When United States President Grover Cleveland admitted that the overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was an \u201cact of war,\u201d it triggered international humanitarian law and the law of occupation on January 17, 1893. Instead of restoring Queen Lili\u2018uokalani as the Executive Monarch under a treaty called an executive agreement, by exchange of notes, between the Queen and President Cleveland, on December 18, 1893, Cleveland\u2019s successor, President William McKinley unilaterally seized the Hawaiian Islands when he signed into American law the joint resolution of annexation on July 7, 1898. The purpose of the unilateral seizure of the Islands was to establish a military outpost to protect the west coast of the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the past 131 years, the United States has not been held to account for their violations of international law and the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom because violations of international law did not hold governmental officials of the State accountable for the actions of soldiers who committed war crimes. In 1919, there was an attempt to hold to account the German Kaiser for war crimes by an international tribunal established by the Allies of the First World War.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In its report, the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the First World War concluded, \u201cAll persons belonging to enemy countries, however high their position may have been, without distinction of rank, including Chiefs of States, who have been guilty of offenses against the laws and customs of war or the laws of humanity, are liable to criminal prosecution\u201d by the international tribunal. The United States, however, was against this. U.S. members of the Commission stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nIn regard to the latter point, it will be observed that the American representatives did not deny the responsibility of the heads of states for acts which they may have committed in violation of law, including in so far as their country is concerned, the laws and customs of war, but they held that heads of states are, as agents of the people, in whom the sovereignty of any state resides, responsible to the people for the illegal acts which they may have committed, and that they are not and that they should not be made responsible to any other sovereignty.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
In other words, the United States position was to have the countries themselves prosecute their Heads of State. This position also implied that if the country\u2019s won\u2019t prosecute their Heads of State, their criminal culpability would go unchecked. The United States position would change, however, after the fall of the Nazi government and the Imperial Japanese government during the Second World War. Here an international tribunal was established to try high-level officials of the Nazi regime for war crimes and high-level officials of the Imperial Japanese government. This unified system laid the groundwork for the creation of international criminal law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As stated by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, in United States, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union v. G\u00f6ring et al.<\/a><\/strong><\/em> (1948), \u201ccrimes 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.\u201d Abstract entities are countries called States. In other words, you can\u2019t punish the State, but you can hold to account members of the government of a State, whether civilian or military, for war crimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2002, the International Criminal Court<\/a><\/strong> (ICC) was established in The Hague, Netherlands for the prosecution of war crimes. 123 States<\/a><\/strong> approved the Rome Statute<\/a><\/strong> that established the ICC with jurisdiction over their territories. Collectively, you have 124 governmental organizations to prosecute war crimes, which are the 123 prosecutors and criminal courts of the States, and the prosecutor and courts of the ICC. Prosecutions for war crimes by the ICC are “for the most serious crimes of international concern,” while prosecution by the 123 States are for war criminal that enters into the territory. According to Article 1 of the Rome Statute:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nAn International Criminal Court is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concerns, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The significance of Article 1 is that the primary responsibility to prosecute war criminals are the 123 States and not the ICC. The war criminal reports by the Royal Commission of Inquiry<\/a><\/strong> (RCI) establish the evidentiary basis for prosecution by these States when those subjects of the reports enter their territory. As part of its mandate, it is also the duty of the RCI to ensure that these war criminals get prosecuted by all means necessary. There are no statutes of limitations to prevent the prosecution of war crimes. The Council of Regency is currently in communication with the legal counsel at the United Nations regarding the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the Rome Statute that grants jurisdiction of the ICC over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To begin to comply with international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, the decision to be made by February 17, 2024, does not fall upon an \u201cabstract entity\u201d called the United States or the State of Hawai\u2018i but rather upon Major General Kenneth Hara<\/a><\/strong> and the members of the State of Hawai\u2018i Legislature and the County Councils<\/a><\/strong> themselves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For Major General Hara, his duty under international humanitarian law and the law of occupation is to transform the State of Hawai\u2018i into a military government on February 17. The action to be taken by members of the State of Hawai\u2018i Legislature and the County Councils is to cease and desist by February 17 the commission of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Their failure to comply does not affect the mandate of the RCI or the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Their failure to comply with the law of occupation merely serves as evidence of meeting the elements of the war crime and having criminal culpability.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When United States President Grover Cleveland admitted that the overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was an \u201cact of war,\u201d it triggered international humanitarian law and the law of occupation on January 17, 1893. Instead of restoring Queen … Continue reading