Legal status of Hawaii
3006483
221949728
2008-06-26T20:48:15Z
Arjuna808
280700
/* History */ tweaking for accuracy; cut some material (best to keep it as simple as possible)
{{Hawaiian sovereignty movement}}
The '''legal status of Hawaii''' is the standing of Hawaii as a political entity relative to the [[United States of America]]. Both locally, nationally and internationally, Hawaii is accepted as a state under the sovereignty of the United States of America. However, it is a subject of dispute often raised in discussions surrounding [[Hawaiian sovereignty movement|Hawaiian Sovereignty]] by small activist groups.
==History==
The dispute dates back to events in the 19th century. In [[1887]] the power of the [[constitutional monarchy]] of the Hawaiian Kingdom was forcibly taken by American and European business interests under the "[[Bayonet Constitution]]" promulgated by armed force upon King [[Kalākaua]]. In 1893 Queen [[Liliuokalani|Lili{{okina}}uokalani]] was overthrown when she attempted to promulgate a [[1893 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii|new constitution]] that would restore power to the throne. Modern-day sovereignty activists and others view the actions of U.S. Minister [[John L. Stevens]] and the U.S. Marines that landed during the crisis as having been decisive in the overthrow of the monarchy. After immediate annexation was thwarted by [[Grover Cleveland]], the [[Republic of Hawaii]] was declared, and in ([[1898]]) under the [[McKinley]] administration, annexation of Hawai{{okina}}i was enacted. Full statehood was enacted in [[1959]]. [[Hawaiian sovereignty|Sovereignty activists]] and other scholars feel that these actions were illegal.
An 1894 U.S. Senate inquiry into the overthrow formally exonerated the U.S. military of direct responsibility<ref>[http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=363-398 The Morgan Report]: Summary and Conclusions of the Senate investigation into the Hawaii Matter</ref><ref>[http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=NHSC_Conclusions_And_Recommendations Native Hawaiians Study Commission Conclusions and Recommendations] June 23, 1983</ref>. On the other hand, it has also been asserted that the presence of U.S. marines during the events of 1893 "made it impossible for the monarchy to protect itself"<ref>Russ, The Hawaiian Revolution, p350</ref>, and so for some, this casts doubt on the legitimacy of U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii. The [[Newlands Resolution]] of 1898 and the [[Organic Act]] of 1900 have been accepted by the U.S. government as well as by every nation that ever had diplomatic ties to the Hawaiian Kingdom as legally binding. In the conclusion of his book, ''The Hawaiian Revolution'', Russ states, "In 1898 no one could say that the United States was receiving stolen goods, for by that time the new Government had secured a good title."<ref>Russ, The Hawaiian Revolution, p 351.</ref> The question of whether a "good title" can be secured by military assistance of a coup d'etat and subsequent retroactive legislative measures is a central subject of the legality dispute.
At the time of the events in question, there were no independent international venues to arbitrate between the opposing sides. As is common in [[coups]] worldwide[http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/documentos/117.asp], many countries which had had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom responded with the extension of recognition to the Provisional Government<ref>[http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=1103-1111 Morgan Report p1103-1111] Letters of recognition from all nations with consular presence in Hawaii</ref> and subsequently the Republic of Hawaii.<ref>{{cite book | author=Andrade Jr., Ernest | title=Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880-1903| publisher=University Press of Colorado| year=1996 | id=ISBN 0-87081-417-6|pages=p147}}</ref> Some also simultaneously extended their support to the overthrown queen;<ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/21/132247 Kizner Interview] regarding his book ''Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq''</ref> in the case of the United States, President Grover Cleveland actually expressed outrage at the actions of the Committee of Safety, and directly demanded her reinstatement until it became clear that further action would be ineffective, as President [[Sanford Dole]] refused his demands outright, and Cleveland had no political support for invading Hawaii to enforce his wishes. Annexation was a contentious issue for the U.S. citizenry and the elected officials of the U.S..
In March 1959, both houses of Congress passed the [[Admission of Hawaii Act|Admission Act]] and U.S. President [[Dwight Eisenhower]] signed it into law. (The act excluded [[Palmyra Atoll]], part of the Kingdom and Territory of Hawaii, from the new state.) On June 27 of that year, a [[plebiscite]] was held asking residents of Hawaii to vote on accepting the statehood bill. Hawaii voted at a ratio of 17 to 1 to accept. Sovereignty activists have disputed the legality of the Statehood plebiscite<ref>[http://www.moolelo.com/human-rights.html][http://hawaii-nation.org/pleb.html][http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e1cfcf02-afc2-4aa8-b0cb-3514c3b81da4]</ref>, however, as a matter of international law, the [[United Nations]] [[decolonization]] committee later Hawaii from the [[United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories]].[[Image:Hawaiivotesinset.JPG|thumb|right|All islands voted at least 93% in favor of Admission acts. Ballot (inset) and referendum results for the Admission Act of 1959.]]
This article deals only with theoretical arguments regarding Hawai{{okina}}i's ''[[de jure]]'' status under certain interpretations of international law. The debate is considered by some to resemble the same academic discourse being argued by several other activist groups in the United States, including the [[Texas Independence|Texan]] and [[Alaskan Independence|Alaskan]] Independence Movements{{Fact|date=February 2007}}. Hawaiian sovereignty proponents and some scholars believe that Hawai{{okina}}i's history as an independent nation, the token presence of the U.S. military<ref>[http://morganeport.org The Morgan Report]: A Senate investigation into the Hawaii matter published February 26, 1894</ref><ref>[http://www.brown.edu/Departments/AmCiv/Studentprojects/GISP10/week9/week9.htm Student Project at Brown University regarding the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement]</ref><ref>[http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 - 1993 by Ellen C. Collier]</ref>
and the asserted violations of international treaties make the situation of Hawaii unique. Others see no great difference in the assertions of Hawaiian sovereignty activists and regional independence movements such as in Texas which was also a formerly independent nation annexed without a popular vote by joint resolution of Congress. Parallels are also drawn between the [[Legal status of Texas]] and Hawaii regarding U.S. military presence, although the case of 162 military personnel in Hawaii does not easily compare to the invasion of the [[Union Army]].
==Parallel overview==
{{hawaii legal status overview}}
== Sovereignty Organizations ==
;Hawaiian Kingdom Government
:Nalayne Mahealani Asing heads<ref name=higovt>[http://www.higovt.org/texts/06-01-13.htm higovt.org press release]</ref> the organization, which emphasizes reinstatement of the Kingdom. The organization is based on the island of O'ahu. Asing's Hawaiian Kingdom Government claims legitimacy because of their use of "the [[Apostille]] process"<ref name=higovt/>, and assert that because they have a document notarized by Catherine Ching, Secretary of State of the State of Hawaii, they are the legitimate successors of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
Asing's stated goals<ref>[http://www.higovt.org/headofstate.htm higovt.org Head of State page]</ref> for Hawaii are:
<div style="font-style:italic">
#To remove all laws, policies, rules and regulations that relate, reflect or ressemble [sic] an occupying power's
#To create information centers on every island and online to assist the people of Hawaii with their needs
#To provide a residential home (lease free) for every qualifying Kingdom Heir, and a total benefit package for every qualifying resident of Hawaii.
</div>
:Asing recently lost an appeal regarding a [http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/23673sdo.htm divorce judgement] under the government and laws of the State of Hawaii.
;Hawai'i Society of Law and Politics - David Keanu Sai
:Claims to be the Acting Regent of the Hawaiian Kingdom through the filing of papers in the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances.
:Has a large group of supporters, who have compiled a complex political and legal argument for the restoration process.{{Fact|date=August 2007}}
:Convicted of felony attempted theft in 1999. His appeal was [http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/23332sdo.htm denied] July 20, 2004.
;Kingdom of Hawai'i - Edmund Keali'i Silava
:Claims to be King of Hawaii based on ancestry. Has published a declaration of independence on the web.<ref>[http://www.kingdomofhawaii.org/declaration.htm kingdomofhawaii.org declaration of independence]</ref>
:Was convicted of stealing $500,000 in a real estate scam from Patricia Corbet, and spent a decade or so in prison. On several occasions, he appealed for release back to Hawaii, claiming that as King he would be able to pay back the people he cheated.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040614050931/kingdomofhawaii.org/developments_files/letter1.htm Clemency letter from Silva's lawyer]</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040614140338/kingdomofhawaii.org/clemency_images/king_letter.htm Clemency letter from Silva], published on kingdomofhawaii.org</ref> ''"As King, however, I would have resources available to me personally that would allow me to begin the repayment process and make substantial progress in a relatively short period of time."''
;Nation of Hawai'i
:Claims to be King of Hawaii based on ancestry, election by group of 200 people on March 6, 1994, and a September 8, 1994 letter from President [[Bill Clinton]] allegedly addressing him as "Head of State Hawaii".<ref>Copies of the alleged letter from Bill Clinton to Bumpy Kanahele dated September 8, 1994 have not been made publicly available.</ref>
:He is known for his current role in developing a national bank for Hawai'i, and for his work in supporting the healing of Hawaiian prisoners.{{Fact|date=August 2007}}
:He is known for his current role in developing a national bank for Hawai'i, and for his work in supporting the healing of Hawaiian prisoners.{{Fact|date=August 2007}}
;John Kekoa Lake<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20030412232312/http://www.reinstated.org/HTML/contact-4.html web archive of pro tem Executive branch for reinstated.org]</ref> (http://reinstated.org)
:Claims to government of the Kingdom of Hawaii based on 24 volunteer representatives and 24 volunteer nobles electing a government on March 13, 1999, and additional small scale elections<ref>Election results, including turnout figures, for reinstated.org polls have not been made public.</ref>
;[[Akahi Nui|James Kimo Akahi]]
:Claims to be King of Hawaii based on ancestry. Supports a return to the 1840 constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii.<ref>[http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Hawaii_Constitution_of_1840 Kingdom of Hawaii Constitution of 1840]</ref> On March 29, 2001 Judge Shackley F. Raffetto of the 2nd circuit court on Maui sentenced [[Akahi Nui]] to a five year prison term after he was convicted of criminal trespass in the second degree.<ref>[http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/ica24227sdo(1).htm State V. Akahi (Summary Disposition Order)]</ref>
==Contemporary legal actions==
===Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom===
Lance Larsen, was repeatedly arrested for driving a car in Hawai'i while failing to have a license plate and drivers' license issued by the State of Hawai'i. In consultation with David Keanu Sai, who claims to be the acting Regent of the Hawaiian Kingdom because he filed co-partnership papers with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances, Larsen filed suit against David Keanu Sai and the United States, claiming that Sai and the United States had violated the 1849 Treaty of Commerce, Friendship and Navigation by allowing U.S. domestic law to be imposed on him.
Once the lawsuit was filed, they both immediately agreed to dismiss the United States as a defendant, and stipulated their intention to proceed together with arbitration to federal judge Samuel King. This legal move prevented any possible debate on the merits of the case, since it left only two parties who agreed on all the salient issues. Their lawsuit was dismissed, and they chose as their arbitration venue the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] at the Hague.<ref>[http://www.pca-cpa.org/ PCA Website]</ref> At a cost of $10,000 each, they hired three arbitrators. Their actual goal was to have U.S. rule in Hawaii declared in breach of mutual treaty obligations and international law. The arbiters of the case affirmed that there was no dispute they could decide upon, because the United States was not a party to the arbitration. As stated in the [http://www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/LAHK/lahkaward.htm award from the arbitration panel], ''in the absence of the United States of America, the Tribunal can neither decide that Hawaii is not part of the USA, nor proceed on the assumption that it is not. To take either course would be to disregard a principle which goes to heart of the arbitral function in international law.''.
Many sovereignty activists see the mere acceptance of this case by the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] at the Hague as an affirmation of their beliefs. David Sai, in his [http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/HK_Strategic_Plan.pdf Hawaiian Kingdom Strategic Plan] insists that "For the purposes of Phase I, the Tribunal verified the Hawaiian Kingdom to be an
independent State and a subject of international law." For proof, he cites section 7.4 from the arbital award:
<blockquote>''...the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized 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.''<ref>[http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/HK_Strategic_Plan.pdf Hawaiian Kingdom Strategic Plan] p. 8</ref></blockquote>
Skeptics note he failed to mention the first 11 words of section 7.4, which indicated clearly that they were speaking in the past-tense:
<blockquote>'' '''A perusal of the material discloses that in the nineteenth century''' the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized 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.''.<ref>[http://www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/LAHK/lahkaward.htm Larsen - Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration AWARD] section 7.4</ref></blockquote>
Critics assert that it was just theatrics,<ref>[http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fraudhague.html Fraudulent Hague Arbitration]: by Ken Conklin</ref> and that both Larsen and Sai have done their best to conflate the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] and the [[International Court of Justice]] in the minds of the public to make it seem like a U.N. body has accepted the merits of their claims. Specifically, critics note that the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] is not part of the U.N., is open to private parties, and that appearance at the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] does not require nor imply any sort of legal international standing.
===Petitions to the International Court of Justice===
The [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/ibleubook.pdf Handbook of the ICJ] states that "Only States may be parties to cases before the Court" and the Court will only decide disputes which are "submitted to it by States." Although many groups and individuals have tried to assert that the Hawaiian Kingdom is still a state, no claims to the ICJ on behalf of any of the claimants to the Kingdom have ever been recognized as legitimate. At this time, no claims are known to have been filed with the ICJ on behalf of the Kingdom. Regarding these types of petitions, the ICJ handbook states:
<blockquote>''Hardly a day passes without the Registry receiving written or oral applications from private persons. However heart-rending, however well-founded, such applications may be, the ICJ is unable to entertain them and a standard reply is always sent: 'Under Article 34 of the Statute, only States may be parties in cases before the Court.' ''</blockquote>
==Historical legal actions==
*''The International Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii'' 1898
Documents from the Hawaii State Archives have revealed official letters of international recognition of the Republic of Hawaii as the legitimate successor to the Kingdom of Hawaii from every nation which ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom. Images of these documents are now available online.<ref>[http://historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii/
Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii]</ref>
*''De Lima v. Bidwell'', 182 U.S. 1 (1901)
Annexation via a joint resolution of Congress is legal according to American law. The United States Supreme Court wrote, "A treaty made by that power is said to be the supreme law of the land,-as efficacious as an act of Congress; and, if subsequent and inconsistent with an act of Congress, repeals it. This must be granted, and also that one of the ordinary incidents of a treaty is the cession of territory, and that the territory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely as if the annexation were made, as in the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress."
*Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903)
In a 1903 criminal case, Territory of Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903) the U.S. Supreme Court noted that "the status of the islands and the powers of their provisional government were measured by the Newlands resolution[.]" That point was made even more forcefully in a separate opinion in the case filed by Justice Harlan. Justice Harlan disagreed with the court on a different issue which concerned Hawaiian law as to jury trials, but on the issue of the validity of the Newlands resolution, he agreed fully with the majority, stating, "By the resolution, the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands became complete, and the object of the proposed treaty, that 'those islands should be incorporated into the United States as an integral part thereof, and under its sovereignty' was accomplished."
*[[s:Liliuokalani v. The United States|Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct. Cl. 418 (1910)]]
Liliuokalani's claims of personal ownership of the crown lands was denied by the U.S. Court of Claims, based primarily on Hawaiian Kingdom law.
==U.S. investigations==
*[http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/blount.html The Blount Report] July 17, 1893
Sent by Grover Cleveland under secret orders shortly after his inauguration, Blount's investigation led him to believe that the U.S. was directly responsible for the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani. He reported back to President Cleveland, who took steps to reinstate the queen based on Blount's information. Caught between a queen initially unwilling to give amnesty to her overthrowers, and the president of the Provisional Government of Hawaii who flatly refused to reinstate her, Cleveland referred the matter to Congress on December 18, 1893, with a blistering letter condemning what he believed at the time to be the U.S. role in the overthrow.
*[http://morganreport.org The Morgan Report] February 26, 1894
After Cleveland's referral of the matter to Congress, an investigation committee was formed under the leadership of Senator [[John Tyler Morgan]]. Over the course of several months, with extensive testimony under cross examination, they came to the exact opposite conclusion that Blount reached. Much of the testimony that Blount relied upon was recanted, and for the first time the Provisional Government position was heard. In their conclusions, the U.S. military was completely exonerated, and blame for the Hawaiian Revolution was placed squarely on the shoulders of Queen Liliuokalani.
*[http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=NHSC_Executive_Summary Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report] June 23, 1983
The Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report judged that the truth lies somewhere between the Morgan Report and the Blount Report, but still dismissed the claims of those who believed the Hawaiian Revolution, annexation, and statehood were in any way illegitimate.
*[http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/060531NatHawBriefReport.pdf United States Commission on Civil Rights Report] May 4, 2006
Considering the [[Akaka Bill]], the USCCR found that the Hawaiian Kingdom "included Native Hawaiians, but also included residents of other races and ethnicities." They recommended strongly against the [[Akaka Bill]] as "legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people".
==U.S. legislation==
*Turpie Resolution May 31, 1894
*[[Newlands Resolution]] July 4, 1898
*[http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/03-ORG/ORG_0001.HTM Organic Act]<ref>[http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/organic.html UH Collection of Congressional Debate regarding the Organic Act of 1900]</ref> April 30, 1900
*[[Apology Resolution]] November 23, 1993
==See also==
*[[Legal status of Alaska]]
*[[Tribal sovereignty]]
*[[Legal status of Texas]]
*[[Republic of Texas (group)]]
==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Hawaii law]]
[[Category:Politics of Hawaii]]