Legal status of Hawaii
Encyclopedia
The legal status of Hawaii is the standing of Hawaii as a political entity relative to the United States of America. 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
by native rights groups.
to sign a new constitution
, turning the absolute monarchy
into a constitutional monarchy
and empowering the legislature. When his successor, Liliuokalani, tried to disenfranchise
Americans and Europeans and restore the old monarchy in a new 1893 Constitution
, she was promptly overthrown. 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. The provisional government initially favored annexation, but after Grover Cleveland
rejected it, the Republic of Hawaii
was declared instead. Annexation was negotiated in 1898 under the McKinley
administration, with full statehood ratified in 1959. Sovereignty activists and some 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. 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", and so for some, this casts doubt on the legitimacy of U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii. The Newlands Resolution
of 1898 and the Hawaiian 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." 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, many countries which had had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom responded with the extension of recognition to the Provisional Government and subsequently the Republic of Hawaii. Some also simultaneously extended their support to the overthrown queen; 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 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; however, as a matter of international law, the United Nations
decolonization
committee later removed Hawaii from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
.
This article deals only with theoretical arguments regarding Hawaii'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 Texan and Alaskan Independence Movements. Hawaiian sovereignty proponents and some scholars believe that Hawaii's history as an independent nation, the token presence of the U.S. military,
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
.
Asing's stated goals for Hawaii are:
The Hawaiian Kingdom - Dr. David Keanu Sai
Kingdom of Hawai'i - Edmund Keali'i Silva
Nation of Hawai'i
John Kekoa Lake (http://reinstated.org)
James Kimo Akahi
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. 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 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 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:
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:
Critics assert that it was just theatrics, 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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Hawaiian sovereignty movement
The Hawaiian sovereignty movement is a political movement seeking some form of sovereignty for Hawai'i. Generally, the movement's focus is on self-determination and self-governance, either for Hawaiʻi as an independent nation, or for people of whole or part native Hawaiian ancestry, or for...
by native rights groups.
History
In 1887, growing pressure among Protestant reformists on the island forced King KalākauaKalakaua
Kalākaua, born David Laamea Kamanakapuu Mahinulani Nalaiaehuokalani Lumialani Kalākaua and sometimes called The Merrie Monarch , was the last reigning king of the Kingdom of Hawaii...
to sign a new constitution
1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii
The 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii was a legal document by anti-monarchists to strip the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its authority, initiating a transfer of power to American, European and native Hawaiian elites...
, turning the absolute monarchy
Absolute monarchy
Absolute monarchy is a monarchical form of government in which the monarch exercises ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government, his or her power not being limited by a constitution or by the law. An absolute monarch thus wields unrestricted political power over the...
into a constitutional monarchy
Constitutional monarchy
Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified or blended constitution...
and empowering the legislature. When his successor, Liliuokalani, tried to disenfranchise
Disfranchisement
Disfranchisement is the revocation of the right of suffrage of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective...
Americans and Europeans and restore the old monarchy in a new 1893 Constitution
1893 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii
The 1893 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii was a proposed replacement of the Constitution of 1887, primarily based on the Constitution of 1864 put forth by Queen Lili'uokalani...
, she was promptly overthrown. Modern-day sovereignty activists and others view the actions of U.S. Minister John L. Stevens
John L. Stevens
John Leavitt Stevens was the United States Department of State Minister to the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 when he was accused of conspiring to overthrow Queen Liliuokalani in association with the Committee of Safety, led by Lorrin A. Thurston and Sanford B...
and the U.S. Marines that landed during the crisis as having been decisive in the overthrow of the monarchy. The provisional government initially favored annexation, but after Grover Cleveland
Grover Cleveland
Stephen Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president of the United States. Cleveland is the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms and therefore is the only individual to be counted twice in the numbering of the presidents...
rejected it, the Republic of Hawaii
Republic of Hawaii
The Republic of Hawaii was the formal name of the government that controlled Hawaii from 1894 to 1898 when it was run as a republic. The republic period occurred between the administration of the Provisional Government of Hawaii which ended on July 4, 1894 and the adoption of the Newlands...
was declared instead. Annexation was negotiated in 1898 under the McKinley
McKinley
- People :* Craig McKinley , Canadian physician and aquanaut* David McKinley , U.S. Representative* John McKinley , U.S...
administration, with full statehood ratified in 1959. Sovereignty activists and some 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. 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", and so for some, this casts doubt on the legitimacy of U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii. The Newlands Resolution
Newlands Resolution
The Newlands Resolution, was a joint resolution written by and named after United States Congressman Francis G. Newlands. It was an Act of Congress to annex the Republic of Hawaii and create the Territory of Hawaii....
of 1898 and the Hawaiian Organic Act
Hawaiian Organic Act
The Hawaiian Organic Act of April 30, 1900 was a United States federal law enacted to provide a government for the territory of Hawaii.-Background:...
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." 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, many countries which had had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom responded with the extension of recognition to the Provisional Government and subsequently the Republic of Hawaii. Some also simultaneously extended their support to the overthrown queen; in the case of the United States, President Grover Cleveland actually expressed outrage at the actions of the Committee of Safety
Committee of Safety
Committee of Safety may refer to:*English Committee of Safety, the parliamentary body in England that oversaw the English Civil War*Committee of Safety , established throughout the Thirteen Colonies at the start of the American Revolution...
, 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 Act and U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower signed it into law. (The act excluded Palmyra Atoll
Palmyra Atoll
Palmyra Atoll is an essentially unoccupied equatorial Northern Pacific atoll administered as an unorganized incorporated territory by the United States federal government...
, 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; however, as a matter of international law, the United Nations
United Nations
The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace...
decolonization
Decolonization
Decolonization refers to the undoing of colonialism, the unequal relation of polities whereby one people or nation establishes and maintains dependent Territory over another...
committee later removed Hawaii from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
The United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is a list of countries that, according to the United Nations, are non-decolonized. The list was initially prepared in 1946 pursuant to Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter, and has been updated by the General Assembly on recommendation...
.
De jure
De jure is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact".De jure = 'Legally', De facto = 'In fact'....
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 Texan and Alaskan Independence Movements. Hawaiian sovereignty proponents and some scholars believe that Hawaii's history as an independent nation, the token presence of the U.S. military,
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
Legal status of Texas
The legal status of Texas is the standing of Texas as a political entity. The legal status of Texas relative to the United States of America has been the subject of debate. Texas is considered to be a state under the sovereignty of the United States of America. United States sovereignty over 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
Union Army
The Union Army was the land force that fought for the Union during the American Civil War. It was also known as the Federal Army, the U.S. Army, the Northern Army and the National Army...
.
Sovereignty organizations
Hawaiian Kingdom Government- Nalayne Mahealani Asing heads 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", 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 for Hawaii are:
- Asing recently lost an appeal regarding a divorce judgment under the government and laws of the State of Hawaii.
The Hawaiian Kingdom - Dr. David Keanu Sai
- In December 2008, David Keanu Sai received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
- Claims to be the Acting Minister of the Interior of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a result of the Doctrine of NecessityDoctrine of necessityThe term Doctrine of Necessity is a term used to describe the basis on which extra-legal actions by state actors, which are designed to restore order, are found to be constitutional...
.
- Has a large group of supporters and has compiled a complex political and legal argument for the restoration process.
- Convicted of felony attempted theft of land in 1999. His appeal was denied July 20, 2004.
- Dr. David Keanu Sai reportedly has two forthcoming books titled, "American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Beginning the Transition from Occupied to Restored State" and "Land Titles in the Hawaiian Islands: From Origins to the Present." These two books will apparently be published by the University of Hawai'i Press. The former was apparently Dr. Sai's Doctoral Dissertation.
- While a graduate-student at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Dr. Sai co-founded the Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics. The Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics is an academic club at the University of Hawai'i and a registered independent organization, like several other student organizations, under the "Co-curricular Activities, Programs, and Services department. The organization's membership is described as multi-disciplinary with members from different academic graduate disciplines at the university.
Kingdom of Hawai'i - Edmund Keali'i Silva
- Claims to be King of Hawaii based on ancestry. Has published a declaration of independence on the web.
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 ClintonBill ClintonWilliam Jefferson "Bill" Clinton is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. Inaugurated at age 46, he was the third-youngest president. He took office at the end of the Cold War, and was the first president of the baby boomer generation...
allegedly addressing him as "Head of State Hawaii".
- 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.
John Kekoa Lake (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
James Kimo Akahi
Akahi Nui
James Kimo Akahi, also known as Akahi Nui is a claimant to the lapsed throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii.-Claim to the Throne:...
- Claims to be King of Hawaii based on ancestry. Supports a return to the 1840 constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii. On March 29, 2001 Judge Shackley F. Raffetto of the 2nd circuit court on Maui sentenced Akahi NuiAkahi NuiJames Kimo Akahi, also known as Akahi Nui is a claimant to the lapsed throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii.-Claim to the Throne:...
to a five year prison term after he was convicted of criminal trespass in the second degree.
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
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Permanent Court of Arbitration , is an international organization based in The Hague in the Netherlands.-History:The court was established in 1899 as one of the acts of the first Hague Peace Conference, which makes it the oldest institution for international dispute resolution.The creation of...
at the Hague. 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 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
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Permanent Court of Arbitration , is an international organization based in The Hague in the Netherlands.-History:The court was established in 1899 as one of the acts of the first Hague Peace Conference, which makes it the oldest institution for international dispute resolution.The creation of...
at the Hague as an affirmation of their beliefs. David Sai, in his 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:
...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.
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:
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..
Critics assert that it was just theatrics, and that both Larsen and Sai have done their best to conflate the Permanent Court of Arbitration
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Permanent Court of Arbitration , is an international organization based in The Hague in the Netherlands.-History:The court was established in 1899 as one of the acts of the first Hague Peace Conference, which makes it the oldest institution for international dispute resolution.The creation of...
and the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands...
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
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Permanent Court of Arbitration , is an international organization based in The Hague in the Netherlands.-History:The court was established in 1899 as one of the acts of the first Hague Peace Conference, which makes it the oldest institution for international dispute resolution.The creation of...
is not part of the U.N., is open to private parties, and that appearance at the Permanent Court of Arbitration
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Permanent Court of Arbitration , is an international organization based in The Hague in the Netherlands.-History:The court was established in 1899 as one of the acts of the first Hague Peace Conference, which makes it the oldest institution for international dispute resolution.The creation of...
does not require nor imply any sort of legal international standing.
Petitions to the International Court of Justice
The 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: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.'
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, (2009)
According to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court of March 31, 2009, the "whereas" clauses of the 1993 Congressional Apology Resolution have no binding effect, and the resolution does not change or modify the "absolute" title to the public lands of the State of Hawaii. The decision also affirmed that federal legislation cannot retroactively cloud title given as a part of statehood in general and that the State of Hawaii has the title to all land transferred to it from the federal government in 1959.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.
- 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."
- 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
- 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.
- 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
John Tyler Morgan
John Tyler Morgan was a general in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War, and a six-term U.S. senator from the state of Alabama after the war. He was a strong supporter of states rights and racial segregation through the Reconstruction era. He was an expansionist, arguing for...
. 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.
- 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.
- United States Commission on Civil Rights Report May 4, 2006
Considering the Akaka Bill
Akaka Bill
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 S1011/HR2314 is a bill before the 111th Congress. It is commonly known as the Akaka Bill after Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who has proposed various forms of this bill since 2000....
, 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
Akaka Bill
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 S1011/HR2314 is a bill before the 111th Congress. It is commonly known as the Akaka Bill after Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who has proposed various forms of this bill since 2000....
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 ResolutionNewlands ResolutionThe Newlands Resolution, was a joint resolution written by and named after United States Congressman Francis G. Newlands. It was an Act of Congress to annex the Republic of Hawaii and create the Territory of Hawaii....
July 4, 1898 - Organic Act April 30, 1900
- Apology Resolution November 23, 1993
See also
- Legal status of AlaskaLegal status of AlaskaThe legal status of Alaska is the standing of Alaska as a political entity. Generally, the debate has primarily surrounded the legal status of Alaska relative to the United States of America. Alaska is considered to be a sovereign state of the United States of America...
- Tribal sovereigntyTribal sovereigntyTribal sovereignty in the United States refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. The federal government recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and has established a number of laws attempting to...
- Legal status of TexasLegal status of TexasThe legal status of Texas is the standing of Texas as a political entity. The legal status of Texas relative to the United States of America has been the subject of debate. Texas is considered to be a state under the sovereignty of the United States of America. United States sovereignty over Texas...
- Republic of Texas (group)Republic of Texas (group)The Republic of Texas is a militia group that claims that the annexation of Texas by the United States was illegal and that Texas remains an independent nation under occupation. The issue of the Legal status of Texas led the group to claim to reinstate a provisional government on December 13, 1995...