Swiss General Secretariat Receives the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Accession to the Fourth Geneva Convention

Ambassador Battig

Originally posted on January 29, 2013. On January 14, 2013, Ambassador Benno Bättig, General Secretariat of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), received at his office in Berne, Switzerland, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Instrument of Accession to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Along with the Instrument of Accession, Ambassador Bättig also received a copy of the Hawaiian Protest and Demand deposited with the President of the United Nations General Assembly, August 10, 2012; and a DVD package of the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, 2001.


The FDFA is responsible for maintaining the foreign relations of Switzerland and serves as the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The department is headed by Federal Councillor Didier Burkhalter. The FDFA is composed of a General Secretariat and the State Secretariat, to which the department’s directorates and agencies are subordinate. Ambassador Bättig was appointed General Secretariat January 11, 2012.

CLARIFICATION: Article 156  of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that accessions shall be notified in writing to the Swiss Federal Council and the Swiss Federal Council shall communicate the accessions to all the Powers in whose name the Convention has been signed, or whose accession has been notified. The Swiss Federal Council receives accessions through the FDFA. And according to Article 159, the Swiss Federal Council also informs the Secretary-General of the United Nations of all ratifications, accessions and denunciations received by them.

11 thoughts on “Swiss General Secretariat Receives the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Accession to the Fourth Geneva Convention

  1. This is huuuuge!!! Should have been done back in 1949, but of course the Hawaiian people (nationals, not just those of Hawaiian race) were by then entirely bamboozled by US indoctrination and the US would have never allowed that to happen. It took 74 years for us to get to this point. Let the rule of law prevail!

  2. Awesome! Mahalo for clarifying that for me Dr. Sai, I appreciate it.

    Follow up question 😬 (sorry), is there any way, having filed the accession in accordance to Article 156 of the Fourth Geneva convention, to be listed as being a nation-state (or “Power”) party to the conventions?

  3. Lopaka, here is a portion of what you posted when commenting on the article titled “Exposing the Achilles heel of the State of Hawai’i Judiciary”. You said “…Our monarchy did not subscribe to the Geneva or Hague convention.” The Acting Hawaiian Kingdom Gov’t (AHKG) did it for them. There you go, signed sealed and delivered. Not only can we cite Customary International Law and Humanitarian Law. We can also cite the Geneva Conventions since we are a party to it thanks to the AHKG.

    • Actually I replied to your statement and said “Stop lying to yourself…the HK is not a signatory to the GC/HC except for the acting government/Council of Regency.” But you rather cherry pick to stroke your ego. Try again.
      Seek knowledge! Stop making a fool of yourself by trying to argue your point to me or against mine. Try to understand, I am not the enemy. Only a messenger.

      • Lopaka, what don’t you understand? Why do you contradict yourself? Here are your words as stated above. “…the HK is not a signatory to the GC/HC except for the acting government/Council of Regency.” Hellerr? The AHKG represents and acts on behalf of the Hawaiian Kingdom. If the AHKG acceded to the convention, then the HK is a signatory via the AHKG. Daah.

        • Indeed, the AHKG is seeking to access the mechanisms of the HC/GC because of the FACT that the HK monarchy is not a signatory. Thus my point still stands that the HK is not a SIGNATORY to the GC/HC except for the acting government/Council of Regency (instrument of accession).
          Furthermore accession and signatory have two different meanings. Signing a multilateral treaty and accessing it’s mechanisms are two different things. Your mind is like a parachute, it only functions when it’s open. And your problematizing argument just fell flat on it’s face!

          • Brah give me a break. This whole conversation is a carryover from your comments made in the “Exposing the Achilles Heel of the State of Hawai‘i Judiciary article. The point I made in that post was that the HK did not have to be a signatory to the Geneva/Hauge conventions in order to access the protections of the conventions. The reason being that the G/H conventions are a codification of all international customary law, humanitarian law and laws of war already being used by ALL states including the HK. The HK just needed to cite the violation under customary international law because it’s the same damn thing. Now this article timely comes out right after and shows the AHKG had acceded to the convention with an “Instrument of Accession” back in 2013.
            Brah. I go draw one picture for you. If you eat sunny side up eggs for breakfast and I eat over easy eggs for breakfast. It doesn’t matter how the eggs were cooked you still ate eggs for breakfast. Your bullshit about accession being different from signatory is just bullshit because you still when eat the egg.

  4. Hey! Are we still paying attention to what our quasi-government is doing? To be specific, what the Hawaii State Legislature is up to?

    Look at “SB16 HD1” or go to “”

    Go to the bottom and look at the most recent editors version SB16 HD1. It’s F***** confusing because the description says:
    “ Requires that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian and then translated into English and if the law has not been subsequently amended, codified, recodified, or reenacted in English.”

    But then when you actually read the document, it says this BEFORE their “amendment(s)” :

    “ If any radical and irreconcilable difference between the English and Hawaiian version of any of the laws of the State[,] exists, the English version shall be held binding..”

    I mean, that’s manipulative and deceptive AF right? It seemed at first that they really were trying to make some attempt to do Hawaiians some good but then it actually turns out to F*** em. But then I ask, ‘what could their motivation be to go sooo out of their way to make a clarifying statement like this into law? And then try to hide it? Is this an attempt to provide safety measures if any future litigations ever take place in reference to H.K. law? Pre-HRS?

    Idk, this all just seems very suspect and i think this, AND OTHER stuff they’re got in the works requires immediate attention to verify any possible further malicious intentions and efforts to counter. Idk what I can do, I ain’t got any political or social pull like you people do but if there is anything I can do, just say the word. Mahalo

Leave a Reply