{"id":1429,"date":"2014-03-24T15:06:59","date_gmt":"2014-03-24T15:06:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/?p=1429"},"modified":"2014-03-24T15:06:59","modified_gmt":"2014-03-24T15:06:59","slug":"hawaii-and-the-namibia-exception","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/hawaii-and-the-namibia-exception\/","title":{"rendered":"Hawai\u2018i and the Namibia Exception"},"content":{"rendered":"

According to international law, the United States Federal government and the United States\u2019 State of Hawai\u2018i government<\/a> operating within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom are illegal regimes. Article 43 of the Hague Convention, IV, mandates that the occupying State, the United States, to administer the laws of the occupied State, the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to Professor Marco Sassoli,\u00a0Article 43 of the Hague Regulations and Peace Operations in the Twenty-first Century<\/i><\/a>, p. 5, \u201cArticle 43 does not confer on the occupying power any sovereignty over the occupied territory. The occupant may therefore not extend its own legislation over the occupied territory nor act as a sovereign legislator. It must, as a matter of principle, respect the laws in force in the occupied territory at the beginning of the occupation.\u201d<\/p>\n

These illegal regimes are and have been administering United States law and not Hawaiian law in an attempt to conceal the prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to Dr. Ya\u00ebl Ronen,\u00a0Status of Settlers Implanted by Illegal Regimes under International Law<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2008), p. 2, \u201cIllegal regimes often transfer of their own populations or populations loyal to them in the territory, and subsequently grant these populations residence or nationality in the territory. This is done in order to change the demographic composition of the territory under dispute and thereby solidify the regime.\u201d<\/p>\n

When another country\u2019s government is operating within the territory of another country without title or sovereignty, every official action taken by that regime is illegal and void except for its registration of births, marriages and deaths. This is called the \u201cNamibia exception,\u201d which is a decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1971 called the\u00a0Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)<\/i><\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n

In 1966, the United Nations General Assembly passed resolution\u00a02145 (XXI)<\/a>\u00a0that terminated South Africa\u2019s administration of Namibia, formerly known as South West Africa, a former German colony. This resulted in Namibia coming under the administration of the United Nations, but South Africa refused to withdraw from Namibian territory and consequently the situation transformed into an illegal occupation. As a former German colony, Namibia became a mandate territory under the administration of South Africa after the close of the First World War.<\/p>\n

Addressing the legal consequences arising for South Africa\u2019s refusal to leave Namibia, the ICJ stated that by \u201coccupying the Territory without title, South Africa incurs international responsibilities arising from a continuing violation of an international obligation,\u201d and that all countries, whether a member of the United Nations or not were \u201cunder an obligation to recognize the illegality and invalidity of South Africa\u2019s continued presence in Namibia and to refrain from lending any support or any form of assistance to South Africa with reference to its occupation of Namibia.\u201d The ICJ, however, clarified that \u201cnon-recognition should not result in depriving the people of Namibia of any advantages derived from international cooperation.<\/p>\n

The conduct of an illegal regime during occupation is limited and confined to the international laws of occupation and to the principle of\u00a0ex injuria ius non oritur<\/i>\u2014where unlawful acts cannot be the source of lawful rights. According to Ronen, p. 39, \u201cOpposite the principle of\u00a0ex injuria jus non oritur<\/i>\u00a0operates the principle\u00a0ex factis ius oritur<\/i>. It mandates that acts of the illegal regime may have legal consequences despite the illegality and status of the regime that performed them.\u201d Ronen explains, \u201cIn other words, the general invalidity of domestic acts carried out under an illegal regime is qualified where such invalidity would act to the detriment of the inhabitants of the territory. This is the\u00a0Namibia<\/i>\u00a0exception.\u201d The ICJ in the Namibia case explained, \u201cthe principle\u00a0ex injuria jus non oritur\u00a0<\/i>dictates that acts which are contrary to international law cannot become a source of legal acts for the wrongdoer\u2026 To grant recognition to illegal acts or situation will tend to perpetuate it and be benefitial to the state which has acted illegally.\u201d<\/p>\n

The focus of the\u00a0Namibia exception<\/i>\u00a0is to protect the interests of the nationals of the occupied State and not to entrench the authority of an illegal regime. The validity of any other official acts of an illegal regime other than the registration of births, marriages and deaths must not serve \u201cto the detriment of the inhabitants of the territory\u201d being occupied and must not be seen to further \u201centrench the authority of an illegal regime.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

According to international law, the United States Federal government and the United States\u2019 State of Hawai\u2018i government operating within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom are illegal regimes. Article 43 of the Hague Convention, IV, mandates that the occupying State, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,5,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-international-relations","category-national","category-treaties"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p31YBQ-n3","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1429"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1429\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1431,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1429\/revisions\/1431"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}