Larsen Case

(Lance Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom)

Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands

"…at the center of the PCA proceeding was…that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that the Hawaiian Council of Regency (representing the Hawaiian Kingdom) is legally responsible under international law for the protection of Hawaiian subjects, including the claimant. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom was legally obligated to protect Larsen from the United States' 'unlawful imposition [over him] of [its] municipal laws' through its political subdivision, the State of Hawai`i. As a result of this responsibility, Larsen submitted, the Hawaiian Council of Regency should be liable for any international law violations that the United States committed against him." —American Journal of International Law, vol. 95, p. 928.

"…the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognised as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties" –International Law Reports, vol. 119, p. 594.

"…thus the issue in rem, the point is that, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, its existence is in rem. It is not in personam. The Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist solely in the opinion of Mr. Larsen. It exists." –Prof. James Crawford, SC, President of the Arbitral Tribunal.

"Because international tribunals lack the power of joinder that national courts enjoy, it is possible––as a result of procedural maneuvering alone––for legitimate international legal disputes to escape just adjudication. For example, in Larsen, the United States commanded an enviable litigation posture: even though the United States admitted its illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, it repeatedly refused to consent to international arbitration" –American Journal of International Law, vol. 95, p. 927.

"The law of occupation as defined in the 1907 Hague Convention protects the international personality of the occupied State, even in the absence of effectiveness. Furthermore, the legal order of the occupied State [Hawaiian Kingdom] remains intact, although its effectiveness is greatly diminished by the fact of occupation." –Chinese Journal of International Law, issue 1, vol. 2, p. 682.

For detailed information on the proceedings, please see:

AlohaQuest.com/arbitration