KITV News: Man Goes to Court to Fight for More Than Traffic Citations

Posted on by
119

KITV News_Brown

Watch KITV News Man Goes to Court to Fight for More Than Traffic Citations.

Yesterday, Lopaka Brown, through his attorney Dexter Kaiama, esq., provided evidence and argument in District Court that the court is not lawfully constituted according to United States constitutional law and international law because there exists no treaty of annexation that would have incorporated the Hawaiian Islands into the United States of America. Without a treaty, U.S. law enacted by the Congress have no force and effect beyond U.S. territory, which nullifies the 1898 Joint Resolution of Annexation and the 1959 Statehood Act. The District Court derives its authority from the 1959 Statehood Act. The proper Court is a military commission established by the U.S. Pacific Command that administers Hawaiian Kingdom law and the laws of occupation.

Additional evidence provided to the court were two executive agreements entered into between Queen Lili‘uokalani and President Grover Cleveland that settled the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. The first agreement, called the Lili‘uokalani assignment, binds the U.S. President, through the Pacific Command, to administer Hawaiian law and the laws of occupation. The second agreement, called the Agreement of restoration, binds the U.S. President to restore the government and thereafter the Queen to grant amnesty. Both agreements are treaties and under U.S. constitutional law are called sole-executive agreements. Sole-executive agreements are also binding upon successor Presidents for their faithful execution. See also War Crimes: The Role of the International Criminal Court during the Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

If the Court disregards the evidence, it would be committing a felony by denying Brown a fair trial according to Title 18, U.S.C., §2441. In 1996, Congress enacted the War Crimes Act that criminalized war crimes identified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions as felonies. Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that failure to provide a fair trial in an occupied territory is a war crime. See also War Crimes are Felonies under U.S. Federal Law. The War Crimes Act is enforceable “outside” of U.S. territory when the United States military is the occupant of an occupied State.

War Crimes are Felonies under U.S. Federal Criminal Law

Posted on by
18

War Crimes Act 1

In 1996, the United States Congress enacted the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. §2441, “to carry out the international obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions to provide criminal penalties for certain war crimes.” §2441 provides:

    (a) Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the death penalty.
    (b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
    (c) As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949.

Applicable “grave breaches” under Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention are:

  1. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person
  2. Compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of an Occupying State,
  3. Willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial
  4. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly

Because §2441 (War Crimes Act) provides punishment to include life imprisonment or the death penalty, war crimes are felonies or high crimes as opposed to misdemeanors. Law enforcement officers are under a duty to arrest, without the need of a warrant, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony, whether in the officer’s presence or otherwise.

The War Crimes Act is enforceable “outside” of U.S. territory when the United States military is the occupant of an occupied State. Title 18, U.S.C., §2441 reinforces the Lili`uokalani assignment, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 to criminally prosecute individuals who commit war crimes/felonies within Hawaiian territory.

Dr. Keanu Sai Lectures at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo and at the Keauhou Sheraton Hotel in Kona

Posted on by
11

Hilo Tribune 1

Hilo Tribune-2

Click the newspaper article to enlarge.

For more information on Sai’s presentations and the seminar, contact Cunefare. For lecture schedules, visit http://kohalacenter.org/puanakaike/about.html. Webcasts of previous lecture are available at http://www.keauhouresort.com/learn-puanakaike.html.

Americanization in Action in 1907 at Ka‘iulani Elementary School in Honolulu

Posted on by
1

Harper's Weekly 1907

In 1907, a reporter from New York’s Harper’s Weekly magazine was in the Hawaiian Islands doing a story on the Territorial government’s “Programme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools” taking place since 1906. His article was titled “Hawaii’s Lesson to Headstrong California: How the Island territory has solved the problem of dealing with its four thousand Japanese Public-School children.” The schools covered in the article are Queen Ka‘ahumanu Elementary School, Princess Victoria Ka‘iulani Elementary School, and Honolulu High School, which was renamed later to President William McKinley High School. All three schools remain in existence today.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

On page 227, the article reads:

“At the suggestion of Mr. Babbitt, the principal, Mrs. Fraser, gave an order, and within ten seconds all of the 614 pupils of the school began to march out upon the great green lawn which surrounds the building. Hawaii differs from all our other tropical neighbors in the fact that grass will grow here. To see beautiful, velvety turf amid groves of palms and banana trees and banks of gorgeous scarlet flowers gives a feeling of sumptuousness one cannot find elsewhere.

Out upon the lawn marched the children, two by two, just as precise and orderly as you can find them at home. With the ease that comes of long practice the classes marched and countermarched until all were drawn up in a compact array facing a large American flag that was dancing in the northeast trade-wind forty feet above their heads. Surely this was the most curious, most diverse regiment ever drawn up under that banner—tiny Hawaiians, Americans, Britons, Germans, Portuguese, Scandinavians, Japanese, Chinese, Porto-Ricans, and Heaven knows what else.

‘Attention!’ Mrs. Fraser commanded.

The little regiment stood fast, arms at sides, shoulders back, chests out, heads up, and every eye fixed upon the red, white, and blue emblem that waved protectingly over them.

‘Salute!’ was the principal’s next command.

Every right hand was raised, forefinger extended, and the six hundred and fourteen fresh, childish voices chanted as one voice:

‘We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country! One Language! One Flag!’

The last six words were shot out with a force that was explosive. The tone, the gesture, the gaze fixed reverently upon the flag, told their story of loyal fervor. And it was apparent that the salute was given as spontaneously and enthusiastically by the Japanese as by any of the other children. There were hundreds of them in the throng, and their voices rang out as clearly as any others, their hands raised in unison. The coldest clod of a man who sees the children perform this act of reverence must feel a tightening at the throat, and it is even more affecting to see these young atoms from all the world actually being fused in the crucible from which they shall issue presently as good American citizens.”

Children_Salute_1907

NOTE: In the text under this photo, Harper’s Weekly specifically used the word “inculcate” in the sentence, “The drill is constantly held as a means of inculcating patriotism in the hearts of the children.” By definition, inculcate is to instill an idea, attitude, or habit by persistent instruction. And indoctrination, by definition, is the process of inculcating ideas and attitudes.

War Crime of Americanization: Programme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools

Posted on by
10

Patriotic Exercises_TH

In 1906, a pamphlet was published titled “Programme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools” for the Territory of Hawai‘i. The theme of the program was to indoctrinate the children of the Hawaiian Islands to be “American” and to speak “English.”

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

The public schools would adopt one of three formations and salute to the flag, which will end with a salutation by the students in unison, “We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country ! One Language ! One Flag !”

Here follows an excerpt from the pamphlet:

PROGRAMME FOR PATRIOTIC EXERCISES

I. Formation and Salute to Flag.

(a) At three minutes to nine o’clock the children assemble in front of the school, the classes forming a circle (or circles) about the flag pole or facing the building over which the stars and stripes are to float. The principal gives the order, “Attention!” or “Face!” The boys remove hats and the teachers, and pupils watch the flag hoisted by two of the older boys. When it reaches the top of the flag-pole, the principal gives the order, “Salute!” or three cheers may be given for the flag as it is being raised.

At nine o’clock the pupils march to their class rooms to the beating of a drum or to some march played by the pianist or school band.

On reaching their class rooms, the children may stand by their seats and repeat in concert the following salutation:

“We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country! One Language! One Flag!”

(NOTE: The flag is dipped while the children raise the right hand, forefinger extended, and repeat the pledge. When they salute, the flag is raised to an upright position.)

(b) All the children to be drawn up in line before the school building.

A boy and a girl each holding a medium-sized American flag, stand one on the right and one on the left of the school steps. Boy on the right and girl on the left. The flags should be held military style.

The children at a given signal by the principal or teacher in charge, file past the flags, saluting in correct military manner. The boys to the right and the girls to the left, entering and taking their positions in the school. The flag bearers enter last, and take their positions right and left of the principal, remaining in that position during the salutation, “We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country! One Language! One Flag!”

The flag bearers place the flags in position at the head of the school. The boy and girl who carry the flags should be chosen from among the pupils for good conduct during the hours of school.

(c) Pupils attention! at chord on piano or organ, or stroke of drum or bell.

The teacher will call one of the pupils to come forward and stand at one side of desk while the teacher stands at the other. The pupil shall hold an American flag in military style.

At second signal all children shall rise, stand erect and salute the flag, concluding with the salutation, “We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country! One Language! One Flag!”

Public schools in the Hawaiian Islands were established by the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1840 under the supervision of the Board of Education. In 1891, a history book was published by order of the Board of Education to be used in the public schools titled “A Brief History of the Hawaiian People.” In 1899, this book was revised to promote the propaganda of annexation and that the Hawaiian Islands were incorporated into the United States of America.

In 1945, the Allied Forces of World War II indicted, prosecuted and convicted Nazi government officials for war crimes. In Count III(j) of the Indictment, one of the war crimes was “Germanization of occupied territories.” Here follows the text of the indictment, which is eerily on point with what the United States did in the Hawaiian Kingdom through “Americanization” at the turn of the 20th century.

“In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate those territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and introduced thousands of German colonists. This plan included economic domination, physical conquest, installation of puppet governments, purported de jury annexation and enforced conscription into the German Armed Forces. This was carried out in most of the occupied countries including: Norway, France (particularly in the Departments of Upper Rhine, Lower Rhine, Moselle, Ardennes, Aisne, Nord, Meurthe, and Mosselle), Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and Holland.”

War Crimes: The Role of the International Criminal Court during the Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on by
10

Arizona Memorial

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a court of last resort for the prosecution of individuals for war crimes. Primary responsibility for criminal prosecutions lie with the government of a State that has acceded to the Rome Statute. And during occupation of a State’s territory, primary responsibility for criminal prosecution then lies with the Occupant under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV. In the case of Hawai‘i, primary responsibility for initiating investigations and ultimate prosecutions for war crimes lie with the U.S. Pacific Command as the Occupant of Hawaiian territory. If the Occupant fails or refuses to prosecute individuals within the Hawaiian Kingdom for war crimes, then and only then will the ICC be compelled to step in.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

According to Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor of the ICC cannot initiate an investigation into alleged war crimes if:

  1. The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
  2. The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
  3. The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint; or
  4. The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

Article 17 further states that in order to determine unwillingness to investigate and/or prosecute, which will compel the ICC involvement is where:

  1. The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court;
  2. There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; and
  3. The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

The enforcement of criminal law within a State is referred to as police power. Police power is the capacity by which a government of a State regulates the behavior of its inhabitants in order to promote and maintain the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public. To maintain public order, the Hawaiian Kingdom enacted a penal code, whose duty of the Hawaiian government’s executive branch was to investigate, indict, and prosecute individuals who commit crimes that are listed in the penal code.

On January 17, 1893, the Hawaiian police, headed by Marshal Charles Wilson, was unable to apprehend insurgents for committing the crime of treason, Chapter VI, Penal Code, without colliding with U.S. Marines who were illegally landed by order of the U.S. diplomat, John Stevens, to protect them. This constituted a threat of war, and compelled Queen Lili‘uokalani to temporarily yield and assign Hawaiian police power, being a portion of the executive power, to the President of the United States or risk war and bloodshed. This assignment of Hawaiian police power is referred to as the Lili`uokalani assignment, which is a binding international agreement-a treaty. After an investigation and confirming the overthrow of the Hawaiian government was illegal, President Cleveland and the Queen entered into a Restoration Agreement whereby the police power would be returned to the Hawaiian government and the Queen thereafter to grant amnesty to the insurgents. These agreements have not been carried out since 1893, but nevertheless remain binding on the President to enforce Hawaiian law.

When the Hawaiian Islands were illegally occupied during the Spanish-American War on August 12, 1898 and thereafter “Americanized,” the international laws of occupation that mandates the Occupant to temporarily enforce the laws of the Occupied State, which includes the penal code, only reinforced the Lili`uokalani assignment. The international laws of occupation has since been codified under the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. War crimes listed in the Rome Statute have since been added to the Hawaiian penal code by virtue of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the Rome Statute on December 10, 2012.

First War Crime Complaint Filed with International Criminal Court

Posted on by
40

ICC

The first war crime complaint was filed on February 14, 2012, with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and copied to the United Nations Human Rights Commission by Dexter Kaiama, attorney, on behalf of his client Kenneth K.K. Kawa‘auhau. Kawa‘auhau is a Hawaiian subject and a protected person under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. The specific war crime is denying a protected person a fair and regular trial. According to the ICC, elements of the war crime of denying a fair trial include:

  1. The perpetrator deprived one or more persons of a fair and regular trial by denying judicial guarantees as defined, in particular, in the third and the fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949.
  2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
  3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
  4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party].
  5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party].

The ICC also clarifies that with respect to the last two elements listed for the war crime of denying a fair trial:

  1. There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party] or its character as international or non-international;
  2. In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party] as international or non-international;
  3. There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party] that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with.”

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

In 2012, ejectment proceedings were instituted by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General against Kawa‘auhau seeking a court order from the District Court of the First Circuit, Waianae Division, to remove him from his home in Waianae. Kawa‘auhau held a 99-year lease from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. On January 24, 2012, Kawa‘auhau filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the District Court was not lawfully constituted because the United States has been illegally occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and international law. Kaiama provided special appearance for Kawa‘auhau at the hearing on the motion that was held on February 7, 2012.

According to Kawa‘auhau’s pleadings in the case, his argument and supporting evidence centered on the fact that there is no treaty between Hawai‘i and the United States, and without a treaty United States laws enacted by the Congress have no force and effect beyond U.S. territory. As a result, the District Court, which derives its authority from An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai‘i into the Union (March 18, 1959), cannot claim to have jurisdiction in territory that does not belong to the United States. Kawa‘auhau argues that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that international laws, not U.S. laws, apply in his situation.

Despite Kaiama getting District Court Judge Maura Okamoto to take judicial notice of the evidence, she denied the motion to dismiss without cause and the court eventually granted the order for eviction. Kawa‘auhau’s appeal with the Intermediate Court of Appeals was also denied by Presiding Judge Daniel Foley, Associate Judge Katherine Leonard and Associate Judge Lawrence Reifurth without any counter-evidence as well. (United States) State of Hawai‘i Government is a War Crime under International Law.

The War Crime Complaint alleges:

“State of Hawai‘i Judges OKAMOTO, FOLEY, LEONARD, and REIFURTH committed a war crime by willfully depriving my client, a protected person, of a fair and regular trial prescribed by the fourth Geneva Convention.  The Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Chair JOBIE MASAGATANI and State of Hawai‘i Governor NEAL ABERCROMBIE, represented by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General DAVID M. LOUIE and Deputy Attorney Generals MATTHEW S. DVONCH, DIANE K. TAIRA and S. KALANI BUSH were complicit in these proceedings and therefore committed a war crime as accessories.”

The War Crime Complaint concludes:

“Accordingly, pursuant to Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute, I respectfully request the office of the Prosecutor, with all due speed, investigate the situation in order to determine if the alleged perpetrators should be charged with the war crime specified above.”

The ICC jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands will begin March 4, 2013.

Hawaiian Legations and Consulates in 1893

Posted on by
11

On January 17, 1893, Foreign Legations accredited to the Court of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the city of Honolulu included the United States of America, Portugal, Great Britain, France and Japan. A Legation is a diplomatic mission in a foreign country headed by an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. After the Second World War legations were considered embassies. Foreign Consulates in the Hawaiian Kingdom included the United States of America, Italy, Chile, Germany, Sweden-Norway, Denmark, Peru, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, Mexico and China.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

Hawaiian Legations accredited abroad to foreign States included:

  1. United States of America in the city of Washington, D.C.;
  2. Great Britain in the city of London;
  3. France in the city of Paris,
  4. Russia in the city of Saint Petersburg;
  5. Peru in the city of Lima; and
  6. Chile in the city of Valparaiso.

Hawaiian Consulates abroad in foreign States included:

  1. United States of America in the cities of New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, San Diego, Boston, Portland, Port Townsend and Seattle;
  2. Mexico in Mexico city and the city of Manzanillo; Guatemala;
  3. Peru in the city of Callao;
  4. Chile in the city of Valparaiso;
  5. Uruguay in the city of Monte Video;
  6. Philippines (former Spanish territory) in the city of Iloilo and Manila;
  7. Great Britain in the cities of London, Bristol, Hull, Newcastle on Tyne, Falmouth, Dover, Cardiff and Swansea, Edinburgh and Leith, Glasgow, Dundee, Queenstown, Belfast;
  8. Ireland (former British territory) in the cities of Liverpool, and Dublin;
  9. Canada (former British territory) in the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Bellville, Kingston Rimouski, St. John’s, Varmouth, Victoria, and Vancouver;
  10. Australia (former British territory) in the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Hobart, and Launceston;
  11. New Zealand (former British territory) in the cities of Auckland and Dunedin;
  12. China in the cities of Hong Kong and Shanghai;
  13. France in the cities of Paris, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Dijon, Libourne and Papeete;
  14. Germany in the cities of Bremen, Hamburg, Frankfort, Dresden and Karlsruhe;
  15. Austria in the city of Vienna;
  16. Spain in the cities of Barcelona, Cadiz, Valencia Malaga, Cartegena, Las Palmas, Santa Cruz and Arrecife de Lanzarote;
  17. Portugal in the cities of Lisbon, Oporto Madeira, and St. Michaels;
  18. Cape Verde (former Portuguese territory) in the city of St. Vincent;
  19. Italy in the cities of Rome, Genoa, and Palermo;
  20. Netherlands in the cities of Amsterdam and Dordrecht;
  21. Belgium in the cities of Antwerp, Ghent, Liege and Bruges;
  22. Sweden in the cities of Stockholm, Lyskil, and Gothemburg;
  23. Norway in the city of Oslo (formerly known as Kristiania);
  24. Denmark in the city of Copenhagen; and
  25. Japan in the city of Tokyo.

United States of America—1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
1

US Treaty

On December 20, 1849, the Treaty between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom was concluded and signed in Washington, D.C. Ratifications by both countries were exchanged in Honolulu on the Island of O‘ahu, on August 24, 1850. Article VIII of the treaty provides:

“…each of the two contracting parties engages that the citizens or subjects of the other residing in their respective States shall enjoy their property and personal security in as full and ample manner as their own citizens or subjects, or the subjects or citizens of the most favored nation, but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively.”

In addition, Article XVI of the said treaty provides that any:

“…citizen or subject of either party infringing the articles of this treaty shall be held responsible for the same, and the harmony and good correspondence between the two governments shall not be interrupted thereby, each party engaging in no way to protect the offender, or sanction such violation.”

Neither the United States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVI of the 1849 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former United States territories, which acquired their independence from the United States, are successor States to, at the very least, Article VIII of the Hawaiian-American Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Federated States of Micronesia. Independence from American trusteeship on November 3, 1986.
  2. Marshall Islands. Independence from American trusteeship on October 21, 1986.
  3. Palau. Independence from American trusteeship on October 1, 1994.
  4. Philippines.  Independence:  July 4, 1946

Sweden and Norway—1852 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
1

Sweden_Norway Treaty

On July 1, 1852, a Treaty was signed between Sweden and Norway and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Honolulu and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article II of the treaty provides:

“there shall be between all the dominions of His Swedish and Norwegian Majesty, and the Hawaiian Islands, a reciprocal freedom of commerce.  The subjects of each of the two contracting parties, respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports and rivers in the territories of the other, where trade with other nations in permitted.  They may remain and reside in any part of the said territories, respectively, and hire and occupy houses and warehouses and my trade, by wholesale or retail, in all kinds of produce, manufactures or merchandise of lawful commerce, enjoying the same exemptions and privileges as native subjects, and subject always to the same laws and established customs as native subjects.”

Following the separation of Austria-Hungary into two separate States, both States remained parties to the 1852 Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom. Neither Norway nor Sweden nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of their intentions to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVII of the 1852 Treaty.  Therefore, the treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.

Switzerland—1864 Treaty of Friendship, Establishment and Commerce

Posted on by
3

Swiss Treaty

On July 20, 1864, a Treaty was signed between the Swiss Confederation and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Berne and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article III of the treaty provides:

“the citizens of each of the contracting parties shall enjoy on the territory of the other the most perfect and complete protection for their persons and their property.  They shall in consequence have free and easy access to the tribunals of justice for their claims and the defense of their rights, in all cases and in every degree of jurisdiction established by the law.”

Neither the Swiss Confederation nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XIII of the 1864 Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.

Spain—1863 Treaty of Peace and Friendship

Posted on by
4

Spanish Treaty

On October 29, 1863, a Treaty was signed between Spain and the Hawaiian Kingdom in London and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article IV of this treaty provides:

“the respective citizens of the two countries shall enjoy the most constant and complete protection for their persons and property.  Consequently, they shall have free and easy access to the courts of justice in the pursuit and defense of their rights, in every instance and degree of jurisdiction established by the laws.”

Neither Spain nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XXVII of the 1863 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date day. Former Spanish territories, which acquired their independence from Spain, are successor States to, at the very least, Article IV of the Hawaiian-Spanish Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Cuba.  Independence:  May 20, 1902.
  2. Equatorial Guinea.  Independence:  October 12, 1968.

Russia—1869 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
Reply

Russia Treaty

On June 19, 1869, a Treaty was signed between Russia and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Paris and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article II of this treaty provides:

“the subjects of His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and the subjects of His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, shall be treated reciprocally on the footing of the most favored nation.”

Neither Russia nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the principles of customary international law.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Russian territories, which acquired their independence from Russia, are successor States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Russian Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Armenia.  Independence:  September 23, 1991.
  2. Azerbaijan.  Independence:  August 30, 1991.
  3. Belarus.  Independence:  August 25, 1991.
  4. Estonia. Independence. February 24, 1918.
  5. Finland.  Independence:  December 6, 1917.
  6. Georgia.  Independence:  April 9, 1991.
  7. Kazakhstan.  Independence:  December 6, 1991.
  8. Kyrgyzstan.  Independence:  August 31, 1991.
  9. Latvia.  Independence:  November 18, 1918.
  10. Lithuania.  Independence:  February 16, 1918.
  11. Poland. Independence: November 11, 1918.
  12. Republic of Moldova.  Independence:  August 27, 1991.
  13. Tajikistan.  Independence:  September 9, 1991.
  14. Turkmenistan.  Independence:  October 27, 1991.
  15. Ukraine.  Independence:  August 24, 1991.
  16. Uzbekistan.  Independence:  August 31, 1991.

Portugal—1882 Treaty of Friendship and Commerce

Posted on by
Reply

Portugal Treaty

On May 5, 1882, a Provisional Convention was signed between Portugal and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Lisbon and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article I of this convention provides:

“the Consular Agents, the subjects, the ships and products of the soil, or of the industry of one of the two countries, will enjoy on the territory of the other the same exemptions, privileges, and immunities which other Consular Agents, subjects, ships and products of the soil, or of the industry of the most favored nation, enjoy.”

Neither Portugal nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this Provisional Convention in accordance with the principles of customary international law.  Therefore, this Portuguese Provisional Convention is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Portuguese territories, which acquired their independence from Portugal, are successor States to, at the very least, Article I of the Hawaiian-Portuguese Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Angola.  Independence:  November 11, 1975.
  2. Cape Verde.  Independence:  July 5, 1975.
  3. Guinea-Bissau.  Independence:  September 24, 1973.
  4. Mozambique.  Independence:  June 25, 1975.
  5. Sao Tome and Principe.  Independence:  July 12, 1975.
  6. Timor-Leste. Independence: November 28, 1975. May 20, 2002 is the official date of international recognition of Timor-Leste’s independence by the United Nations.

Netherlands-Luxembourg—1862 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

Posted on by
Reply

Dutch Treaty

On October 16, 1862, a Treaty was signed between the Netherlands and the Hawaiian Kingdom in The Hague and thereafter ratified by both governments. The King of the Netherlands, William III, was also Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Article II of this treaty provides:

“the respective subjects of the two high contracting parties shall be perfectly and in all respects assimilated on their establishment and settlement, whether for a longer or shorter time in the States and Colonies of the other party on the terms granted to the subjects of the most favored nation in all which concerns the permission of sojourning, the exercise of legal professions, imposts, taxes, in a word, all the conditions relative to sojourn and establishment.”

Neither the Netherlands nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article VI of the 1862 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Dutch territories, which acquired their independence from the Netherlands, are successor States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Dutch Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Indonesia.  Independence:  August 17, 1945.
  2. Suriname.  Independence:  November 25, 1975.