Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted certain rules or norms of international law. These rules of international law include the independence of countries or States that gives rise to sovereignty, which is defined as the “supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed.” The terms country and State are interchangeable. Ukraine became an independent State on August 24, 1991, after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Hawaiian Kingdom became an independent State on November 28, 1843.
In the 1928 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands – United States of America), the sole-arbitrator, Max Huber, stated, “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.”
This rule springs another rule of international law, which is the duty of non-intervention by other States in a State’s internal affairs because of a State’s territorial integrity. These rules are foundational for the international system to operate, and because of this they are considered peremptory norms, also called jus cogens, that cannot be derogated or disparaged. To violate these rules is an internationally wrongful act.
When Russia invaded Ukraine it violated these rules of international law and transformed the state of affairs from a state of peace to a state of war. According to Judge Christopher Greenwood, “Traditional international law was based upon a rigid distinction between the state of peace and the state of war.” This separation provides the proper context by which certain rules of international law would or would not apply. The laws or war, which is also called international humanitarian law, are not applicable in a state of peace. Inherent in the rules of international humanitarian law is the co-existence of two States being that of the invading State and that of the invaded State.
War is regulated by international humanitarian law called the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, as well as customary international law. Since the latter part of the nineteenth century, violations of international humanitarian law could amount to war crimes, which are committed by individuals acting on behalf of a State and not by the government of the State as a whole. In the words of the International Military Tribunal, “crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” War crimes have no statute of limitations.
While hostilities are taking place between Russian and Ukrainian forces there are certain rules of international humanitarian that would amount to war crimes committed against the civilian population. These war crimes include:
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; and
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
It would appear from recent news coverage that Russian forces are committing war crimes against the civilian population of Ukraine who pose no threat to the invading forces. The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has recently launched an investigation of war crimes committed by Russian forces. The ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan stated, “it is clear…directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects amounts to a war crime.” Although Russia and Ukraine are not State parties to the Rome Statute that would have authorized the ICC to investigate war crimes, the ICC was prompted to investigate by a referral of thirty-nine States that are State parties to the Rome Statute.
Should hostilities cease and certain portions of the territory of Ukraine should come under the effective control of Russian forces, international humanitarian law transforms the situation into belligerent occupation and the occupying State must continue to protect the civilian population who reside within the occupied territory. Should Russia be in effective control of territory, it will trigger the law of occupation where Russian forces are obligated to administer the laws of the Ukraine. This rule of international law would continue until the occupation comes to an end when Russian forces leave Ukrainian territory. As professor Ian Brownlie wrote:
Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of the German state [its independence and sovereignty] did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to exist, and, indeed, the legal basis of the occupation depended on its continued existence.”
War crimes committed during belligerent occupation against the civilian population include what are called “grave breaches” that are listed under Article 147 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.
Grave breaches…shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Along with the list of war crimes as “grave breaches,” there are war crimes that are listed under customary international law. In chapter three of the ebook Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, Professor William Schabas provides a list of war crimes, under customary international law, committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom. These include:
war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation;
war crime of compulsory enlistment;
war crime of denationalization;
war crime of pillage;
war crime of confiscation or destruction of property;
war crime of deprivation of fair and regular trial;
war crime of deporting civilians of the occupied territory; and
war crime of transferring populations into an occupied territory.
When United States forces invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 16, 1893, they initiated the state of war between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom. Hostilities would only last until the following day when Queen Lili‘uokalani signed a conditional surrender to the United States. She stated:
I, Lili‘uokalani, by the Grace of God, and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.
That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.
Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest, and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
Done at Honolulu this 17th day of January, A.D. 1893.
Lili‘uokalani, R.
Samuel Parker, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Wm. H. Cornwell, Minister of Finance.
John. F. Colburn, Minister of the Interior.
A.P. Peterson, Attorney General.
After completing an investigation, President Grover Cleveland notified the Congress:
And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer, Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the Government of the Queen, which at the time was undisputed and was both the de factor and the de jure government. In point of fact the existing government instead of requesting the presence of an armed force protested against it. There is little basis for the pretense that such forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government building and palace. Admiral Skerrett, the officer in command of our naval force on the Pacific station, has frankly stated that in his opinion the location of the troops was inadvisable if they were landed for the protection of American citizens whose residences and places of business, as well as the legation and consulate, were in a distant part of the city, but the location selected was a wise one if the forces were landed for the purpose of supporting the provisional government. If any peril to life and property calling for any such martial array had existed, Great Britain and other foreign powers interested would not have been behind the United States in activity to protect their citizens. But they made no sign in that direction. When these armed men were landed, the city of Honolulu was in its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no symptom of riot or disturbance in any quarter. Men, women, and children were about the streets as usual, and nothing varied the ordinary routine or disturbed the ordinary tranquillity, except the landing of the Boston’s marines and their march through the town to the quarters assigned them. Indeed, the fact that after having called for the landing of the United States forces on the plea of danger to life and property the Committee of Safety themselves requested [US] Minister [John Stevens] to postpone action, exposed the untruthfulness of their representations of present peril to life and property. The peril they saw was an anticipation growing out of guilty intentions on their part and something which, though not then existing, they knew would certainly follow their attempt to overthrow the Government of the Queen without the aid of the United States forces.
From this date, the United States was in effective control of Hawaiian territory and international humanitarian law at the time obligated the United States to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Instead of complying with international humanitarian law, the United States unilaterally seized the Hawaiian Islands and transformed it into a military outpost to protect the United States from its adversaries. Since 1898, the United States has committed the war crime of “usurpation of sovereignty,” which is the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This imposition of American laws is what caused the commission of the other war crimes identified by Professor Schabas.
Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed Russian troops were being sent into Ukraine to protect people who were subjected to bullying and genocide and that Russia was aiming for the “demilitarization and de-Nazification” of Ukraine. The BBC reported, “There has been no genocide in Ukraine: it is a vibrant democracy, led by a president who is Jewish.”
It would appear that Russia’s justification is not credible, just as the United States justification for the invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom was not credible as well. The difference, however, is that President Cleveland, who was President of the invading force, completed a presidential investigation and acknowledged that the invasion was “illegal” under international law. Consequently, there is no need for an investigation into the invasion and unlawful overthrow of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Rather, the issue is the United States non-compliance with international humanitarian law for over a century, which has led to the commission of war crimes and human rights violations.
The restored government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Council of Regency, brought this to the attention by a diplomatic note to the foreign embassies accredited to the United Nations in New York City. This information was also brought to the attention of the foreign embassies in both New York City and Geneva by a joint letter from the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the American Association of Jurists—Asociación Americana de Juristas, both of whom have consultative status with the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Mahalo for all what you are doing to expose the lies and reveal the truths, and for educating us with this information.
Question 1: Is there a way or how can we enforce these international laws so that those who continue to commit war crimes can be arrested and prosecuted and brought to justice?
Question 2: Tax time is here and I do not want to pay taxes to America or the State. Instead I would rather pay taxes to the Hawaiian Kingdom. Is this possible or am I getting ahead of myself?
Just was curious. Mahalo for your time and patience.
If you have used the transmitting utility known as the SSN, then you have subjected your person to their regulatory matrix. Indeed, if you’re a contracted US citizen, then you cannot be a Hawaiian subject. However you can redeem yourself in commerce and in law.
“MAHALO NUI LOA” for EDUCATING US and LOVING US…. IT’S TIME, “We” MUST BE VIGILANT and `AKAMAI LOA— NOT DIVERTING OUR THINKING ON NON-SENSE IDEAS— “WE” are RESPONSIBLE for teaching our ‘OHANA, what justify us.! THIS IS OUR IDENTITY, WE ARE truly Hawaiian Subject from this `ili, the Hawaiian Kingdom, that we were BORN-IN, and we’ll DEPART from this ‘ili. “UA MAU KE EA O KA ‘AINA I KA PONO”….O JESU KRISTO. AMENE!!!
Looks like China is starting to pursue US war crimes
https://youtu.be/4xHQUVUAouY
Aloha Kai, mahalo for the link. A year ago, Feb. 2021 I posted a response to Lopaka for the reason why the U.S. can commit multitudes war crimes and get away with it. It’s because the U.S. controls the international money system, SWIFT and it holds the lead as a global reserve currency. The U.S. under Trump sanctioned the ICC Judges, lawyers and investigators for attempting to investigate the U.S. for war crimes. There is no more talk of investigations by the ICC and Biden recently lifted those sanctions.
I always said that once the SWIFT system is replaced with an alternate system that will be the end of the U.S. hegemon and unipolar order. That has just happened by the U.S. kicking Russia out of SWIFT. An alternate system will soon be online to let the U.S., Europe and other countries continue to purchase oil and natural gas from Russia which has not been sanctioned because they need it. Russia will only allow purchases using the ruble. This is how stupid the U.S., EU, and Ukrainians are. Refuse to implement the MINSK agreement since 2014, refuse to negotiate a new security agreement with Russia, increase the bombing on the Donbass forcing Russia to invade Ukraine, sanction Russia and cut it out of the SWIFT. Only to cause Global inflation and use of an alternate payment system in the ruble to buy the same Russian gas & oil at ridiculously inflated prices making Russia richer and the ruble stronger. Give it a year or two and the rest of the world will see they can use this alternate system instead of SWIFT to settle all international debts in their own currency without having to purchase overpriced U.S. dollars and being threatened with U.S. sanctions. This in turn will allow international venues such as the ICC, UNHRC, Red Cross, etc. to investigate war crimes without fear of U.S. sanctions. Russia and the U.S. did us a solid. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Aloha Kekoa, I am a true believer in karma, and karma always comes back when least expected. Akua definitely works in ways we don’t always understand. Mahalo for explaning the situation 🤙🏾
Dont’t know about SWIFT but I do know about the petrol dollar and that which it allows countries to purchase oil using US dollars only. Oil can only be sold using USD. Khaddafis Libya threaten to ban the petro dollar and stated that Libya’s oil would be sold using the dinar only. We saw what happened to khaddafi later on. The world depends on USD for this reason which is why they accept USD for their commodities, also factor in foreign aid that countries receive from the US. If you want to kick the US and the USD from being the global currency then you have to destroy the petrol dollar or replace it. And if you manage to do that, who is going to replace the US and give countries foreign aid? And in what currency? For so many countries are dependent on foreign aid. The federal reserve can print and print away because of this reason the petrol dollar.
Heller, the end of SWIFT is the end of the petrol dollar. USD is not the only way you can purchase oil. The IMF in 1969 created Special Drawing Rights (SDR) and the SDR can be used instead of the USD to settle international debts/transactions for oil. Block Chain and smart contracts will be able to keep a secure ledger of all transactions that is faster and cheaper than SWIFT. The more money the U.S. prints makes USD more expensive for foreign countries. America’s money printing places a burden on foreign countries. With a new payment system requiring no USD will make it cheaper, safer and faster for countries to conduct commerce in their own currencies. They won’t need to buy USD at inflated prices.
The example of Khadafi is a non-issue at this point since countries can remain on SWIFT but use the alternate system to make purchases. The U.S. will have no way to track the flow of money on the new system and can’t shut it down. That is what the FED was afraid of happening and was pissed when BIDEN didn’t consult them before kicking Russia off of SWIFT. If they can’t track the money, they can’t control it. The USD will remain one of the five currencies in the basket of reserve currencies, but it won’t be the leading reserve currency. BYE BYE petrol dollar.
For some reason I knew you would mention block chain technology. Destroying swift will not destroy the petrol dollar. Will only make things difficult for nations instead and place their economies in jeopardy. But none of it matters right now. Russia invaded the Ukraine and violated international law. The UN followed up with sanctions. The international community must cooperate and comply. Putin is the bad guy and many are looking towards America to save the day…….. Once again.
Russia is not the only oil producing nation.
Well gang, it’s official, Russia just annexed 4 regions of Ukraine. Phase 1 accomplished. Phase 2 is coming, best you stop fighting with Russia. Should have complied with the Minsk Agreements and avoided all of this.
Kaulana, “. ..America to save the day…….. Once again…” OMG you got to be kidding. America is going to mess it up just like Afghanistan. Remember that great flop??? America created this whole war when they violated international law orchestrating a regime change coupe in Ukraine 2014. This whole thing is their fault just like all the other regime change wars they started which violate international law. Only difference between Russia and the U.S. is the U.S. killed well over 100,000 civilians and left those countries in shambles with an increase of terrorists to boot. America to save the day… yeah right. You are right about Russia not being to only oil producing country. America can’t even get Saudi Arabia and the UAE leaders to except Bidens phone calls. Now the U.S. is trying to kiss Iran’s a_ _ to get some oil and even trying to hook up with Venezuela Pres. Maduro. Maybe Juan Guido will take Bidens call and get him some oil. LOL These are the countries the U.S. sanctioned and tried unsuccessfully to accomplish regime changes of it’s leaders. Really? Good luck in getting anything from them. Now here is the real kicker, U.S. is still buying oil from Russia. Save the day I doubt it.
Sure ‘save the day’ but in my defense I was speaking on behalf of refugees and protesters and what the media portrays, you know that usual propaganda stuff. Try reading between the lines kekoa. Anyhow I always thought the US got their oil mainly from Canada and south america. The middle east countries may have oil but it doesn’t mean thats where we get it from nor does it mean we must get it from them without alternatives. The same goes for Russia, just because it was reported (and mind you I’ve read about this years ago) that Russia has approximately 33 trillion USD worth in oil (at that time) that doesn’t mean we get our oil from russia. Now who told you we’ve depended on Russia’s oil? What else did they tell you, something about gas prices going up? Because of russia? Lol sounds like a good time for oil corps to get rich, just use the war as an excuse, and make sure your politicians get a cut so they can stay quiet. Prices should (hopefully) come back down, after they’ve made a few extra billions. Its funny how gas prices went up because of russia, but you say were still buying from russia. If anyone is hit big by banning Russian oil its europe.
So right,usofa the world boogie man,look at the havoc they also caused in Central America, WM with small ule lol
Kaulana we don’t even oil big oil propaganda, watch the movie called PUMP,and google David Blume,(Alcohol can be a gas),Most people don’t realize what Henry Ford used to power his model A And Ts,moonshine white lighting, nevah had gas stations back then,and most vehicles from 1999 to present can run on pure ethanol, Rockefeller started it all Standard Oil,🙏
It’s transitory!
Righteous I love it. Transitory LOL!!!
SUCRE system…loading…AIIB and BRICS Bank online!!! Countries been bypassing the dollar bilaterally trading directly in commodities or holding each others currencies and have also been accumulating and repatriating gold while at the same time US has been hyper-inflating [QE1, 2, 3 etc] itself bringing about the end of the dollar. US got a whole bunch of receipts but no value!!!
Truly sad but how much money did Congress authorize to send to Ukraine since the installation of the Jewish actor? How much more are they sending now? Why so much and what programs were and are funded in Ukraine? What’s the kick-back and guarantees for Europe? How many countries did NATO nominate for membership in 2021? Russian oil accounts for only 3% of US oil imports. The weaponization of the dollar is what leads to the destabilizing of countries where America exports their inflation by sending dollars for raw goods, materials, services, supplies, etc.
The dollar is outlawed in some African countries because of this and it is also responsible for the Arab spring where costs of food went up to nearly 40% of income levels. Since 71, the dollar has been floated against the labor and consumerism of America where at first they were just coin clipping but then countries started repatriating their gold from US vaults which was killing the dollar.
Governments however been buying gold since Saddam pulled his move against the dollar and in 2001 they also sanctioned him from SWIFT, you know…the system portrayed in the movie jumping jack flash where they also share in the background that Hawaii is not apart of America. Anyhow, gold is the only store of value and therefore actual real money so countries have turned their back against the dollar, well at least some.
World trade and commerce is reforming the globalists fiat dollar.
A short history of the west in war
https://youtu.be/FyqSTxEKtCw
Meanwhile in Somalia and the Congo US running diplomatic interference and other tactics to avoid accountability. And to think it all started here in the Hawaiian Islands, still nobody here protests against Hawai’i’s congressional legislators for their hands or votes in these war crimes or the financing of them!!! Perhaps Hawaiians not ready for self government as another $200 million sent for Ukraine too while Americans wonder why prices are so high. Willfully getting robbed since the new deal by their own so called representatives.
Please stop spreading propaganda: “The BBC reported, “There has been no genocide in Ukraine: it is a vibrant democracy, led by a president who is Jewish.”
The Russian speaking provinces in the East have been victims of a genocidal war since at least 2014. The current government of Ukraine was installed via a US sponsored coup.
These facts may or may not justify using military force. It doesn’t matter. The US military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom has been illegal since 1893.
TO: EVERY, Hawaiian Subjects/ Kanaka Maoli should be FOCUSING and Knowingly, BE EDUCATED ON their Hawaiian History, our GOD-GIVEN COUNTRY, the HAWAIIAN KINGDOM.
THIS Immense piece of Volcanic rock that we live on and ALOHA, is call our home, THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM!
WE, HAVE AN IDENTITY and WE, HAVE A KULEANA TO MAIN OUR LIFESTYLE! WE ARE OCCUPPIED, ILLEGALLY BY THE UNITED STATES of AMERCA. WE- are- NOT IMMIGRANTS! WE HAVE NOT LEAVE OUR HOMELAND, WE’RE STILL HERE, FOREVER!
WE received our Recognition and Restoration, through Kamehameha III, Keauouli. and three delegates of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Timotheo Ha`alilio, William Richards, and Sir George Simpson, since 1843. WE are a SOVERIGN COUNTRY and WE received our INDEPENDENCE IN 1843. King Kamehameha III, Keauoli said outloud, ‘UA MAU KE EA O KA `AINA I KA ONO”
ONLY one delegate didn’t RETURN home to bring the GOOD NEWS to his people! (“Me Ke Aloha Poina`ole”, Timotheo Ha`alilio—Akua is with You! MAHALO A NUI LOA!!!)
FIFTY years, AFTER, our monarch, Queen Liliu`okalani, in 1893 was ILLEGALLY Removed from HER office by the U.S. Government AND Mr. Schofield, for assisting the Military for their Necessity of installing/ & having a Military Outpost.
Our Country, the HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, is Sovereign FOREVER!
To: Why is the annexation of Crimea illegal? How was it different from the US annexing Hawaii?
It isn’t.
This will be a technical answer.
The Soviet Union was technically a supranational entity consisting of various sovereign republics. In the United Nations, not just the Soviet Union had its seat, but also Byelorussia and Ukraine as both were considered to be sovereign under international law.
The transfer of Crimea in 1954 was thus a transfer of territory from Russia to Ukraine, within the supranational legal framework of the Soviet Union, yet subject to international law.
Under international law, a transfer of territory is only legal if the correct legal proceeding in both countries (and in this case the supranational Soviet Union) have been properly followed.
This was not the case. The transfer of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine was illegal under Ukrainian, Russian, and Soviet law … and does also illegal under international law.
The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 is just that, a memorandum with no legally binding power under international law.
No matter how you look at it, from a legal perspective Crimea never left Russia as the 1954 transfer was illegal.
So there was technically no annexation by Russia, just an illegal occupation by Ukraine.
I realize most people in the West support Ukraine, but from a purely legal point of view Ukraine has no leg to stand on when it comes to Crimea.
How is this different from the US annexation of Hawaii, it isn’t really. The annexation treaty needed to be ratified by both the Republic of Hawaii and the US but the US Senate never ratified the annexation treaty, so technically, Hawaii is occupied territory as the legal requirements for annexation were not met under US national law and, consequently, were not met under international law.
Off topic, but of interest.
International law does not recognize the concept of “duress”. A treaty signed under duress is still a legal treaty if the requirements are met under national and international law.