Kingdom of Hawaii
|Kingdom of Hawaii
Aupuni Mōʻī o Hawaiʻi
|In exile (1893 – 1895)|
Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono
God Save the King (till 1860)
E Ola Ke Aliʻi Ke Akua (1860–1866)
He Mele Lāhui Hawaiʻi (1866–1876)
Hawaiʻi Ponoʻi (1876–1898)
Kingdom of Hawaii
|-||1795–1819||Kamehameha I (first)|
|-||1819–1832||Kaʻahumanu I (first)|
|-||Upper house||House of Nobles|
|-||Lower house||House of Representatives|
|-||Unification||April/May or Summer of 1810|
|-||Constitutional monarchy||October 8, 1840|
|-||Occupation by Great Britain||February 25 – July 31, 1843|
|-||Monarchy overthrown||January 17, 1893|
|-||Defunct||January 24, 1895|
The Kingdom of Hawaii was established during the years 1795 to 1810 with the subjugation of the smaller independent chiefdoms of Oʻahu, Maui, Molokaʻi, Lānaʻi, Kauaʻi and Niʻihau by the chiefdom of Hawaiʻi (or the "Big Island") into one unified government. The Kingdom was overthrown in January 17, 1893.
- 1 History
- 2 Kamehameha Dynasty
- 3 Kalākaua Dynasty
- 4 Territorial extent
- 5 Royal estates
- 6 Notable Hawaiians
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 External links
|This section needs additional citations for verification. (November 2013)|
A series of violent battles, lasting 15 years, was led by the warrior chief who would become Kamehameha the Great. The Kingdom of Hawaii was established with the help of western weapons and advisors, such as John Young and Isaac Davis. Although successful in attacking both Oʻahu and Maui, he failed to secure a victory in Kauaʻi, his effort hampered by a storm and a plague that decimated his army. Eventually, Kauaʻi's chief swore allegiance to Kamehameha. The unification ended the ancient Hawaiian society, transforming it into an independent constitutional monarchy crafted in the traditions and manner of European monarchs.
The Hawaiian army and navy developed from the warriors of Kona under Kamehameha I, who unified Hawaii in 1810. The army and navy used both traditional canoes and uniforms including helmets made of natural materials and loincloths (called the Malo) as well as western technology like artillery cannons, muskets, and European ships. European advisors were captured, treated well and became Hawaiian citizens. When Kamehameha died in 1819 he left his son Liholiho a large arsenal with tens of thousands of men and many warships. This helped put down the revolt at Kuamoʻo later in 1819 and Humehume's rebellion on Kauai in 1824.
During the Kamehameha Dynasty the population in Hawaii was ravaged by epidemics following the arrival of outsiders. The military shrank with the population, so by the end of the Dynasty there was no Hawaiian navy and only an army, consisting of several hundred troops. After a French invasion that sacked Honolulu in 1849 Kamehameha III sought treaties with the United States and Britain to become a protectorate state. During the outbreak of the Crimean War, in Europe, Kamehameha III declared Hawaii a neutral state. After Hawaii became a protectorate of the United States strong pressure was put on Kamehameha IV to make trade exclusively to the United States even annexing the islands. To counterbalance this situation Kamehameha IV and Kamehameha V pushed for alliances with other foreign powers, especially Great Britain. Hawaii claimed uninhabited islands in the Pacific including the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, many of which came into conflict with American claims.
Following the Kamehameha Dynasty the royal guards were disbanded under Lunalilo after a barracks revolt in September 1873 until his death leaving Hawaii solely protected by the United States who had wavering support of the monarchy. The small army was restored under King Kalakaua but failed to stop the 1887 Rebellion by the Missionary Party. In 1891 Queen Liliʻuokalani came to power. Following the elections 1892 with petitions and request from her administration to change the constitution of 1887. The US protectorate policy was that at least one U.S. cruiser must be present in Hawaii at all times. So, on January 17, 1893, Liliʻuokalani, believing the U.S. military would intervene if she changed the constitution, waited for the USS Boston to leave port. Once it was known that Liliʻuokalani was revising the constitution, the Boston was recalled and assisted the Missionary Party in her overthrow. In 1993, the U.S. Congress passed the Apology Resolution, admitting wrongdoing and issuing an apology. Following the overthrow and the establishment of the Provisional Government of Hawaii the Kingdom's military was disarmed and disbanded.
From 1810 to 1893, the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was ruled by two major dynastic families: the House of Kamehameha and the Kalākaua Dynasty. Five members of the Kamehameha family led the government as king. Liholiho (Kamehameha II) and Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III), were direct sons of Kamehameha the Great. For a period of Liholiho and Kauikeaouli's reigns, the primary wife of Kamehameha the Great, Queen Kaʻahumanu, ruled as Queen Regent and Kuhina Nui, or Prime Minister.
The French Incident (1839)
Under the rule of Queen Kaʻahumanu, the powerful newly converted Protestant widow of Kamehameha the Great, Catholicism was illegal in Hawaii, and in 1831 chiefs loyal to her forcibly deported French Catholic priests. Native Hawaiian converts to Catholicism claimed to have been imprisoned, beaten and tortured after the expulsion of the priests. The prejudice against the French Catholic missionaries remained the same under the reign of her successor, the Kuhina Nui Kaʻahumanu II.
In 1839 Captain Laplace of the French frigate Artémise sailed to Hawaii under orders to:
- Destroy the malevolent impression which you find established to the detriment of the French name; to rectify the erroneous opinion which has been created as to the power of France; and to make it well understood that it would be to the advantage of the chiefs of those islands of the Ocean to conduct themselves in such a manner as not to incur the wrath of France. You will exact, if necessary with all the force that is yours to use, complete reparation for the wrongs which have been committed, and you will not quit those places until you have left in all minds a solid and lasting impression.
Under the threat of war, King Kamehameha III signed the Edict of Toleration on July 17, 1839 and paid the $20,000 in compensation for the deportation of the priests and the incarceration and torture of converts, agreeing to Laplace's demands. The kingdom proclaimed:
- That the Catholic worship be declared free, throughout all the dominions subject to the King of the Sandwich Islands; the members of this religious faith shall enjoy in them the privileges granted to Protestants.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu returned unpersecuted and as reparation Kamehameha III donated land for them to build a church upon.
The Paulet Affair (1843)
An even more serious threat occurred on February 13, 1843. Lord George Paulet of the Royal Navy warship HMS Carysfort, entered Honolulu Harbor and demanded that King Kamehameha III cede the islands to the British Crown. Under the guns of the frigate, Kamehameha III surrendered to Paulet on February 25, writing to his people:
"Where are you, chiefs, people, and commons from my ancestors, and people from foreign lands?
Hear ye! I make known to you that I am in perplexity by reason of difficulties into which I have been brought without cause, therefore I have given away the life of our land. Hear ye! but my rule over you, my people, and your privileges will continue, for I have hope that the life of the land will be restored when my conduct is justified.Kamehameha III
Done at Honolulu, Oahu, this 25th day of February, 1843.
Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, a missionary who had become the Minister of Finance for the Kingdom, secretly arranged for J.F.B. Marshall to be envoy to the United States, France and Britain, to protest Paulet's actions. Marshall, a commercial agent of Ladd & Co., conveyed the Kingdom's complaint to the Vice Consul of Britain in Tepec. Rear Admiral Richard Darton Thomas, Paulet's commanding officer, arrived at Honolulu harbor on July 26, 1843 on HMS Dublin from Valparaíso, Chile. Admiral Thomas apologized to Kamehameha III for Paulet's actions, and restored Hawaiian sovereignty on July 31, 1843. In his restoration speech, Kamehameha III declared that "Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono" (The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness), the motto of the future State of Hawaii.
The French Invasion (1849)
In August 1849, French admiral Louis Tromelin arrived in Honolulu Harbor with the La Poursuivante and Gassendi. De Tromelin made ten demands to King Kamehameha III on August 22, mainly demanding that full religious rights be given to Catholics, (a decade earlier, during the French Incident the ban on Catholicism had been lifted, but Catholics still enjoyed only partial religious rights). On August 25 the demands had not been met. After a second warning was made to the civilians, French troops overwhelmed the skeleton force and captured Honolulu Fort, spiked the coastal guns and destroyed all other weapons they found (mainly muskets and ammunition). They raided government buildings and general property in Honolulu, causing damage that amounted to $100,000. After the raids the invasion force withdrew to the fort. De Tromelin eventually recalled his men and left Hawaii on September 5.
Anticipating this foreign encroachment on Hawaiian territory, King Kamehameha III had dispatched a delegation to the United States and Europe to secure the recognition of Hawaiian Independence. Timoteo Haʻalilio, William Richards and Sir George Simpson were commissioned as joint Ministers Plenipotentiary on April 8, 1842. Sir George Simpson left for Great Britain while Haʻalilio and Richards to the United States on July 8, 1842. The Hawaiian delegation secured the assurance of U.S. President John Tyler on December 19, 1842 of Hawaiian independence, and then met Simpson in Europe to secure formal recognition by the United Kingdom and France. On March 17, 1843, King Louis-Philippe of France recognized Hawaiian independence at the urging of King Leopold I of Belgium. On April 1, 1843, Lord Aberdeen on behalf of Queen Victoria, assured the Hawaiian delegation that, "Her Majesty's Government was willing and had determined to recognize the independence of the Sandwich Islands under their present sovereign."
The Formation of the Acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom: With the knowledge that the Hawaiian Kingdom was a recognized State under international law since November 28, 1843, and that the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government on January 17, 1893 by the United States did not equate to an overthrow of Hawaiian State sovereignty, extraordinary steps were taken in order to establish an acting government through a process provided for by Hawaiian Kingdom law as it existed in 1893, and by the legal doctrine of necessity. On December 15, 1995, a general partnership was formed under the 1880 Act to Provide for the Registration of Co-partnership Firms with the specific purpose to serve as an acting government in the absence of the monarch who was the chief executive of Hawaiian law and administration of government. A plan was devised to activate a regent  under Article 33 of the Hawaiian Constitution to temporarily serve in the absence of a monarch, because to claim to be a monarch would be a direct violation of Hawaiian law. Since the death of Prince Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole in 1922, the last proclaimed heir to the throne prior to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government, only the Legislative Assembly has the authority under Article 22 of the Hawaiian Constitution to elect by ballot a new monarch—any other claimant would be self-proclaimed. Lunalilo was elected King by the Legislative Assembly under Article 22 of the Constitution on January 8, 1873 because King Kamehameha V was not able to confirm an heir under Hawaiian law, and the following year, David Kalakaua was elected King under Article 22 because King Lunalilo was not able to confirm an heir as well. A regency was the only legal option to reactivate the government.
According to the Co-partnership Act, Hawaiian Kingdom law required partnership agreements to be recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances as part of the registration process with the Minister of Interior. Today, the Bureau of Conveyances still exists and you will find partnership agreements that have been registered since 1880 to 1893. In fact, the State of Hawai‘i governmental infrastructure is the governmental infrastructure of the Hawaiian Kingdom. All that was changed since 1893 were the titles and additional departments, i.e. Monarch to Governor, Governors to Mayors, Department of Interior to Department of Land and Natural Resources, Department of Finance to Department of Accounting and General Services, Department of Education remained, Attorney General remained, Judicial Circuits remained, etc.
In its co-partnership agreement establishing the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company which was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances and assigned document no. 96-000263, the partnership agreement specifically states the “company will serve in the capacity of acting for and on behalf the Hawaiian Kingdom government.” It also provided that the “company has adopted the Hawaiian constitution of 1864 and the laws lawfully established in the administration of the same.” The Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company was specifically established to regulate and ensure that Perfect Title Company another co-partnership established on December 10, 1995, comply with the Co-partnership Act and Hawaiian Kingdom law.
The acting government was not established by virtue of Hawaiian Kingdom law, but rather by virtue of the legal doctrine of necessity though the use and application of Hawaiian Kingdom law. As in any constitutional government, there is an organizational infrastructure established under the constitution and laws that provides for its effective administration. Within this infrastructure, co-partnerships come under the direct supervision of the office of the Minister of the Interior; the Minister of the Interior sits on the Cabinet Council comprised of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Attorney General; and the Cabinet Council serves as a Council of Regency who serves in the absence of a monarch according to Article 33 of the Hawaiian constitution.
In the absence of individuals occupying these offices established by Hawaiian law since January 17, 1893, the Trustees of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company took the necessary steps, under extraordinary circumstances and under the doctrine of necessity to assume the offices directly in line from a co-partnership through the Minister of the Interior to the Council of Regency. This is analogous to a soldier with the rank of Private assuming the chain of command to Lieutenant, because everyone within the chain of command from Corporal to Sergeant to Staff Sergeant to Lieutenant were killed in action. Under Army regulations the most senior Private is obligated to assume the chain of command and is called acting Lieutenant in order to maintain the command structure. He remains the acting Lieutenant until a properly commissioned officer relieves him and then he returns to his original position as Private. For a private company to assume the role of government is revolutionary, but in order for this action to not be considered treason, the doctrine of necessity can be used to justify the assumption of government. According to Professor de Smith in his book Constitutional and Administrative Law, deviations from a State’s constitutional order “can be justified on grounds of necessity.” He argues, “State necessity has been judicially accepted in recent years as a legal justification for ostensibly unconstitutional action to fill a vacuum arising within the constitutional order [and to] this extent it has been recognized as an implied exception to the letter of the constitution.” In 1986, the Court of Appeals of Grenada in Mitchell v. Director of Public Prosecutions, addressed the doctrine of necessity and provided the following conditions that would justify an action to assume the role of government.
· An imperative necessity must arise because of the existence of exceptional circumstances not provided for in the Constitution, for immediate action to be taken to protect or preserve some vital function of the State; · There must be no other course of action reasonably available; · Any such action must be reasonably necessary in the interest of peace, order, and good government; but it must not do more than is necessary or legislate beyond that; · It must not impair the just rights of citizens under the Constitution; and, · It must not be one the sole effect and intention of which is to consolidate or strengthen the revolution as such.
On March 1, 1996, the Trustees appointed David Keanu Sai, who later received his Ph.D. in 2008, to serve in the capacity as acting Regent to head the government. Dr. Sai is also the maternal great grandson of William Kuakini Simerson and the paternal great great grandson of Julia Kapapakuialii Kalaninuipoaimoku, both of whom who was confirmed by the Hawaiian Board of Genealogists of Hawaiian Chiefs to be “native chiefs” in conformity with the 1880 Act to Perpetuate the Geneology of the Chiefs of Hawai’i. The purpose of enacting the statute was provided in its preamble, which states:
· Whereas, it is provided by the 22d article of the Constitution that the Kings of Hawai‘i shall be chosen from the native chiefs of the Kingdom; · And Whereas, at the present day it is difficult to ascertain who are the chiefs, as contemplated by said article of the Constitution, and it is proper that such genealogies of the Kingdom be perpetuated, and also the history of the chiefs and kings from ancient times down to the present day, which would also be a guide to the King in the appointment of Nobles in the Legislative Assembly.
The Board of Genealogy of Hawaiian Chiefs was established by law to “collect from genealogical books, and from the knowledge of old people the history and genealogy of the Hawaiian chiefs, and shall publish a book.” As a result of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government, however, the Board published the genealogies of native chiefs living at the time between April 20 and November 30, 1896 in the newspaper publication Ka Maka’ainana.
After assuming the role of government, the acting Regency had to display some form of legal effects, which is a crucial element of legitimacy. In order for a government to be legitimate, it has to be effective both within its territory to enforce its laws and outside of its territory to enforce international law. An exception to the principle of effectiveness is the occupation by another State’s forces. According to Professor Marek in her book Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, “the legal order of the occupant (State) is…strictly subject to the principle of effectiveness, while the legal order of the occupied State continues to exist [despite] the absence of effectiveness. It can produce legal effects outside the occupied territory and may develop and expand, not by reason of its effectiveness, but solely on the basis of the positive international rule safeguarding its continuity.”
The first instance of exhibiting legal effects outside the occupied territory occurred when the acting government entered into an arbitration agreement with Lance Larsen, a Hawaiian national, to submit their dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands. In 2001, the American Journal of International Law reported:
· “At the center of the PCA proceeding was the argument that Hawaiians never directly relinquished to the United States their claim of inherent sovereignty either as a people or over their national lands, and accordingly 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 Hawaii. 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.”
The arbitral proceedings led to the United States de facto recognition of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State, and the acting government as officers de facto of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In February 2000, the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Secretary General Tjaco T. van den Hout recommended that the acting government provide a formal invitation to the United States to join in the arbitration. In order to carry out this request by the Secretary General, Dr. Sai was sent to Washington, D.C. Ms. Ninia Parks, attorney for the Claimant Lance Larsen, accompanied Dr. Sai. On March 3, 2000, a telephone meeting with John R. Crook, Assistant Legal Adviser for United Nations Affairs section of the US Department of State, was held. It was stated to Mr. Crook that the “visit was to provide these documents to the Legal Department of the U.S. Department of State in order for the U.S. Government to be apprised of the arbitral proceedings already in train and that the Hawaiian Kingdom, by consent of the Claimant, extends an opportunity for the United States to join in the arbitration as a party.”
Mr. Crook was made fully aware of the United States occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the establishment of the acting government. This direct challenge to US sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands should have prompted the United States to protest the action taken by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in accepting the Hawaiian arbitration case and call upon the Secretary General to cease and desist because this action constitutes a violation of US sovereignty. The United States did neither. Instead, Deputy Secretary General Phyllis Hamilton notified the acting government that the United States notified the Court that it will not join in the arbitration, but did request from the acting government permission to access all pleadings and transcripts of the case. Both the acting government and Larsen’s attorney consented. By this action, the United States directly acknowledged the circumstances of the proceedings and the acting government as the legitimate representation of the Hawaiian Kingdom before an international tribunal.
On December 12, 2000, the day after oral hearings were held at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a meeting took place in Brussels between Dr. Jacques Bihozagara, Ambassador for the Republic of Rwanda assigned to Belgium, and the acting government. The meeting was prompted by Ambassador Bihozagara who called the acting government at its hotel in The Hague, after the Ambassador was apprised of the arbitration proceedings while he was attending a hearing at the International Court of Justice on December 8, 2000, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium. At the meeting in Brussels, the Rwandan government directly acknowledged the acting government and offered their assistance in reporting to the United Nations General Assembly the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In that meeting, the acting government decided it could not, in good conscience, accept the offer and place Rwanda in a position of reintroducing Hawaiian State continuity before the United Nations, when Hawai‘i’s community, itself, remained ignorant of Hawai‘i’s profound legal position as a result of institutionalized indoctrination. Although the Rwandan government took no action before the United Nations General Assembly, the offer itself, exhibited Rwanda’s de facto recognition of the acting government and the continuity of the Hawaiian State.
Other examples of creating legal effects on the international plane include: · China, as President of the U.N. Security Council, accepted a complaint by the acting government against the United States of America on July 5, 2001 under Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter, which provides that States who are not members of the United Nations can file a dispute with the Security Council or General Assembly. By accepting the complaint, China recognized the acting government and the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom; · Qatar, as President of the UN General Assembly accepted a Protest and Demand by the acting government against 173 member States of the United Nations on August 10, 2012 under Article 35(2) of the UN Charter. By accepting the complaint, Qatar, recognized the acting government and the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom; · The International Criminal Court, by the Secretary General of the United Nations accepted the acting government accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on December 10, 2012; · Switzerland, by its Foreign Ministry, accepted the acting government’s instrument of accession acceding to the Fourth Geneva Convention on January 14, 2013. · The International Court of Justice, by its Registrar, acknowledged receipt of the acting government’s Application Instituting Proceedings against 45 States on September 27, 2013.
The acting government, as nationals of an occupied State, took the necessary and extraordinary steps, by necessity and according to the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom and international law, to reestablish the Hawaiian government in an acting capacity in order to exercise our country’s preeminent right to “self-preservation” that was deprived through fraud and deceit; and for the past 13 years the acting government has acquired a customary right under international law in representing the Hawaiian State during this prolonged and illegal occupation.
On November 28, 1843, at the Court of London, the British and French Governments formally recognized Hawaiian independence. The "Anglo-Franco Proclamation", a joint declaration by France and Britain, signed by King Louis-Philippe and Queen Victoria, assured the Hawaiian delegation that:
Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of the French, taking into consideration the existence in the Sandwich Islands (Hawaiian Islands) of a government capable of providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign nations, have thought it right to engage, reciprocally, to consider the Sandwich Islands as an Independent State, and never to take possession, neither directly or under the title of Protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed.
The undersigned, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs, and the Ambassador Extraordinary of His Majesty the King of the French, at the Court of London, being furnished with the necessary powers, hereby declare, in consequence, that their said Majesties take reciprocally that engagement.
In witness whereof the undersigned have signed the present declaration, and have affixed thereto the seal of their arms.
Done in duplicate at London, the 28th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1843.
" 'ABERDEEN. [L.S.]
" 'ST. AULAIRE. [L.S.],
Hawaiʻi was thus the first non-European indigenous state to be admitted into the Family of Nations. The United States declined to join with France and the United Kingdom in this statement. Even though President John Tyler had verbally recognized Hawaiian Independence, it was not until 1849 that the United States formally recognized Hawaii as a fellow nation.
November 28 became a national holiday to celebrate the recognition of Hawaii's independence. The Hawaiian Kingdom entered into treaties with most major nations and established over ninety legations and consulates.
Dynastic rule by the Kamehameha family ended in 1872 with the death of Kamehameha V. Upon his deathbed, he summoned High Chiefess Bernice Pauahi Bishop to declare his intentions of making her heir to the throne. She and her cousin, Princess Ruth Keʻelikōlani were among the last legal surviving Kamehameha family members. Bernice refused the crown and Kamehameha V died before naming an alternative heir.
The refusal of Bishop to take the crown forced the legislature of the Kingdom to elect a new monarch. From 1872 to 1873, several distant relatives of the Kamehameha line were nominated. In a ceremonial popular vote and a unanimous legislative vote, William C. Lunalilo, grandnephew of Kamehameha I, became Hawaiiʻis first of two elected monarchs, but only reigned from 1873–1874.
Like his predecessor, Lunalilo failed to name an heir to the throne. Once again, the legislature of the Kingdom of Hawaii needed an election to fill the royal vacancy. Queen Emma, widow of Kamehameha IV, was nominated along with David Kalākaua. The 1874 election was a nasty political campaign in which both candidates resorted to mudslinging and innuendo. David Kalākaua became the second elected King of Hawaii but without the ceremonial popular vote of Lunalilo. The choice of the legislature was controversial, and U.S. and British troops were called upon to suppress rioting by Queen Emma's supporters, the Emmaites.
Hoping to avoid uncertainty in the monarchy's future, Kalākaua proclaimed several heirs to the throne to define a line of succession. His sister Liliʻuokalani would succeed the throne upon Kalākaua's death, with Princess Victoria Kaʻiulani to follow. If she could not produce an heir by birth, Prince David Lamea Kawananakoa then Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole would rule after her.
In 1887, a constitution was drafted by Lorrin A. Thurston, Minister of Interior under King Kalākaua. The constitution was proclaimed by the king after a meeting of 3,000 residents including an armed militia demanded he sign it or be deposed. The document created a constitutional monarchy like the United Kingdom's, stripping the King of most of his personal authority, empowering the legislature and establishing cabinet government. It has since become widely known as the "Bayonet Constitution" because of the threat of force used to gain Kalākaua's cooperation.
The 1887 constitution empowered the citizenry to elect members of the House of Nobles (who had previously been appointed by the King). It increased the value of property a citizen must own to be eligible to vote above the previous Constitution of 1864 and denied voting rights to Asians who comprised a large proportion of the population. (A few Japanese and some Chinese had previously become naturalized and now lost voting rights they had previously enjoyed.) This guaranteed a voting monopoly to wealthy native Hawaiians and Europeans. The Bayonet Constitution continued allowing the monarch to appoint cabinet ministers, but stripped him of the power to dismiss them without approval from the Legislature.
The draft constitution was completed in just five days. The King was forced to sign on July 6, and thereafter the 1887 Constitution presumably annulled the former constitution, and was declared to be the new law of the land. The King’s sister and heir apparent, Lili`uokalani, discovered later that her brother had signed the constitution “because he had every assurance, short of actual demonstration, that the conspirators were ripe for revolution, and had taken measures to have him assassinated if he refused.”  Charles T. Gulick, who served as Minister of the Interior from 1883 to 1886, also concluded: The ready acquiescence of the King to their demands seriously disconcerted the conspirators, as they had hoped that his refusal would have given them an excuse for deposing him, and a show of resistance a justification for assassinating him. Then everything would have been plain sailing for their little oligarchy, with a sham republican constitution.
This so-called constitution was never submitted to the Legislative Assembly or to a popular vote of the people. It was drafted by a select group of twenty-one individuals  that effectively placed control of the Legislature and Cabinet in the hands of individuals who held foreign allegiances. The constitution reinstituted a bi-cameral legislature and an election of Nobles replaced appointments by the King. Property qualifications were reinstituted for candidates of both Nobles and Representatives. And the cabinet could only be removed by the legislature on a question of want of confidence. The new property qualifications had the purpose of ensuring that Nobles remained in the hands of non-natives, which would serve as a controlling factor over the House of Representatives. Blount reported:
For the first time in the history of the country the number of nobles is made equal to the number of representatives. This furnished a veto power over the representatives of the popular vote to the nobles, who were selected by persons mostly holding foreign allegiance, and not subjects of the Kingdom. The election of a single representative by the foreign element gave to it the legislature.
So powerful was the native vote that resident aliens of American or European nationality were allowed to cast their vote in the election of the new legislature without renouncing their foreign citizenship and allegiance. Included in this group were the contract laborers from Portugal’s Madeira and Azores Islands who emigrated to the kingdom after 1878 under labor contracts for the sugar plantations. League members owned these plantations. Despite the fact that very few, if any, of these workers could even read or write, league members utilized this large voting block specifically to neutralize the native vote. According to Blount:
These ignorant laborers were taken before the election from the cane fields in large numbers by the overseer before the proper officer to administer the oath and then carried to the polls and voted according to the will of the plantation manager. Why was this done? In the language of the Chief Justice Judd, “to balance the native vote with the Portuguese vote.” This same purpose is admitted by all persons here. Again, large numbers of Americans, Germans, English, and other foreigners unnaturalized were permitted to vote…
Leading up to the elections that were to be held on September 12, there was public outcry on the manner in which the constitution was obtained through the King and not through the Legislature as provided for by the 1864 constitution. On August 30, 1887, British Consul Wodehouse reported to the British Government the new Cabinet’s response to these protests. He wrote, “The new Administration which was dictated by the “Honolulu Rifles” now 300 strong does not give universal satisfaction, and…Attorney General Ashford is reported to have said ‘that they, the Administration, would carry the elections if necessary at the point of the bayonet.’”  The election “took place with the foreign population well armed and the troops hostile to the crown and people.” James Blount also concluded that foreign ships anchored in Honolulu harbor during this time “must have restrained the native mind or indeed any mind from a resort to physical force,” and the natives’ “means of resistance was naturally what was left of political power.”
In 1891, Kalākaua died and his sister Liliʻuokalani assumed the throne. She came to power during an economic crisis precipitated in part by the McKinley Tariff. By rescinding the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875, the new tariff eliminated the previous advantage Hawaiian exporters enjoyed in trade to U.S. markets. Many Hawaiian businesses and citizens were feeling the pressures of the loss of revenue, so Liliʻuokalani proposed a lottery and opium licensing to bring in additional revenue for the government. Her ministers and closest friends tried to dissuade her from pursuing the bills, and these controversial proposals were used against her in the looming constitutional crisis.
Liliʻuokalani wanted to restore power to the monarch by abrogating the 1887 Constitution. The queen launched a campaign resulting in a petition to proclaim a new Constitution. Many citizens and residents who in 1887 had forced Kalākaua to sign the "Bayonet Constitution" became alarmed when three of her recently appointed cabinet members informed them that the queen was planning to unilaterally proclaim her new Constitution. Some cabinet ministers were reported to have feared for their safety after upsetting the queen by not supporting her plans.
In 1893, local businessmen and politicians, composed of six non-native Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, five American nationals, one British national, and one German national, all who were living and doing business in Hawaii, overthrew the queen, her cabinet and her marshal, and took over the government of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi.
Historians suggest that businessmen were in favor of overthrow and annexation to the U.S. in order to benefit from more favorable trade conditions with its main export market. The McKinley Tariff of 1890 eliminated the previously highly favorable trade terms for Hawaii's sugar exports, a main component of the economy.
In response to Liliʻuokalani's move, a group of European and American residents formed a "Committee of Safety" on January 14, 1893 in opposition to the Queen and her plans. After a mass meeting of supporters, the Committee committed itself to the removal of the Queen, and seeking annexation to the United States.
United States Government Minister John L. Stevens summoned a company of uniformed U.S. Marines from the USS Boston and two companies of U.S. sailors to land on the Kingdom and take up positions at the U.S. Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall on the afternoon of January 16, 1893. This deployment was at the request of the Committee of Safety, which claimed an "imminent threat to American lives and property". Stevens was accused of ordering the landing himself on his own authority, and inappropriately using his discretion. Historian William Russ concluded that "the injunction to prevent fighting of any kind made it impossible for the monarchy to protect itself".:350
There is no dispute between the United States and Hawai`i over the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government that took place on January 17, 1893, just non-compliance to an already agreed settlement. In a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the traitors, described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress," and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown. It was further stated, “Therefore the military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property. It must be accounted for in some other way and on some other ground, and its real motive and purpose are neither obscure nor far to seek.”
On or about March 4, 1893, President Cleveland, acknowledged receipt of this assignment and in his Message to Congress on December 18, 1893, confirmed that the Queen “surrendered not absolutely and permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such time as the facts could be considered by the United States.
The Queen agreed to grant “a full pardon and amnesty for their offenses, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof, and that I will forbid and prevent the adoption of any measures of proscription or punishment for what has been done in the past by those setting up or supporting the Provisional Government”.
Settlement is now concluded by way of the Cleveland-Lili’uokalani agreement. The failure of the United States to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law and restore the Hawaiian Kingdom government is a “breach of an international obligation,” and, therefore, an international wrongful act as defined by the 2001 Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, Article 12. The severity of this breach has led to the unlawful seizure of Hawaiian independence, imposition of a foreign nationality upon the citizenry of an occupied State, mass migrations and settlement of foreign citizens, and the economic and military exploitation of Hawaiian territory.
The United States Constitution provides that treaties, like acts of Congress, are considered the law of the land. And that Executive Agreements entered into by the President under his constitutional authority with foreign States are treaties that do not need ratification by the U.S. Senate. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “an act of Congress, passed after a treaty takes effect, must be respected and enforced, despite any previous or existing Treaty provision on the same subject. But this rule can only be applicable as a matter of domestic or municipal law, the international obligation still remaining. (while an Act of Congress that conflicted with a treaty provision “would control in our courts as the later expression of our municipal law…the international obligation [would] remain unaffected”).
1895 Counter-Revolution in Hawaii
On July 17, 1893, Sanford B. Dole and his committee took control of the government and declared itself the Provisional Government of Hawaii "to rule until annexation by the United States" and lobbied the United States for it.:90 Dole was president of both governments. During this time, members of the former government lobbied in Washington for the United States to restore the Hawaiian Kingdom. President Grover Cleveland considered the overthrow to have been an illegal act of war; he refused to consider annexation of the islands and initially worked to restore the queen to her throne. Between December 14, 1893 and January 11, 1894 a standoff occurred between the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom against the Provisional Government to pressure them into returning the Queen known as the Black Week. This incident drove home the message that president Cleveland wanted Queen Liliʻuokalani's return to power, so on July 4, 1894 the Republic of Hawaiʻi was proclaimed to wait for President Cleveland's second term to finish. Also in 1894, as lobbying continued in Washington, the exiled government was secretly amassing an army of 600 strong led by former Captain of the Guard Samuel Nowlein. In 1895 they attempted a counter-rebellion, and Liliʻuokalani was arrested when a weapons cache was found on the palace grounds. She was tried by a military tribunal of the Republic, convicted of treason, and placed under permanent house arrest in her own home.
On January 24, 1895 while under house arrest Liliʻuokalani wrote a five page declaration in which she dissolved the exiled government and formally abdicated the throne to become a citizen of the Republic in order to avoid future acts of violence designed to restore the monarchy. Following this act, the Kingdom of Hawaii was no more.
It was not until a change in administrations to President William McKinley that the Republic of Hawaiʻi succeeded in its goal when in 1898, Congress approved a joint resolution of annexation creating the U.S. Territory of Hawaiʻi. This ostensibly followed the precedent of Texas, which was also purportedly annexed by a joint resolution of Congress after failure to obtain a treaty of annexation. However, the Republic of Texas was not recognized by Mexico, making it disputed territory. Subsequently, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo superseded the purported annexation of Texas by joint resolution. Therefore, unlike Hawaiʻi, Texas was ultimately annexed by a treaty. Dole was appointed to be the first governor of the Territory of Hawaiʻi.
First Attempt to Illegally Annex Hawaiian Islands by Treaty: The Blount investigation found that the United States Legation assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom, together with United States Marines and Naval personnel, were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government with the ultimate goal of transferring the Hawaiian Islands to the United States from an installed government. Blount reported that, “in pursuance of a prearranged plan, the Government thus established hastened off commissioners to Washington to make a treaty for the purpose of annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.” The report also detailed the culpability of the United States government in violating international laws, as well as Hawaiian State territorial sovereignty. On December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland addressed the Congress and he described the United States’ action as an “act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress.” Thus he acknowledged that through such acts the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown. Cleveland further stated that a “substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair,” and committed to Queen Lili`uokalani that the Hawaiian government would be restored. According Professor Krystyna Marek:
It is a well-known rule of customary international law that third States are under a clear duty of non-intervention and non-interference in civil strife within a State. Any such interference is an unlawful act, even if, far from taking the form of military assistance to one of the parties, it is merely confined to premature recognition of the rebel government.
President Cleveland refused to resubmit the annexation treaty to the Senate, but he failed to follow through in his commitment to re-instate the constitutional government as a result of partisan wrangling in the U.S. Congress. In a deliberate move to further isolate the Hawaiian Kingdom from any assistance of other countries and to reinforce and protect the puppet government installed by U.S. officials, the Senate and House of Representatives each passed similar resolutions in 1894 strongly warning other countries “that any intervention in the political affairs of these islands by any other Government will be regarded as an act unfriendly to the United States.” The Hawaiian Kingdom was thrown into civil unrest as a result. Five years passed before Cleveland’s presidential successor, William McKinley, entered into a second treaty of cession with the same individuals who participated in the illegal overthrow with the U.S. legation in 1893, and were now calling themselves the Republic of Hawai`i. This second treaty was signed on June 17, 1897 in Washington, D.C., but would “be taken up immediately upon the convening of Congress next December.”
Protests Prevent Second Attempt to Annex Hawaiian Islands by Treaty: Queen Lili`uokalani was in the United States at the time of the signing of the treaty and protested the second annexation attempt of the country. While in Washington, D.C., the Queen filed a diplomatic protest with the United States Department of State on June 17th1897. The Queen stated, in part:
I, Lili`uokalani of Hawai`i, by the will of God named heir apparent on the tenth day of April, A.D. 1877, and by the grace of God Queen of the Hawaiian Islands on the seventeenth day of January, A.D. 1893, do hereby protest against the ratification of a certain treaty, which, so I am informed, has been signed at Washington by Messrs. Hatch, Thurston, and Kinney, purporting to cede those Islands to the territory and dominion of the United States. I declare such a treaty to be an act of wrong toward the native and part-native people of Hawaii, an invasion of the rights of the ruling chiefs, in violation of international rights both toward my people and toward friendly nations with whom they have made treaties, the perpetuation of the fraud whereby the constitutional government was overthrown, and, finally, an act of gross injustice to me.
Hawaiian political organizations in the Islands filed additional protests with the Department of State in Washington, D.C. These organizations were the Men and Women’s Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha `Aina), and the Hawaiian Political Association (Hui Kalai`aina). In addition, a petition of 21,169 signatures of Hawaiian subjects protesting annexation was filed with the Senate when it convened in December 1897. The Senate was unable to garner enough votes to ratify the so-called treaty, but events would quickly change as war loomed. The Queen and her people would find themselves at the mercy of the United States military once again, as they did when U.S. troops disembarked the U.S.S. Boston in Honolulu harbor without permission from the Hawaiian government on January 16th 1893. The legal significance of these protests creates a fundamental bar to any future claim the United States may assert over the Hawaiian Islands by acquisitive prescription. “Prescription,” according to Professor Gehard von Glahn, “means that a foreign state occupies a portion of territory claimed by a state, encounters no protest by the ‘owner,’ and exercises rights of sovereignty over a long period of time.”
An example of a claim to “prescription” can be found in the Chamizal arbitration, in which the United States claimed prescriptive title to Mexican land. The Rio Grande River that separated the U.S. city of El Paso and the Mexican city of Juarez moved, through natural means, into Mexican territory, thereby creating six hundred acres of dry land on the U.S. side of the river. Over the protests of the Mexican government who called for the renegotiation of the territorial boundaries established since the 1848 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican American war, the State of Texas granted land titles to
American citizens; the United States Government…erected…a custom-house and immigration station; the city authorities of El Paso…erected school houses; the tracks as well as stations and warehouses, of American owned railroads and street railway have been placed thereon.
In 1911, an arbitral commission established by the two States rejected the United States’ claim to prescriptive title and ruled in favor of Mexico. Professor Ian Brownlie, drawing from the 1911 award, confirmed that, “possession must be peaceable to provide a basis for prescription, and, in the opinion of the Commissioners, diplomatic protests by Mexico prevented title arising.” Brownlie further concluded that, “failure to take action which might lead to violence could not be held to jeopardize Mexican rights.” In other words, protests by the Queen and Hawaiian subjects loyal to their country had a significant legal effect in barring the U.S. from any possible future claim over Hawai`i by prescription—failure to continue the protests, which could lead to violence, would not jeopardize vested rights.
Breakout of the Spanish-American War: On April 25, 1898, Congress declared war on Spain. On the following day, President McKinley issued a proclamation that stated, “It being desirable that such war should be conducted upon principles in harmony with the present views of nations and sanctioned by their recent practice.” The Supreme Court later explained that “the proclamation clearly manifests the general policy of the government to conduct the war in accordance with the principles of international law sanctioned by the recent practice of nations.” Clearly, the McKinley administration sought to proclaim before the international community that the war would be conducted in compliance with international law.
Battles were fought in the Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico and Cuba, as well as the Spanish colonies of the Philippines and Guam. After Commodore Dewey defeated the Spanish Fleet in the Philippines on May 1, 1898, the U.S.S. Charleston, a protected cruiser, was re-commissioned on May 5, and ordered to lead a convoy of 2,500 troops to reinforce Dewey in the Philippines and Guam. These troops were boarded on the transport ships of the City of Peking, the City of Sidney and the Australia. In a deliberate violation of Hawaiian neutrality during the war as well as of international law, the convoy, on May 21, set a course to the Hawaiian Islands for re-coaling purposes. The convoy arrived in Honolulu on June 1, and took on 1,943 tons of coal before it left the islands on the 4th of June. A second convoy of troops bound for the Philippines, on the transport ships the China, Zelandia, Colon, and the Senator, arrived in Honolulu on June 23 and took on 1,667 tons of coal. During this time, the supply of coal for belligerent ships entering a neutral port was regulated by international law.
Hawaiian Neutrality Intentionally Violated: Major General Davis, Judge Advocate General for the U.S. Army, notes that “during the American Civil War, the British Government (on January 31, 1862) adopted the rule that a belligerent armed vessel was to be permitted to receive, at any British port, a supply of coal sufficient to enable her to reach a port of her own territory, or nearer destination.” The Philippine Islands were not U.S. territory, but the territory of Spain. As soon as it became apparent that the so-called Republic of Hawai`i, a puppet government of the U.S. since 1893, had welcomed the U.S. naval convoys and assisted in re-coaling their ships, a formal protest was lodged on June 1, 1898 by H. Renjes, Spanish Vice-Counsel in Honolulu. Minister Harold Sewall, from the U.S. Legation in Honolulu, notified Secretary of State William R. Day of the Spanish protest in a dispatch dated June 8. Renjes declared:
In my capacity as Vice Consul for Spain, I have the honor today to enter a formal protest with the Hawaiian Government against the constant violations of Neutrality in this harbor, while actual war exists between Spain and the United States of America.
The 1871 Treaty of Washington between the United States and Great Britain addressed the issue of State neutrality during war, and provided that a “neutral government is bound…not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purposes of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.” Consistent with the 1871 Treaty, Major General Davis, stated that as “hostilities in time of war can only lawfully take place in the territory of either belligerent, or on the high seas, it follows that neutral territory, as such, is entitled to an entire immunity from acts of hostility; it cannot be entered by armed bodies of belligerents, because such an entry would constitute an invasion of the territory, and therefore of the sovereignty, of the neutral.” In an article published in the American Historical Review in 1931, T.A. Bailey stated, “although the United States had given formal notice of the existence of war to the other powers, in order that they might proclaim neutrality, and was jealously watching their behavior, she was flagrantly violating the neutrality of Hawaii.” Bailey continued:
The position of the United States was all the more reprehensible in that she was compelling a weak nation to violate the international law that had to a large degree been formulated by her own stand on the Alabama claims. Furthermore, in line with the precedent established by the Geneva award, Hawaii would be liable for every cent of damage caused by her dereliction as a neutral, and for the United States to force her into this position was cowardly and ungrateful. At the end of the war, Spain or cooperating power would doubtless occupy Hawaii, indefinitely if not permanently, to insure payment of damages, with the consequent jeopardizing of the defenses of the Pacific Coast.
Due to U.S. intervention in 1893 and the subsequent creation of a puppet government, the United States took complete advantage of its own creation in the islands during the Spanish-American war and violated Hawaiian neutrality. Marek argues that:
Puppet governments are organs of the occupant and, as such form part of his legal order. The agreements concluded by them with the occupant are not genuine international agreements, however correct in form; failing a genuine contracting party, such agreements are merely decrees of the occupant disguised as agreements which the occupant in fact concludes with himself. Their measures and laws are those of the occupant.
Newlands Submits Resolution to Annex Hawaiian Islands: After the defeat of the Spanish Pacific Squadron in the Philippines, Congressman Francis Newlands (D-Nevada), submitted a joint resolution for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 4, 1898. Six days later, hearings were held on the Newlands resolution, and in testimony submitted to the committee, U.S. Naval Captain Alfred Mahan explained the military significance of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. Captain Mahan stated:
It is obvious that if we do not hold the islands ourselves we cannot expect the neutrals in the war to prevent the other belligerent from occupying them; nor can the inhabitants themselves prevent such occupation. The commercial value is not great enough to provoke neutral interposition. In short, in war we should need a larger Navy to defend the Pacific coast, because we should have not only to defend our own coast, but to prevent, by naval force, an enemy from occupying the islands; whereas, if we preoccupied them, fortifications could preserve them to us. In my opinion it is not practicable for any trans-Pacific country to invade our Pacific coast without occupying Hawaii as a base.
General John Schofield of the Army also provided testimony to the committee that justified the seizure of the Islands. He stated:
We got a preemption title to those islands through the volunteer action of our American missionaries who went there and civilized and Christianized those people and established a Government that has no parallel in the history of the world, considering its age, and we made a preemption which nobody in the world thinks of disputing, provided we perfect our title. If we do not perfect it in due time, we have lost those islands. Anybody else can come in and undertake to get them. So it seems to me the time is now ripe when this Government should do that which has been in contemplation from the beginning as a necessary consequence of the first action of our people in going there and settling those islands and establishing a good Government and education and the action of our Government from that time forward on every suitable occasion in claiming the right of American influence over those islands, absolutely excluding any other foreign power from any interference.
On May 17, 1898, Congressman Robert Hitt (R-Illinois) reported the Newlands resolution out of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and debates ensued in the House until the resolution was passed on June 15. But even before the resolution reached the Senate on June 16, the Senators were already engaging the topic of annexation by resolution on May 31. During a debate on the Revenue Bill for the maintenance of the war, the topic of the annexation caused the Senate to go into secret executive session. Senator David Turpie (D-Indiana) made a motion to have the Senate enter into secret session and according to Senate rule thirty-five, the galleries were ordered cleared and the doors closed to the public. These session transcripts, however, would later prove to be important.
The Great Charade: Annexation by Congressional Resolution. From June 16 to July 6, the resolution of annexation was in the Senate chambers, and would be the final test of whether or not the annexationists could succeed in their scheme. Only by treaty, whether by cession or conquest, can an owner State, as the grantor, transfer its territorial sovereignty to another State, the grantee, “since cession is a bilateral transaction.” A joint resolution of Congress, on the other hand, is not only a unilateral act, but also municipal legislation about which international law has imposed “strict territorial limits on national assertions of legislative jurisdiction.” Therefore, in order to give the impression of conformity to cessions recognizable under international law, the House resolution embodied the text of the failed treaty. On this note, Senator Bacon (D-Georgia) sarcastically remarked, the “friends of annexation, seeing that it was impossible to make this treaty in the manner pointed out by the Constitution, attempted then to nullify the provision in the Constitution by putting that treaty in the form of a statute, and here we have embodied the provisions of the treaty in the joint resolution which comes to us from the House.” Regarding Congressional authority to annex, the proponents relied on Article IV, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.” Annexationists in both the House and Senate relied on the precedent set by the 28th Congress when it annexed Texas by joint resolution on March 1, 1845. Opponents argued that the precedence was misplaced because Texas was admitted as a State, whereas Hawai`i was not being annexed as a State, but as a territory. Supporters of annexation, like Senator Elkin (Rwest Virginia), reasoned that if Congress could annex a State, why could it not annex territory? On July 6, 1898, the United States Congress passed the joint resolution purporting to annex Hawaiian territory, and President McKinley signed the resolution on the following day, which proclaimed that the cession of the Hawaiian Islands had been “accepted, ratified, and confirmed.”
Like a carefully rehearsed play, the annexation ceremony of August 12, 1898, between the self-proclaimed Republic of Hawai`i and the United States, was scripted to appear to have the semblance of international law. On a stage fronting `Iolani Palace in Honolulu, the following exchange took place between U.S. Minister Harold Sewell and Republic President Sanford Dole.
Mr. SEWELL: “Mr. President, I present to you a certified copy of a joint resolution of the Congress of the United States, approved by the President on July 7th, 1898, entitled “Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. This joint resolution accepts, ratifies and confirms, on the part of the United States, the cession formally consented to and approved by the Republic of Hawaii.” Mr. DOLE: A treaty of political union having been made, and the cession formally consented to and approved by the Republic of Hawaii, having been accepted by the United States of America, I now, in the interest of the Hawaiian body politic, and with full confidence in the honor, justice and friendship of the American people, yield up to you as the representative of the Government of the United States, the sovereignty and public property of the Hawaiian Islands. Mr. SEWELL: In the name of the United States, I accept the transfer of the sovereignty and property of the Hawaiian Government.
Legal Interpretation of Annexation by Congressional Action:The event of annexation, through cession, is a matter of legal interpretation. According to Hans Kelsen, a renowned legal scholar, what transforms an “event into a legal or illegal act is not its physical existence, determined by the laws of causality prevailing in nature, but the objective meaning resulting from its interpretation.” He goes on to state, that, the “legal meaning of this act is derived from a ‘norm’ [standard or rule] whose content refers to the act; this norm confers legal meaning to the act, so that it may be interpreted according to this norm. The norm functions as a scheme of interpretation.” The norm, in this particular case, is U.S. constitutional and international law, and whether or not Congress could annex foreign territory. It is a constitutional rule of American jurisprudence that the legislative branch, being the Congress, is not part of the treaty making power, only the Senate when convened in executive session. In other words, without proper ratification there can be no cession of territorial sovereignty recognizable under international law, and the joint resolution is but an example of the legislative branch attempting to assert its authority beyond its constitutional capacity.
Douglas Kmiec, acting U.S. Assistant Attorney General, explained that because “the President—not the Congress—has the constitutional authority to act as the representative of the United States in foreign affairs, Congress may proclaim jurisdiction or sovereignty over the territorial sea for international law purposes if it possesses a specific constitutional power.”
United States governance is divided under three separate headings of the U.S. Constitution. Article I vests the legislative power in the Congress, Article II vests the executive power in the President, and Article III vests the judicial power in various national courts, the highest being the Supreme Court. Of these three powers, only the President has the ability to extend his authority beyond U.S. territory, as he is “the constitutional representative of the United States in its dealings with foreign nations.” The joint resolution, therefore, was not only incapable of annexing the Hawaiian Islands because it had no extra-territorial force, but it also violated the terms of Article VII of the so-called treaty, which called for ratification to be done “by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
Although the joint resolution of annexation did incorporate the text of the treaty, it was, nevertheless, a Congressional law and not a resolution of ratification as proclaimed by Minister Sewell at the annexation ceremonies in Honolulu. A Senate resolution of ratification is not a legislative act, but an executive act under the President’s treaty making power. The resolution is the evidence of the “advise and consent of the senate” required under Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Only the President and not the Congress, according to Kmiec, has the “constitutional authority to assert either sovereignty over an extended territorial sea or jurisdiction over it under international law on behalf of the Untied States.” There is no treaty.
The Kingdom came about in 1795 in the aftermath of the Battle of Nuuanu, with the conquest of Maui, Molokai and Oahu. It should be noted that Kamehameha I had conquered Maui and Molokai five years prior in the Battle of Kepaniwai, but they were abandoned when Kamehameha's Big Island possession were under threat and later reconquered by the aged King Kahekili II of Maui. His domain comprised six of the major islands of the Hawaiian chain and with Kaumualii's peaceful surrender, Kauai and Niihau were added to his territories. Kamehameha II assumed de facto control of Kauai and Niihau when he kidnapped Kaumualii, ending his vassal rule over the islands.
In 1822, Queen Kaʻahumanu and her husband King Kaumualiʻi traveled with Captain William Sumner to find Nihoa, as her generation had only known the island through songs and myths. Later, King Kamehameha IV sailed there to officially annex the island. Kamehameha IV and Kalākaua would later add islands including Pearl and Hermes Atoll, Necker Island, Laysan, Lisianski Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Samarong???, Ocean (Kure) Atoll, Midway Atoll, French Frigate Shoals, Maro Reef and Gardner Pinnacles. The Stewart Islands or Sikaiana were ceded to Hawaii in 1856 by its residents, but it was never formalized by the Hawaiian government.
The Hawaiian Kingdom received the recognition of its independence and sovereignty by joint proclamation from the United Kingdom and France on November 28, 1843, and by the United States of America on July 6, 1844. At the time of the recognition of Hawaiian independence, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s government was a constitutional monarchy that developed a complete system of laws, both civil and criminal, and have treaty relations of a most favored nation status with the major powers of the world, including the United States of America.
Permanent Population According to Professor Crawford, “If States are territorial entities, they are also aggregates of individuals. A permanent population is thus necessary for statehood, though, as in the case of territory, no minimum limit is apparently prescribed.” Professor Giorgetti, explains “Once recognized, States continue to exist and be part of the international community even if their population changes. As such, changes in one of the fundamental requirements of statehood do not alter the identity of the State once recognized.” In his report to U.S. Secretary of State Walter Gresham, Special Commissioner James Blount reported on June 1, 1893, “The population of the Hawaiian Islands can but be studied by one unfamiliar with the native tongue from its several census reports. A census is taken every six years. The last report is for the year 1890. From this it appears that the whole population numbers 89,990. This number includes natives, or, to use another designation, Kanakas, half-castes (persons containing an admixture of other than native blood in any proportion with it), Hawaiian-born foreigners of all races or nationalities other than natives, Americans, British, Germans, French, Portuguese, Norwegians, Chinese, Polynesians, and other nationalities. Americans numbered 1,928; natives and half-castes, 40,612; Chinese, 15,301; Japanese, 12,360; Portuguese, 8,602; British, 1,344; Germans, 1,034; French, 70; Norwegians, 227; Polynesians, 588; and other foreigners 419. It is well at this point to say that of the 7,495 Hawaiian-born foreigners 4,117 are Portuguese, 1,701 Chinese and Japanese, 1,617 other white foreigners, and 60 of other nationalities.” The permanent population has exceedingly increased since the 1890 census and according to the last census in 2011 by the United States that number was at 1,374,810. International law, however, protects the status quo of the national population of an occupied State during occupation. According to Professor von Glahn, “the nationality of the inhabitants of occupied areas does not ordinarily change through the mere fact that temporary rule of a foreign government has been instituted, inasmuch as military occupation does not confer de jure sovereignty upon an occupant. Thus under the laws of most countries, children born in territory under enemy occupation possess the nationality of their parents, that is, that of the legitimate sovereign of the occupied area.” Any individual today who is a direct descendent of a person who lawfully acquired Hawaiian citizenship prior to the U.S. occupation that began at noon on August 12, 1898, is a Hawaiian subject. Hawaiian law recognizes all others who possess the nationality of their parents as part of the alien population.
Defined Territory According to Judge Huber, in the Island of Palmas arbitration case, “Territorial sovereignty…involves the exclusive right to display the activities of a State.” Crawford, p. 56, also states, “Territorial sovereignty is not ownership of but governing power with respect to territory.”
§6 of the Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom states, “The laws are obligatory upon all persons, whether subjects of this kingdom, or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, while within the limits of this kingdom, except so far as exception is made by the laws of nations in respect to Ambassadors or others. The property of all such persons, while such property is within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom, is also subject to the laws.”
The Islands constituting the defined territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893, together with its territorial seas whereby the channels between adjacent Islands are contiguous, its exclusive economic zone of two hundred miles, and its air space, include:
Island: Location: Square Miles/Acreage:
Hawai‘i 19º 30′ N 155º 30′ W 4,028.2 / 2,578,048 Maui 20º 45′ N 156º 20′ W 727.3 / 465,472 O‘ahu 21º 30′ N 158º 00′ W 597.1 / 382,144 Kaua‘i 22º 03′ N 159º 30′ W 552.3 / 353,472 Molokai 21º 08′ N 157º 00′ W 260.0 / 166,400 Lana‘i 20º 50′ N 156º 55′ W 140.6 / 89,984 Ni‘ihau 21º 55′ N 160º 10′ W 69.5 / 44,480 Kaho‘olawe 20º 33′ N 156º 35′ W 44.6 / 28,544 Nihoa 23º 06′ N 161º 58′ W 0.3 / 192 Molokini 20º 38′ N 156º 30′ W 0.04 / 25.6 Lehua 22º 01′ N 160º 06′ W 0.4 / 256 Ka‘ula 21º 40′ N 160º 32′ W 0.2 / 128 Laysan 25º 50′ N 171º 50′ W 1.6 / 1,024 Lisiansky 26º 02′ N 174º 00′ W 0.6 / 384 Palmyra 05º 52′ N 162º 05′ W 4.6 / 2,944 Ocean 28º 25′ N 178º 25′ W 0.4 / 256
TOTAL: 6,427.74 (square miles)/ 4,113,753.6 (acres)
Government in Compliance with Temporary Executive Authority under the Cleveland-Lili’uoklani Executive Agreement. According to Crawford, p. 56, “Governmental authority is the basis for normal inter-State relations; what is an act of a State is defined primarily by reference to its organs of government, legislative, executive or judicial.” Since 1864, the Hawaiian Kingdom fully adopted the separation of powers doctrine in its constitution, being the cornerstone of constitutional governance.
Article 20, Hawaiian Constitution. The Supreme Power of the Kingdom in its exercise, is divided into the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial; these shall always be preserved distinct, and no Judge of a Court of Record shall ever be a member of the Legislative Assembly.
Article 31, Hawaiian Constitution. To the King belongs the executive power.
Article 45, Hawaiian Constitution. The Legislative power of the Three Estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative Assembly; which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the People, sitting together.
Article 66, Hawaiian Constitution. The Judicial Power shall be divided among the Supreme Court and the several Inferior Courts of the Kingdom, in such manner as the Legislature may, from time to time, prescribe, and the tenure of office in the Inferior Courts of the Kingdom shall be such as may be defined by the law creating them.
Power to Declare and Wage War & to Conclude Peace in Compliance with Temporary Executive Authority under the Cleveland-Lili’uoklani Executive Agreement. The power to declare war and to conclude peace is constitutionally vested in the office of the Monarch pursuant to Article 26, Hawaiian Constitution, “The King is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and for all other Military Forces of the Kingdom, by sea and land; and has full power by himself, or by any officer or officers he may judge best for the defense and safety of the Kingdom. But he shall never proclaim war without the consent of the Legislative Assembly.”
To Maintain Diplomatic Ties with Other Sovereigns in Compliance with Temporary Executive Authority under the Cleveland-Lili’uoklani Executive Agreement. Maintaining diplomatic ties with other States is vested in the office of the Monarch pursuant to Article 30, Hawaiian Constitution, “It is the King’s Prerogative to receive and acknowledge Public Ministers…” The officer responsible for maintaining diplomatic ties with other States is the Minister of Foreign Affairs whose duty is “to conduct the correspondence of [the Hawaiian] Government, with the diplomatic and consular agents of all foreign nations, accredited to this Government, and with the public ministers, consuls, and other agents of the Hawaiian Islands, in foreign countries, in conformity with the law of nations, and as the King shall from time to time, order and instruct.” §437, Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall also “have the custody of all public treaties concluded and ratified by the Government; and it shall be his duty to promulgate the same by publication in the government newspaper. When so promulgated, all officers of this government shall be presumed to have knowledge of the same.” §441, Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
To Acquire Territory by Discovery or Occupation. Between 1822 and 1886, the Hawaiian Kingdom exercised the power of discovery and occupation that added five additional islands to the Hawaiian Domain. By direction of Ka‘ahumanu in 1822, Captain William Sumner took possession of the Island of Nihoa. On May 1, 1857; Laysan Island was taken possession by Captain John Paty for the Hawaiian Kingdom; on May 10, 1857 Captain Paty also took possession of Lysiansky Island; Palmyra Island was taken possession of by Captain Zenas Bent on April 15, 1862; and Ocean Island was acquired September 20, 1886, by proclamation of Colonel J.H. Boyd.
To Make International Agreements and Treaties and Maintain Diplomatic Relations with other States in Compliance with Temporary Executive Authority under the Cleveland-Lili’uoklani Executive Agreement. Article 29, Hawaiian Constitution, provides, “The King has the power to make Treaties. Treaties involving changes in the Tariff or in any law of the Kingdom shall be referred for approval to the Legislative Assembly.” As a result of the United States of America’s recognition of Hawaiian independence, the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Dec. 20, 1849; Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Jan. 13, 1875; Postal Convention Concerning Money Orders, Sep. 11, 1883; and a Supplementary Convention to the 1875 Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Dec. 6, 1884.
The Hawaiian Kingdom also entered into treaties with Austria-Hungary (now separate States), June 18, 1875; Belgium, October 4, 1862; Denmark, October 19, 1846; France, September 8, 1858; Germany, March 25, 1879; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, March 26, 1846; Italy, July 22, 1863; Japan, August 19, 1871, January 28, 1886; Netherlands, October 16, 1862; Portugal, May 5, 1882; Russia, June 19, 1869; Spain, October 9, 1863; Sweden-Norway (now separate States), April 5, 1855; and Switzerland, July 20, 1864.
Early in its history, the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was governed from several locations including coastal towns on the islands of Hawaiʻi and Maui (Lāhainā). It wasn't until the reign of Kamehameha III that a capital was established in Honolulu on the Island of Oʻahu.
By the time Kamehameha V was king, he saw the need to build a royal palace fitting of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi's new found prosperity and standing with the royals of other nations. He commissioned the building of the palace at Aliʻiōlani Hale. He died before it was completed. Today, the palace houses the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi.
David Kalākaua shared the dream of Kamehameha V to build a palace, and eagerly desired the trappings of European royalty. He commissioned the construction of ʻIolani Palace. In later years, the palace would become his sister's makeshift prison under guard by the forces of the Republic of Hawaii, the site of the official raising of the U.S. flag during annexation, and then territorial governor's and legislature's offices. It is now a museum.
Palaces and Royal Grounds
- List of Missionaries to Hawaii
- Committee of Safety (Hawaii)
- Republic of Hawaii
- Legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom
- List of bilateral treaties signed by the Kingdom of Hawaii
- Kingdom of Hawaii – United States relations
- Hawaii – Tahiti relations
- Hawaiian sovereignty movement
- Lawrence, Mary S. (1912). Old Time Hawiians and Their Works. Gin and Company. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-146-32462-5.
- "Hawaiian Territory". Hawaiian Kingdom. Retrieved 2013-10-05.
- The US Navy and Hawaii-A Historical Summary
- James F. B. Marshall (1883). "An unpublished chapter of Hawaiian History". Harper's magazine 67. pp. 511–520.
- "Lā Kūʻokoʻa: Events Leading to Independence Day, November 28, 1843". The Polynesian XXI (3). November 200. Retrieved 2010-02-22.
- Hawaiian Kingdom – International Treaties
- [ http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=36&case=121&code=cobe&p3=3]
- The Morgan Report, p503-517
- David Keanu Sai (November 28, 2006). "Hawaiian Independence Day". Hawaiian Kingdom Independence web site. Retrieved 2010-02-22.
- 503–517 – TheMorganReport
- [Lili`uokalani, Hawai`i’s Story by Hawai`i’s Queen (Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc. 1964), 181]
- [Executive Documents, note 26, 760.]
- [In the William O. Smith Collection at the Hawaiian Archives there is a near finished version of the 1887 draft with the following endorsement on the back that read: “Persons chiefly engaged in drawing up the constitution were—L.A. Thurston, Jonathan Austin, S.B. Dole, W.A. Kinney, W.O. Smith, Cecil Brown, Rev. [W.B.] Olelson, N.B. Emerson, J.A. Kennedy, [John A.] McCandless, Geo. N. Wilcox, A.S. Wilcox, H. Waterhouse, F. Wundenburg, E.G. Hitchcock, W.E. Rowell, Dr. [S.G.] Tucker, C.W. Ashford.” Added to this group of individuals were Chief Justice A.F. Judd and Associate Justice Edward Preston.]
- [Executive Documents, note 26, 579.]
- [Executive Documents, supra note 26, 579]
- [Ralf Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1874-1893, The Kalakaua Dynasty, vol. III (University of Hawai`i Press 1967), 407]
- [Wodehouse to FO, no. 29, political and confidential, Aug. 30, 1887, BPRO, PO 58/220, Hawaiian Archives]
- [Executive Documents, note 26, p. 579]
- [Executive Documents, note 26, p. 580]
- Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen, Appendix A "The three ministers left Mr. Parker to try to dissuade me from my purpose; and in the meantime they all (Peterson, Cornwell, and Colburn) went to the government building to inform Thurston and his part of the stand I took."
- Morgan Report, p804-805 "Every one knows how quickly Colburn and Peterson, when they could escape from the palace, called for help from Thurston and others, and how afraid Colburn was to go back to the palace."
- The Blount Report, p588
- U.S. Navy History site
- Kinzer, Stephen. (2006). Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.
- Stevens, Sylvester K. (1968) American Expansion in Hawaii, 1842–1898. New York: Russell & Russell. (p. 228)
- Dougherty, Michael. (1992). To Steal a Kingdom: Probing Hawaiian History. (p. 167-168)
- La Croix, Sumner and Christopher Grandy. (March 1997). "The Political Instability of Reciprocal Trade and the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom" in The Journal of Economic History 57:161–189.
- The Morgan Report, p817
- Russ, William Adam (1992) . The Hawaiian Revolution (1893–94). Susquehanna University Press. ISBN 978-0-945636-43-4.
- APPENDIX II, FOREIGN RELATIONS of the UNITED STATES 1894, AFFAIRS IN HAWAII, p.452.http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?id=FRUS.FRUS1894Ap
- APPENDIX II, FOREIGN RELATIONS of the UNITED STATES 1894, AFFAIRS IN HAWAII, p. 457. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?id=FRUS.FRUS1894Ap
- APPENDIX II, FOREIGN RELATIONS of the UNITED STATES 1894, AFFAIRS IN HAWAII, p. 1269. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?id=FRUS.FRUS1894Ap
- [2001 Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, Article 12. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb8f804.html]
- [Maiorano v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 213 U.S. 268, 272-73 (1909) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/213/268/]
- [United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 326 (1937) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1936/1936_532]
- [Alvarez y Sanchez v. United States, 216 U.S. 167, 175-176 (1910) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/216/167/]
- [Pigeon River Improvement, Slide & Boom Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 160 (1934) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/291/138/]
- Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer, 2006
- [United States House of Representatives, 53rd Congress, Executive Documents on Affairs in Hawaii: 1894-95, (Government Printing Office 1895), 567, hereafter Executive Documents. Reprinted at Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics 1 (Summer 2004): 136]
- [United States House of Representatives, 53rd Congress, Executive Documents on Affairs in Hawaii: 1894-95, (Government Printing Office 1895), 587]
- [United States House of Representatives, 53rd Congress, Executive Documents on Affairs in Hawaii: 1894-95, (Government Printing Office 1895), 456.Reprinted at 1 Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics 201 (Summer 2004)]
- [Krystyna Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, 2nd ed., (Librairie Droz 1968), 64]
- [Ralf Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1874-1893, The Kalakaua Dynasty, vol. III (Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press 1967), 647]
- [Senate Resolution, May 31, 1894, 53rd Congress, 2nd Session, vol. 26]
- [“Hawaiian Treaty to Wait—Senator Morgan Suggests that It Be Taken Up at This Session Without Result.” The New York Times, 3 (July 25, 1897)]
- [Liliuokalani, Hawaii’s Story by Hawaii’s Queen (Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc. 1964), 354. Reprinted at 1 Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics 227 (Summer 2004)]
- [Tom Coffman, Nation Within: The Story of America’s Annexation of the Nation of Hawai`i (Tom Coffman/Epicenter 1999), 268]
- [Noenoe Silva, Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism (Duke University Press 2004), 145-159. See also Coffman, note 10, 273-287]
- [Gerhard von Glahn’s, Law Among Nations, 6th ed., (Macmillan Publishing Company 1992), 371]
- [“El Chamizal’ Dispute Between the United States and Mexico,” American Journal of International Law 4(4) (1910): 925]
- [“El Chamizal’ Dispute Between the United States and Mexico,” American Journal of International Law 4(4) (1910): 926]
- [Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 4th ed. (Clarendon Press 1990), 157; see also “Chamizal Arbitration Between the United States and Mexico,” American Journal of International Law 5 (1911): 782]
- [30 U.S. Stat. 1770]
- [The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 712 (1900)]
- [U.S. Minister to Hawai`i Harold Sewall to U.S. Secretary of State William R. Day, No. 167, (June 4, 1898), Hawai`i Archives]
- [U.S. Minister to Hawai`i Harold Sewall to U.S. Secretary of State William R. Day, No. 175 (27 June 1898)]
- [George B. Davis, The Elements of International Law (Harper & Brothers Publishers 1903), 430, note 3]
- [Sewall to Day, note 18, No. 168 (8 June 1898)]
- [17 U.S. Stat. 863]
- [Davis, note 20, 429]
- [T.A. Bailey, “The United States and Hawaii During the Spanish-American War,” The American Historical Review 36(3) (April 1931): 557]
- [Marek, note 5, 114]
- [31 United States Congressional Records, 55th Congress, 2nd Session, at 5771]
- [31 United States Congressional Records, 55th Congress, 2nd Session, at 6019]
- [Associated Press, “Secret Debate on U.S. Seizure of Hawaii Revealed,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, A1 (February 1, 1969)]
- [Lassa Oppenheim, International Law, 3rd ed., (Longmans, Green and Company 1920), 376]
- [Gary Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, 3rd ed., (Kluwer Law International 1996), 493]
- [Cong. Record, note 28, 6150]
- [Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2nd Session (1845), 372]
- [Cong. Record, note 28, 6149]
- [30 U.S. Stat. 750]
- [107 U.S. STAT. 1510. Reprinted at Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics 1 (Summer 2004): 290]
- [Lorrin A. Thurston, The Fundamental Law of Hawaii (The Hawaiian Gazette Co., Ltd. 1904), 253]
- [Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law (University of California Press 1967) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-theory/]
- [ Kmiec, Douglas W., “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea,” Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice 12 (1988): 238.]
- [United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 35 (1960) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/363/1/]
- [Henry E. Cooper, Report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the President of the Republic of Hawaii (Honolulu Star Press 1898)]
- Tava 1998, pp. 102–103.
- The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed. (2006), p. 52
- [aw.richmond.edu/people/faculty/cgiorget/ A Principled Approach to State Failure (2010), p. 55]
- The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation (1957), p. 60
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Kingdom of Hawaii.|
- Christopher Buyers. "The Kamehameha Dynasty Genealogy". Royal Ark web site. Retrieved 2010-02-16.
- Henry Soszynski. "Index to Kingdom of Hawaii Genealogy". web page on "Rootsweb". Retrieved 2010-02-16.
- Monarchy in Hawaii Part 1
- Monarchy in Hawaii Part 2
|Part of a series on the|
|History of Hawaii|