Noa Napoleon I disagree that THE REPUBLIC WAS LAWFUL successor to the Kingdom , and I totally disagree that itʻs recognition was legitimate by international law. The problem, as I see it, lies with the inconsistencies in international law itself. Which Hawaiian nation used the proper formula for reinstating the Kingdom? All of them of just one? If all of the nations were set up properly it seems to me we have to recognize multiple nationʻs or multiple states within a single nation each having its own legislature and leader. In international law which nation of these now seven Hawaiian Kingdom nations are the international jurists going to recognize? November 8 at 4:38pm · Edited · Unlike · 1 Noa Napoleon ///The linked page, created by the Grassroots Institute (Kealii Akinas organization), is very misleading and presupposes the legality of the Republic of Hawaii (ROH) based on ill-informed notions of international law. There can be no reasonable doubt that the ROH was established directly through the illegal (and treasonous) activity of the Provisional Government (PG) -- which was the U.S.-assisted overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. The page links Queen Liliuokalanis abdication letter. We know that she signed this under duress. She doesnt state that in the letter for obvious reasons. She was imprisoned and her people (family included) were under threat of death. The page links numerous documents of State recognition, however, without the request letter, we do not know what that recognition was premised upon. Ive seen one such letter from the ROH and it fraudulently claims legal succession. Recognition given under fraudulent circumstances can be nullified -- recognition, in general, can be retracted at any time for whatever reason. The Grassroots Institute obviously serves an agenda that opposes Hawaiian independence and they not-so-cleverly obfuscate the truth through the concealment of relative issues of regarding international law such as: the legitimacy of puppet governments, recognition based on fraud, State succession through death threats. When all is said and done at the end the day, Hawaiian independence will be determined by State unity (Hawaiians united under a single banner for independence) and international recognition of that unified body./// Z Akiamanō Kaapana Aki November 8 at 4:36pm · Unlike · 1 Noa Napoleon ////The problem is not with the documents. In these last few months the ambassadors of many countries have confirmed that their respective countries did in fact recognize the Republic of Hawaii as de jure. I believe that we must accept that and move forward. The overthrow was illegal, that is a fact, and because of that the Republic was able to be recognized. I believe that the Committee knowingly knew that the World would not accept the overthrow so the overthrow and the establishment of the Provisional Government was the first stage of their wicked plan. They knew that the Provisional Government would only get de facto recognition so the second part was to get the Republic recognized. This was all part of a bigger picture in which the United States would become the benefactor of our Hawaiian Kingdom. I believe that this plan started during the Kalakaua rule. What a lot of people forget is that the U.S. had a bigger role in this overthrow along with Germany. Yes Germany. It was the Germans who came to the U.S.and said we need you to do something about Hawaii. Germany was afraid that King Kalakaua was going to be able to recognize his dream of a United Polynesian Kingdom. It was no secret that King Kalakaua wanted all of Polynesia to unite and that the unification of Polynesia would be a terrible problem for the U.S., Germany and France. Yes a United Polynesia would have been bad to the Western countries and this was the start of a political assassination that would undo our Kingdom. I believe that we must accept what has happened and move forward. No one will help us, we are alone in this. We must come up with a strategy that will allow us to regain our Kingdom within the constitution of the U.S.. I believe that we can do that. The international community will not help us with this as they see this to be legal and internal. We must educate our people and emphasis the vote. Why the vote, because the vote is how we will retake our Kingdom from the U.S..... Just my opinion./// Ernest David Kaimana Caravalho November 8 at 4:43pm · Like Noa Napoleon Maija A. Kaupenamana ///Theres two types of recognition. One, the recognition as to whether a state actually exists. Other states never denied the existence of the Hawaiian nation-state until annexation. (BTW, its important to know that treaties are with the STATE not the GOVERNMENT. So when the Hawaiian Kingdom entered a treaty with Great Britain, it wasnt a treaty between the two monarchies. It was a treaty between the two states.) The other recognition is of governments by other governments. When Great Britain, Germany, Switzerland, China, Japan, etc. sent letters of recognition to the Republic of Hawaii, as distasteful and racist as it was, they were recognizing the Republic as the de jure government of the nation-state of Hawaii. International law isnt necessarily concerned with what is just (until the recent development of international human rights law). Its concerned with world order. If states recognize other states, they exist. If governments of recognized states recognize other governments of recognized states, then they exist. https://facebook/media/set/... Maija A. Kaupenamana added 58 new photos to the album Recognition Letters. These are the letters of recognition received August 1894 through January 1895, recognizing Sanford Dole and the Republic of Hawaii as the government of Hawaii ... See More November 8 at 5:18pm · Like Noa Napoleon ///These are the letters of recognition received August 1894 through January 1895, recognizing Sanford Dole and the Republic of Hawaii as the government of Hawaii by the heads of state of Austria/Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Great Britain, Chile, China, France, Germany/Prussia, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States. International law was originally developed to protect commerce and the colonizer not the colonized. ---------- Heres some examples of the significance of recognition (state and government) in international law: “International law does not prohibit revolution as a means of effecting a constitutional or government change within a State; and once a revolutionary government is effective and has a reasonable prospectus of permanence, it is eligible for recognition” (Lauterpacht 91-92). The legal existence of States has a thoroughly relative character. States exist legally as subjects of international law only in relationship to other states on the basis of reciprocal recognition” (Kelsen 224). So long as doctrines of dynastic legitimacy prevailed, the distinction between a de jure and a de facto government made in municipal law had some international impact also; but with their abandonment and the firm establishment of the rule that international law had nothing to do with the forms of government of States, the distinction assumed a different significance. What was regarded as a de jure government and recognized as such was one which was or had been at some time the uncontested government of a State (notwithstanding that its authority might later have been contested either generally or in some particular locality); and what was regarded or recognized as a government de facto only was one which was successful in displacing the actual authority of a de jure government as so defined. In relation to the distinction as thus developed, the relevant jus was not municipal but international law, according to which its actual establishment without rivals justified the recognition of one government by others irrespective of constitutional legitimacy (Parry, Grant 505-6). Sources: Kelsen, Hans. General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1946. Print. Lauterpacht, Hersch. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: University, 1947. Print. Parry, Clive, John P. Grant, J. Craig Barker, and Clive Parry. Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print. November 8 at 5:19pm · Edited · Unlike · 1 Noa Napoleon Maija A. Kaupenamana ///Congress is the only body in government that has the power to define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations. US Constitution, Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 But regardless, because there was no continuity of government, there are no legitimate claimants on behalf of the Hawaiian Kingdom government to make a case to Congress. Thats why our only choice is through the UN, because the United States not following UN rules wasnt a violation against a defunct Hawaiian Kingdom government but rather a violation of the rights of all Hawaii citizens. And while the UN decolonization process includes educating the people, the people are going to have be educated way before the UN gets involved. But who does that? And right now, with the occupation narrative, the sovereignty movement sounds absolutely nuts, taking the life out of any kind of real movement towards independence./// November 8 at 5:21pm · Like Z Akiamanō Kaapana Aki · 3 mutual friends I would disagree with Maija in her statement that the only choice is through the UN. If one State recognizes the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, it makes the Hawaiian Kingdom no less a State than if 10 States gave their recognition. UN recognition is not not an indicator of State effectiveness/existence, it is merely an indicator that a number of States have offered their recognition. A State is a State if its government believes it to be -- the Montevideo criteria is no longer required for statehood. That notion becomes reinforced with recognition. Furthermore, the Hawaiian Kingdom was not colonized. November 8 at 7:27pm · Like · 1 Noa Napoleon ///If one State recognizes the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, it makes the Hawaiian Kingdom no less a State than if 10 States gave their recognition. UN recognition is not not an indicator of State effectiveness/existence, it is merely an indicator that a number of States have offered their recognition. A State is a State if its government believes it to be -- the Montevideo criteria is no longer required for statehood. That notion becomes reinforced with recognition./// November 8 at 9:12pm · Edited · Unlike · 1 Noa Napoleon ///It should be noted that the four criteria of the Montevideo Convention were required in the classical era of international law. Today, were in the charter era of international law and all four criteria do not need to be met. State recognition is circumstantial, by that I mean, it all depends on the circumstances of a particular State seeking recognition. Palestine is recognized as a State by over 80 States. With regard to the Montevideo criteria, Palestines claims of (1) permanent population, (2) defined territory, (3) effective government, and (4) capacity to enter relations with other States is heavily disputed. However, despite the ongoing dispute, many States have recognized Palestine. Palestine also has observer status at the UN. Its not a member, because its membership will constantly be vetoed by the US (a permanent member of the UN Security Council), but it has a foot in the door because of the 80+ States who have offered their recognition. Hawaii may be a harder case to argue, but I have no doubt that we can get other States to recognize us. The problem is, we do not have an effective government that can be recognized -- and it isnt something that can hastily be put together. These things take a lot of time and we have much education to share./// Z Akiamanō Kaapana Aki
Posted on: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:25:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015