Larsen vs Hawaiian Kingdom

Summary

The video discusses the ongoing legal battle regarding the recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state, focusing on a key case involving Lance Larson and the unlawful imposition of American law. The Hawaiian government is engaged in an international arbitration process, with a fact-finding Commission of Inquiry set to investigate the violations and determine the Hawaiian Kingdom's status under international law. The aim is to hold responsible parties accountable and ensure compliance with humanitarian law, addressing a century-long issue of occupation and illegal governance in Hawaii.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Hawaiian Kingdom's sovereignty remains a central issue, with ongoing disputes about its status and the U.S. occupation.
• 😀 The U.S. declined to participate in an arbitration that would have proven the non-existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but acknowledged its government’s existence.
• 😀 A formal invitation was extended by the Hawaiian government to the U.S. to join an arbitration, but the U.S. did not accept the invitation.
• 😀 The U.S. Embassy's refusal to join the arbitration was interpreted as an implicit recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a state.
• 😀 The arbitration tribunal ruled that it could not decide on the rights of the Hawaiian government without the U.S. participation, creating a legal deadlock.
• 😀 An International Commission of Inquiry was established to investigate the case, functioning similarly to a grand jury to assess facts and assign responsibility.
• 😀 The Commission's mandate includes determining the role and function of the Hawaiian government under international law, particularly in the context of occupation.
• 😀 The Commission will also investigate the responsibilities of the Hawaiian government toward its citizens and protected persons under international humanitarian law.
• 😀 The investigation will examine who is responsible for the unlawful imposition of U.S. law in Hawaii, especially in violation of international humanitarian standards.
• 😀 The ultimate goal is to ensure compliance with international law, addressing violations that have persisted for over 125 years.
• 😀 The results of the Commission could potentially lead to legal actions through universal jurisdiction or the International Criminal Court, depending on findings.

Q & A

What is the significance of the Hawaiian Kingdom's legal status in this case?

The case highlights the ongoing legal debate regarding the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which was allegedly overthrown by the United States in 1893. Despite its annexation, there is a legal argument that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law, and this case seeks to clarify that status.

Why did the U.S. State Department not accept the invitation to join the arbitration?

The U.S. declined to participate in the arbitration, which would have required them to acknowledge the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state. The U.S. government's refusal led to the formation of a tribunal that could investigate the situation without their direct involvement.

What role did the Commission of Inquiry play in this case?

The Commission of Inquiry is tasked with examining the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law, including humanitarian and occupation laws. It will assess the responsibilities of the Hawaiian government and its obligations toward both Hawaiian citizens and foreign nationals within Hawaii.

What were the three primary objectives of the Commission of Inquiry?

The Commission is focused on three areas: 1) The role and function of the Hawaiian government in relation to international law, 2) The duties of the Hawaiian government toward its citizens and subjects, and 3) The obligations of the Hawaiian government toward non-citizens (protected persons) within Hawaii.

How does the Commission of Inquiry relate to the concept of universal jurisdiction?

The Commission of Inquiry may recommend actions based on universal jurisdiction, meaning that if criminal or civil responsibilities are identified, other nations could take action to prosecute for violations of international law, such as war crimes, regardless of where the crime occurred.

What is the significance of the U.S. not participating in the tribunal or the Commission of Inquiry?

The U.S. refusal to participate reinforces the legal argument that the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty has not been fully extinguished and that international law, including laws of occupation, is still relevant in assessing the situation. The U.S.'s non-participation prevents them from directly disputing these claims in the proceedings.

What are 'protected persons' under international humanitarian law, as discussed in the script?

'Protected persons' are non-citizens or foreign nationals who are residing within an occupied state, like Hawaii. Under international humanitarian law, these individuals are afforded certain protections, such as safeguards against unlawful treatment during times of occupation.

What happened during the meeting in Washington, D.C. in March 2000?

In March 2000, a meeting was held in Washington, D.C., where Lance Larson’s attorney presented an official invitation to the U.S. to join in the arbitration regarding the Hawaiian Kingdom's sovereignty. The U.S. declined to participate, but they requested access to records related to the case, which was seen as an acknowledgment of the Hawaiian government’s existence.

What does the term 'indispensable third party' mean in the context of this case?

The term refers to a party that is essential for a case to be decided. In this case, because the United States is not participating, the tribunal ruled that it could not decide whether Larson’s rights were violated, as the U.S. would need to be involved to determine if U.S. law had been imposed unlawfully on the individual.

What are the long-term goals of this case and the Commission of Inquiry?

The long-term goal is to establish international recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom's legal status and ensure that international law, particularly regarding occupation and sovereignty, is respected. The case aims to address the unlawful imposition of U.S. law in Hawaii and move towards compliance with international humanitarian standards.