{"id":5789,"date":"2022-04-28T02:04:41","date_gmt":"2022-04-28T02:04:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/?p=5789"},"modified":"2022-04-28T22:20:01","modified_gmt":"2022-04-28T22:20:01","slug":"reaping-the-fruits-of-labor-strategic-plan-of-the-council-of-regency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/reaping-the-fruits-of-labor-strategic-plan-of-the-council-of-regency\/","title":{"rendered":"Reaping the Fruits of Labor – Strategic Plan of the Council of Regency"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Council of Regency, serving as the provisional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, was established within Hawaiian territory\u2014in situ<\/a><\/strong><\/em>, and not in exile. The Hawaiian government was established in accordance with the Hawaiian constitution and the doctrine of necessity to serve in the absence of the office of Executive Monarch. Queen Lili\u2018uokalani was the last Executive Monarch from 1891-1917.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By virtue of this process the Hawaiian government is comprised of officers de facto<\/em>. According to U.S. constitutional scholar Thomas Cooley:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A provisional government is supposed to be a government de facto for the time being; a government that in some emergency is set up to preserve order; to continue the relations of the people it acts for with foreign nations until there shall be time and opportunity for the creation of a permanent government. It is not in general supposed to have any authority beyond that of a mere temporary nature resulting from some great necessity, and its authority is limited to the necessity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

During the Second World War, like other governments formed during foreign occupations of their territory, the Hawaiian government did not receive its mandate from the Hawaiian legislature, but rather by virtue of Hawaiian constitutional law as it applies to the Cabinet Council, which is comprised of the constitutional offices of the Minister of Interior, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Finance and the Attorney General.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution, as amended, provides that the Cabinet Council \u201cshall be a Council of Regency, until the Legislative Assembly, which shall be called immediately [and] shall proceed to choose by ballot, a Regent or Council of Regency, who shall administer the Government in the name of the King, and exercise all the Powers which are constitutionally vested in the King,\u201d the convening of the Legislative Assembly was not possible in light of the prolonged occupation. The impossibility of convening the Legislative Assembly during the occupation did not prevent the Cabinet from becoming the Council of Regency because of the operative words \u201cshall be a Council of Regency, until\u2026,\u201d but only prevents, for the time being of occupation, the Legislature from electing a Regency or Regency. That election will take place when the occupation comes to an end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, the Council was established in similar fashion to the Belgian Council of Regency after King Leopold was captured by the Germans during the Second World War. As the Belgian Council was established under Article 82 of its 1821 Constitution, as amended, in exile, the Hawaiian Council was established under Article 33 of its 1864 Constitution, as amended, not in exile but rather in situ<\/em>. As Professor Oppenheim explained:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As far as Belgium is concerned, the capture of the king did not create any serious constitutional problems. According to Article 82 of the Constitution of February 7, 1821, as amended, the cabinet of ministers have to assume supreme executive power if the King is unable to govern. True, the ministers are bound to convene the House of Representatives and the Senate and to leave it to the decision of the united legislative chambers to provide for a regency; but in view of the belligerent occupation it is impossible for the two houses to function. While this emergency obtains, the powers of the King are vested in the Belgian Prime Minister and the other members of the cabinet.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The existence of the restored government in situ<\/em> was not dependent upon diplomatic recognition by foreign States, but rather operated on the presumption of recognition these foreign States already afforded to the Hawaiian government as of 1893.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State on November 28, 1843, was also the recognition of its government\u2014a constitutional monarchy, as its agent. Successors in office to King Kamehameha III, who at the time of international recognition was King of the Hawaiian Kingdom, did not require diplomatic recognition. These successors included King Kamehameha IV in 1854, King Kamehameha V in 1863, King Lunalilo in 1873, King Kal\u0101kaua in 1874, and Queen Lili\u2018uokalani in 1891. The legal doctrines of recognition of new governments only arise \u201cwith extra-legal changes in government\u201d of an existing State. Successors to King Kamehameha III were not established through \u201cextra-legal changes,\u201d but rather under the constitution and laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to Professor Peterson:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A government succeeding to power according to the constitution, basic law, or established domestic custom is assumed to succeed as well to its predecessor\u2019s status as international agent of the state. Only if there is legal discontinuity at the domestic level because a new government comes to power in some other way, as by coup d\u2019\u00e9tat<\/em> or revolution, is its status as an international agent of the state open to question.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Hawaiian Council of Regency is a government restored in accordance with the constitutional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as they existed prior to the unlawful overthrow of the previous administration of Queen Lili\u2018uokalani. It was not established through \u201cextra-legal changes,\u201d and, therefore, did not require diplomatic recognition to give itself validity as a government. It was a successor in office to Queen Lili\u2018uokalani as the Executive Monarch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Professor Lenzerini in his legal opinion<\/a><\/strong>, based on the doctrine of necessity<\/em>, \u201cthe Council of Regency possesses the constitutional authority to temporarily exercise the Royal powers of the Hawaiian Kingdom.\u201d He also concluded that the Regency \u201chas the authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, which has been under a belligerent occupation by the United States of America since 17 January 1893, both at the domestic and international level.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After all four offices of the Cabinet Council were filled on September 26, 1999, a strategic plan was adopted based on its policy: first, exposure of the prolonged occupation; second, ensure that the United States complies with international humanitarian law; and, third, prepare for an effective transition to a completely functioning government when the occupation comes to end. The Council of Regency\u2019s strategic plan<\/a><\/strong> has three phases to carry out its policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Phase I: Verification of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and subject of International Law<\/p>

Phase II: Exposure of Hawaiian Statehood within the framework of international law and the laws of occupation as it affects the realm of politics and economics at both the international and domestic levels.<\/p>

Phase III: Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a subject of International Law, which is when the occupation comes to an end.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This Grand Strategy<\/em> of the Council of Regency is long term, not short term, and can be compared to China’s Grand Strategy<\/em>, which is also long term. As Professors Flynt Leverett and Wu Bingbing explain in their article The New Silk Road and China\u2019s Evolving Grand Strategy<\/a><\/em><\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is grand strategy, and what does it mean for China? In broad terms, grand strategy is the culturally shaped intellectual architecture that structures a nation\u2019s foreign policy over time. It is, in Barry Posen\u2019s aphoristic rendering, \u201ca state\u2019s theory of how it can best \u2018cause\u2019 security for itself.\u201d Put more functionally, grand strategy is a given political order\u2019s template for marshalling all elements of national power to achieve its self-defined long-term goals. Diplomacy\u2014a state\u2019s capacity to increase the number of states ready to cooperate with it and to decrease its actual and potential adversaries\u2014is as essential to grand strategy as raw military might. So too is economic power. For any state, the most basic goal of grand strategy is to protect that state\u2019s territorial and political integrity. Beyond this, the grand strategies of important states typically aim to improve their relative positions by enhancing their ability to shape strategic outcomes, maximize their influence, and bolster their long-term economic prospect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Phase I was completed when the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) acknowledged the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State for the purposes of its institutional jurisdiction under Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention, I, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes<\/em><\/a><\/strong> prior to forming the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. This acknowledgment of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State can be found at its case repository for Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom<\/a><\/strong><\/em> and on its website<\/a><\/strong>. The non-participation of the United States in the arbitration proceedings occurred \u201cafter\u201d the PCA already acknowledged the continued existence of Hawaiian Kingdom Statehood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the day when the arbitration tribunal was formed, Phase II was initiated\u2014exposure. Phase II would be guided by Section 495\u2014Remedies of Injured Belligerent<\/em>, United States Army FM 27-10<\/a><\/strong>, which states, \u201cIn the event of violation of the law of war, the injured party may legally resort to remedial action of\u2026Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.\u201d The exposure began with the filings<\/a><\/strong> of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the arbitration proceedings and its oral arguments on December 8 and 11, 2000, at the PCA, in The Hague, Netherlands, which can be seen in this mini-documentary of the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n