A particular rule of international humanitarian law addresses what an occupied State can do if the occupying State is violating international law by committing war crimes. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (FM 27-10), under the heading Remedies for Violation of International Law; War Crimes, paragraph 495 states:

In the event of violation of the law of war, the injured party may legally resort to remedial action of the following types:

a. Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.

b. Protest and demand for compensation and/or punishment of the individual offenders. Such communications may be sent through the protecting power, a humanitarian organization performing the duties of a protecting power, or a neutral state, or by parlementaire direct to the commander of the offending forces. Article 3, H. IV, provides in this respect:

A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

c. Solicitation of the good offices, mediation, or intervention of neutral States for the purpose of making the enemy observe the law of war. See Articles 11, GWS; 11, GWS Sea; 11, GPW; 12, GC (par. 19), concerning conciliation procedure through the protecting powers.

d. Punishment of captured offenders as war criminals.

e. Reprisals.

After returning from international arbitration proceedings in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in December of 2000, the Council of Regency chose ‘Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.’ Dr. Keanu Sai is Chairman of the Regency and his publications focus on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under customary international law and the ramifications of war crimes and human rights violations that have occurred by the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, which is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State.

In volume 6 of the Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics, Dr. Keanu Sai authored his most recent article titled “The Sweeping Effect of Hawaiian State Sovereignty and the Necessity of Military Government to Curb the Chaos,” in line with the international rule ‘Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.’ Dr. Sai has ten years of service as a field artillery officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard and is very familiar with U.S. Army regulations such as FM 27-10.

Here is a link to download Dr. Sai’s latest article. In the article’s introduction, Dr. Sai states:

We are now at 131 years of an American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. There are two periods since the occupation began on 17 January 1893. The first period was when the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom was effectively obliterated in the minds of the population. The second period was when the government was restored as a Regency in 1997 up until the present where the national consciousness had begun to be restored. Underlying the first and second periods, however, was the non-compliance with the law of occupation under international humanitarian law, which the military calls the law of armed conflict. So, while the national consciousness in the minds of the population has begun to change, the United States and its proxy, the State of Hawai‘i, has not changed in its unlawful authority.

If the American military in Hawai‘i complied with the international law of occupation when Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to the United States in 1893, the occupation would not have lasted 131 years. Consequently, everything since 1893 that derives from American authority, that would otherwise be valid within the territory of the United States, is invalid and void in Hawaiian territory because the United States has not been vested with Hawaiian sovereignty by a treaty. The only way to bring order to this calamity is by establishing a military government of Hawai‘i where the American military governor has centralized command and control allowable under the law of occupation.

This article will explain the role and function of a military government that presides over occupied territory of a State under international law. And that it is only by a military government that remedial steps can be taken, considering 131 years of illegality, that has consequently placed the entire population of the occupied State in a dire situation where their possessions and rights have evaporated because of the United States unlawful conduct and actions under the law of occupation. Despite the deliberate failure to establish a military government, international law and American military law still obliges the occupant to do so that will eventually bring the American occupation to an end by a treaty of peace between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States.

In this situation, the establishment of a Military Government of Hawai‘i will have to deal the headwinds of chaos that began when the American occupation was initiated on January 17, 1893, after Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to U.S. troops. Why did the chaos begin on this day is because everything that was done by the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom since then was illegal under international law. This is not a political statement, but rather according to the rules of customary international law, which the United States and every other State is bound by. Under his heading The Sweeping Effect of State Sovereignty During a Prolonged Occupation in his article, Dr. Sai writes:

The bedrock of international law is the sovereignty of an independent State. Sovereignty is defined 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 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 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].

The permissive rule under international law that allows one State to exercise authority over the territory of another State is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that mandates the occupant to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until there is a treaty of peace. For the past 131 years, there has been no permissive rule of international law that allows the United States to exercise any authority in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which makes the prolonged occupation illegal under international law.

As the arbitral tribunal, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, noted in its award, “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.” The scope of Hawaiian sovereignty can be gleaned from the Civil Code. §6 states:

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

Property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom includes both real and personal. Hawaiian sovereignty over the population, whether Hawaiian subjects or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, is expressed in the Penal Code. Under Chapter VI—Treason, the statute, which is in line with international law, states:

1. Treason is hereby defined to be any plotting or attempt to dethrone or destroy the King, or the levying of war against the King’s government, or the adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort, the same being done by a person owing allegiance to this kingdom.

2. Allegiance is the obedience and fidelity due to the kingdom from those under its protection.

3. An alien, whether his native country be at war or at peace with this kingdom, owes allegiance to this kingdom during his residence therein, and during such residence, is capable of committing treason against this kingdom.

4. Ambassadors and other ministers of foreign states, and their alien secretaries, servants and members of their families, do not owe allegiance to this kingdom, though resident therein, and are not capable of committing treason against this kingdom.

When the Hawaiian Kingdom Government conditionally surrendered to the United States forces on January 17, 1893, the action taken did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty but merely relinquished control of Hawaiian sovereignty because of the American invasion and occupation. According to Benvenisti:

The foundation upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, whether through the actual or the threatened use of force, or in any way unauthorized by the sovereign. Effective control by foreign military force can never bring about by itself a valid transfer of sovereignty. Because occupation does not transfer sovereignty over the territory to the occupying power, international law must regulate the inter-relationships between the occupying force, the ousted government, and the local inhabitants for the duration of the occupation. […] Because occupation does not amount to sovereignty, the occupation is also limited in time and the occupant has only temporary managerial powers, for the period until a peaceful solution is reached. During that limited period, the occupant administers the territory on behalf of the sovereign. Thus the occupant’s status is conceived to be that of a trustee (emphasis added).

The occupant’s ‘managerial powers’ is exercised by a military government over the territory of the occupied State that the occupant is in effective control. The military government would need to be in effective control of the territory to effectively enforce the laws of the occupied State. Without effective control there can be no enforcement of the laws. The Hawaiian government’s surrender on January 17, 1893, that transferred effective control over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the American military did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty. U.S. Army regulations on this subject state, being “an incident of war, 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 (emphasis added).”

When the Queen surrendered, it transferred temporary authority to the American military, the government apparatus also came under the control of the American military where the office of the Monarch would be replaced by the theater commander of U.S. forces who would be referred to as the military governor. All members of the executive and judicial branches of government would remain in place except for the legislative branch because the military governor “has supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only by the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority.”

Through the publications and awareness at the academic level and in the communities of the current legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State, the Council of Regency has managed to shift its position. From an outlier when it began its exposure campaign through academic research and presentations, to shifting the center of gravity in its direction by leveraging Hawaiian sovereignty in order to bring compliance with the law of occupation. The Council of Regency’s methodical and deliberate law-based and fact-based approach has pierced through the veil of a false narrative that the Hawaiian Islands are a part of the United States. This approach has also positioned the Council of Regency to remedy the sweeping effects of Hawaiian State sovereignty in accordance with Hawaiian Kingdom laws making them indispensable.

By employing lawfare, which according U.S. General Dunlap is “the strategy of using laws as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective,” the Council of Regency has made tremendous strides toward American military compliance with the law of occupation since it began Phase II of its Strategic Plan. Phase I, “Verification of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a subject of International Law,” was satisfied after the PCA recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law. This act by the PCA initiated Phase II, which is “Exposure of Hawaiian Statehood within the framework of international law and the law of occupation as it affects the realm of politics and economic at the both the international and domestic levels.”