its ruler, by its municipal constitution or fundamental laws. This is the object of what has been called internal public law […], but which may be more properly be termed constitutional law. External sovereignty consists in the independence of one political society, in respect to all other political societies. It is by the exercise of this branch of sovereignty that the international relations of one political society are maintained, in peace and in war, with all other political societies. The law by which it is regulated has, therefore, been called external public law […], but may more properly be termed international law.

In the 1928 Island of Palmas arbitration, which was a dispute between the United States and the Netherlands, the arbitrator explained that “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.” And in the 1927 S.S. Lotus case, which was a dispute between France and Turkey, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated:

Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention [treaty].

As section 358, United States Army Field Manual 27-10 that regulates warfare and occupation of a foreign State’s territory, states:

Military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty.

Because sovereignty remains vested in the Hawaiian Kingdom, even during a prolonged occupation, not only does this render the State of Hawai‘i as unlawful, but it also renders the sovereignty movement moot.

Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice identifies five sources of international law: (a) treaties between States; (b) customary international law derived from the practice of States; (c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law; (d) judicial decisions and the (e) writings of “the most highly qualified publicists.”

International judicial decisions and the writings of scholars are regarded as law-determining and not law making. According to Professor Malcolm Shaw, a British subject, “Because of the lack of supreme authorities and institutions in the international legal order, the responsibility is all the greater upon publicists of the various nations to inject an element of coherence and order into the subject as well as to question the direction and purposes of the rules.” The United States Supreme Court understood the significance of the writings of scholars in international law. In the 1900 Paquete Habana case, the Supreme Court stated:

International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.

The significance of the legal opinion by Professor Matthew Craven, a British subject, on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, the legal opinion by Professor Federico Lenzerini, an Italian citizen, on the legitimacy of the Council of Regency, and the legal opinion by Professor William Schabas, a Canadian citizen, on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom under the American occupation since 1893, are that all three legal opinions are written by publicists who are scholars and professors in international law. As such, these three legal opinions constitute one of the five sources of international law. As the Supreme Court stated, “the works of jurists and commentators [is considered] trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.”

The continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency, as its temporary government, does not rely on a person’s support or belief. It is a legal fact under international law, with profound consequences that are not debatable. The investigative work of the Royal Commission of Inquiry should not be taken lightly by members of the State of Hawai‘i because a senior State of Hawai‘i official says to ignore.

Attorney General Anne Lopez is directly responsible for causing other senior officials of the State of Hawai‘i to commit war crimes because she instructed them to ignore what international law says it is to their peril. Because a person doesn’t understand international law, they shouldn’t just ignore it especially when their conduct and action would constitute a war crime that they were pre-warned about. They should inquire from qualified persons, which the Attorney General is not.

6 thoughts on “International Law and its Significance for the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Continued Existence

  1. Aloha e Dr. Sai,

    I’ve been following your work for some years now, recently listened to the podcast recordings you were on with Kamaka Dias (great job btw), and I’m really blown away by all the information you’re providing lately in these blog posts. I cannot thank you enough for being so diligent and steadfast in revealing the truth.

    I wonder, if you think now is the time, to urge one of our pro-hawaiian organizations with large social media followings (kanaeokana, ainamomona, protectmaunakea, etc) to coordinate a petition rally aimed at both raising awareness about the recent happeneings, but more importantly collectively calling upon and pressuring Attourney general Lopez and the State of Hawai’i to make a legal statement on the matter. Thoughts?

    Mahalo

  2. The Israel Iran war is gonna cost US more if it escalates. The Shahab 3 and Fatah 1 broke thru David’s Sling and Iron Dome. Iran has nothing on Israel’s F15, 16 and 35s. Any oil strikes will drive costs to the moon. China will have to buy from another source or increase current imports. And if the US military industrial complex starts rattling things in the Taiwan Strait, the Pacific and West Coast will be in just as bad a condition or worst then the East Coast of the USA today. The domestic effects of a foreign policy and ideology based on colonial imperialism and Zionism has catastrophic consequences for the people of such a state. The “Great Stab in the Back” of German Zionist Jews against Germany during WWI as identified by Hitler has birthed an American Israel Zionist Apartheid partnership. Today, the USA have found themselves to be the world’s criminal rather than the world’s police.

    • Yep. Cabal US Inc gotta fall along with their dirty co-conspirators in every country.
      btw military flight tracker MonkeyWerx pointed out an odd uptick in flights to Hawaii this week & showed how that possibly that correlated to heightened Eastern European immigrant traffic… ‘Copter traffic has subsided in my area yet Maui pals have reported an uptick of them & low flying.

      Since there’s still speculation of another ‘Pacific basin’ Pearl Harbor/911 event happening, let’s hope we’re not caught ill prepared. Given that the Occupier’s pawns are still publicly seated here, who knows what they’ll do next. (Sure hope they’re being heavily surveilled). Afterall, they’re still pushing the Lahaina “wildfire” narrative for their official report, ignoring cats were FRIED while still standing up, etc.

      P.s. Think about Hawaii’s recent string of most probable zionist/fake jew/jesuit Hawaii “leaders” (Lingle, Abercrombie, Green) & those that they appointed for roles (Schatz, Fuddy, etc.). ALL born outside of Hawaii who quickly rise to some political role. Weird HIGH ethnic percentage, eh?

  3. Maybe using simpler language needs to be used w/ all those resisting the truth in legal, military & gov circles so they can ‘get it’?

    “TREATIES” are necessary to transfer a country’s ‘property’ and sovereignty. That WAS a well established tradition by the US, a precedent of gaining SIGNED treaties w/ other foreign Nation “States” (Russia, Mexico etc…) to acquire parts of now continental US, BEFORE attempts to steal the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893. Plus, there’s a plethora of other treaties US “made with other SOVEREIGN international states” of which the Hawaiian Kingdom IS LISTED in 1849 – Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation – Treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States.

    Since NO other treaty exists AFTER 1849 between the 2 independent sovereign nations, and neither the US nor the Hawaiian Kingdom ever gave notice of its intention to terminate it, per Article XVI of the 1849 Treaty, *this treaty* IS STILL in FULL FORCE w/ legal effect to date!
    Hence, Hawaiian Kingdom NEVER lost its sovereignty nor transferred any ‘ownership’. Therefore, the (((fake))) State of Hawaii is unlawful, w/o jurisdiction or standing & therefore has been asked to CEASE & DESIST. 😎 Those that stand with the TRAITORS will fall with them too.

    https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/united-states-of-america-1849-treaty-of-friendship-commerce-and-navigation/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties

  4. I think members of the State of Hawaii should start thinking for themselves. Make up their own mind. All this information is too sophisticated and profound to be simply disregarded. Crabbe understood this himself and that is why he took appropriate action. If you obey people like López, and refuse to think for yourself, and take necessary action, fine then. Don’t expect anyone to listen to your pleads of mercy or excuses during your war crime tribunals. You will be punished. The choice is yours!

Leave a Reply