As a member of a Hawaiian Sovereignty listserve, I received this interesting email today. The process of pushing for an independent Hawai`i is a lot less intense, abrupt, and fraught with human misery than in my novel, for sure.
For Immediate Release – August 10, 2012
Contact: Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D.
Telephone: (808) 383-6100
Hawaiian Kingdom Protest and Demand filed with United Nations General Assembly against the United States of America and one hundred seventy-two (172) member-States of the United Nations
NEW YORK, 11 August 2012 — On Friday afternoon, August 10, the Ambassador-at-large and Agent for the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, H.E. Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., filed with the President of the United Nations General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York a Protest and Demand against the United States of America concerning the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish American War of 1898, and 172 member-States of the United Nations. All the named States in the Protest have treaty relations with the Hawaiian Kingdom either as States or as successor States to their predecessor. There are forty-six (46) States and one hundred twenty-seven (127) successor States that have treaty relations with the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The Protest was received and acknowledged by Dr. Hanifa Mezoui, Ph.D., Special Coordinator, Third Committee and Civil Society, Office of the President of the Sixty-Sixth Session of the General Assembly. The Protest was also received and acknowledged by the Executive Secretary of the G-77 at the United Nations, and the Executive Secretary of the Council of Presidents, a think tank of former Presidents of the United Nations that advise the sitting President of the General Assembly. One hundred twenty (120) of the named States are members of the G-77.
The Protest and Demand was filed with the General Assembly in accordance with Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter, which provides, “a State which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.” The Hawaiian Kingdom is a non-Member State of the United Nations.
The Protest and Demand calls upon the United Nations General Assembly:
1. To ensure the United States of America comply with the 1893 Lili‘uokalani assignment & Agreement of restoration, 1899 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and international law, as hereinafter described;
2. To ensure that the United States of America establishes a military government, to include tribunals, to administer and enforce the civil and penal laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom pursuant to the 1893 Lili‘uokalani assignment and Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, as hereinafter described;
3. To ensure that all member States of the United Nations shall not recognize as lawful the United States of America’s presence and authority within the territory, territorial seas, exclusive economic zone and airspace of the Hawaiian Kingdom, except for its temporary and limited authority vested under the 1893 Lili‘uokalani assignment and Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, as hereinafter described;
4. To ensure full reparation for the injury caused by the serious breach of obligations and internationally wrongful acts in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, whether singly or in combination.
The Ambassador-at-large and Agent for the Protest, Dr. Sai, served as lead Agent for the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitral proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 International Law Reports 566 (2001). The Arbitral Tribunal in the Larsen arbitration comprised of Professor James Crawford, SC, Presiding Arbitrator, who at the same time was a member of the United Nations International Law Commission and Special Rapporteur on State Responsibility (1997-2001); Professor Christopher Greenwood, QC, Associate Arbitrator, who now serves as a Judge on the International Court of Justice since February 6, 2009; and Gavan Griffith, QC, Associate Arbitrator, who served as former Solicitor General for Australia. The jurisdictional basis of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom was a dispute between a State and a private person. Dr. Sai also served as Agent for the acting Government when a a Complaint was filed against the United States of America with the United Nations Security Council on July 5, 2001, under the Presidency of China.
The Hawaiian Kingdom will withdraw States named in the Protest and Demand, with the exception of the United States of America, when these States shall declare, whether individually or collectively, that they will not recognize as lawful the United States of America’s presence and authority within the territory, territorial seas, exclusive economic zone and airspace of the Hawaiian Kingdom according to Article 41(2), Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (2001), except for the United States’ temporary and limited authority vested by virtue of the 1893 Lili‘uokalani assignment, Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and international law.
The Hawaiian Kingdom achieved the recognition of its independence as a sovereign State on November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation from Great Britain and France and by 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom maintained over ninety (90) Legations and Consulates throughout the world. The Hawaiian Kingdom has been a Member State of the Universal Postal Union since January 1, 1882, which is currently an agency of the United Nations.
This case arises out of the prolonged and illegal occupation of the entire territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States of America since the Spanish-American War on August 12, 1898, and the failure on the part of the United States of America to establish a direct system of administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. There are currently 119 United States military sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands encompassing 230,622 acres of land under the command and control of the United States Pacific Command whose headquarters is situated on the Island of O‘ahu. These military sites have been illegally established within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and have consequently placed the Hawaiian State and its population in grave danger from military attack by foreign States, e.g. Japan’s military attack of United States military sites on the Island of O‘ahu on December 7, 1941, and the threat of missile attacks from China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation.
The United States disguised its occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom as if a treaty of cession annexed the Hawaiian Islands. There is no treaty. For the past 114 years, the United States of America has committed a serious international wrongful act and deliberately misled the international community that the Hawaiian Islands had been incorporated into the territory of the United States. It has unlawfully imposed its internal laws, by Congressional legislation, over Hawaiian territory, which includes its territorial seas, its exclusive economic zone, and its airspace, in violation of its treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and international law.
The Protest and Demand and Annexes will soon be available on online at:
 Bederman & Hilbert, “Arbitration—UNCITRAL Rules—justiciability and indispensable third parties—legal status of Hawai‘i,” 95 American Journal of International Law 927-933 (2001).
 Patrick Dumberry, “The Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration Case and the Unsettled Question of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Claim to Continue as an Independent State under International Law,” 2(1) Chinese Journal of International Law 655-684 (2002); and David Keanu Sai, “A Slippery Path towards Hawaiian Indigeneity: An Analysis and Comparison between Hawaiian State Sovereignty and Hawaiian Indigeneity and its Use and Practice in Hawai’i today,” 10 Journal of Law and Social Challenges 68-133 (Fall 2008).