The reason that the Hawaiian language is synonymous with Hawaiian nationality is because a treaty of cession has never been produced to transfer the sovereignty and territory of the Hawaiian Islands to another country. Hawaiian nationality has never ceased to exist because there is no treaty of cession to terminate it. Likewise, without a treaty of cession, the Hawaiian language remains the national language of the Hawaiian Islands. Hence, Hawaiian nationality is built into the Hawaiian language, and the Hawaiian language is built into Hawaiian nationality. Restore the Hawaiian language and the reawakening of Hawaiian nationality will naturally follow. Reawaken Hawaiian nationality and the restoration of the Hawaiian language should naturally follow. To restore the Hawaiian language is to restore the national language of the Hawaiian Islands. The rest will follow naturally.

Help create a  paradigm shift in Hawaiian language learning from revitalization movement to fluency revolution. There is perhaps no better catalyst for the long-awaited deoccupation and restoration of the Hawaiian State. The more the world sees the Lāhui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina fluent in its national language again, the more the world will once again see Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina as the independent country it has always been since November 28, 1843. Hence, the more compelling the case for the Hawaiian State to be admitted as a Member State of the General Assembly of the United Nations. In addition to traditional printed media, technology now makes it easier and inexpensive as ever to learn the Hawaiian language through electronic media across all computer devices, with or without an internet connection, wherever we are in the world.

The presumption of state continuity is like the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed innocent unless and until there is enough evidence to the contrary, beyond a reasonable doubt. Likewise, the sovereignty and independence of a state is presumed to continue unless there is contrary evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Hawaiian Kingdom achieved international recognition as a sovereign and independent state in 1843.

A person does not carry the burden to prove his or her innocence. Rather, the burden is on the accuser to provide enough evidence to reject that presumption. What evidence is there that the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom has been terminated?

Did the joint resolution of 1898 terminate the Hawaiian Kingdom? Can a congressional resolution unilaterally terminate another country? If the U.S. Congress adopted a joint resolution to unilaterally annex France tomorrow, would that terminate the continuity of France as a sovereign and independent state? Or would it set the stage for a belligerent occupation?

The Hawaiian Kingdom government was seized rather than terminated. Consequently, the governmental infrastructure of the State of Hawaiʻi is actually that of the Hawaiian Kingdom. However, the occupying power is not allowing the Hawaiian Kingdom government to reestablish itself via the laws of occupation. This has gone on now for 126 years and counting. So, is it any surprise that skeptics might perceive a lack of a Hawaiian government in waiting? Is it fair to blame the Lāhui for this?

Any perceived lack of a Hawaiian government in waiting does not absolve the occupying power of its failure to produce a bilateral treaty of cession to substantiate its alleged (illegal) annexation of the Hawaiian Kingdom territory.

What we are seeing on Mauna Kea is a nucleus of the Hawaiian national body reconstituting itself organically. It is providing a catalyst for revitalization of the Hawaiian national language and heritage. In other words, de-occupation is unfolding from the inside out—as we all know that it won't happen from the outside-in. Eventually, that will grow into de-occupation of the entire country. Of course, that doesn't happen overnight, especially when confronted with the longest belligerent occupation in modern history. In the meantime, there is going to be cognitive dissonance to be resolved through civil discourse—and civil "disobedience" when necessary.

​In my opinion, the genie is out of the bottle and de-occupation of Hawaiʻi is only a matter of time. How long that will take is anyone's guess. It took 89 years for the British empire to leave India, which is on the same order of magnitude as 126 years (at the time of this writing) of occupation in Hawaiʻi. The reason I think it is only a matter of time is because the evidence that Hawaiʻi is occupied without a treaty of cession is too strong to be overcome. The question is, how much more time can the occupying power continue to buy for itself, especially now that the Lāhui has been awoken by the TMT initiative?

From 1783 to 1867 (84 years), the U.S. entered 6 bilateral treaties of cession for the territory of its capital and 49 states (50 possessions). ​ The U.S. Constitution explicitly delegates treaty-making power jointly to the President and Senate, not both houses of Congress. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 completed the territorial annexation of Texas, ratifying its statehood admission by joint resolution in 1845. Unlike Texas in 1845, Hawaiʻi in 1898 was not admitted as a state by the U.S. Instead, it was allegedly annexed as an unincorporated territory.

​The Newlands Resolution followed two failed attempts, in 1893 and 1897, to ratify a bilateral treaty of cession for Hawaiʻi in the U.S. Senate. Five months after the Newlands Resolution in 1898, the U.S. resumed the custom of bilateral treaties of cession for territorial annexation. From 1898 to 1951 (53 years), the U.S. entered 5 more bilateral treaties of cession for the territory of 8 additional possessions, excluding Hawaiʻi.

The Indian Appropriation Act (1871) and Island of Palmas arbitration (1925) required a joint resolution to ratify the treaties of cession for American Sāmoa. Since the cession of American Sāmoa was by chiefs rather than conventional nation-states, it wasn't eligible for an annexation treaty in the U.S. Senate. American Sāmoa has been on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories since its inception in 1964.

From 1783 to 1951 (168 years), the U.S. has entered at total of 11 bilateral treaties of cession for the territory of its 58 possessions, excluding Hawaiʻi and American Sāmoa. 97% (58 out of 60) of territorial possessions claimed by the United States were annexed with 11 bilateral treaties of cession over a period of 168 years. ​ Bilateral treaties of cession between countries other than the United States occur before (Lagos to Great Britain in 1861) and after (France to India in 1956) the Newlands Resolution in 1898.

​Customary international law for territorial cession is prescribed by the self-evident pattern emerging from the complete data set. ​ A congressional joint resolution is a domestic statute incapable of reaching across borders to unilaterally annex a foreign country under international law. The enumerated constitutional power of the U.S. Congress to admit states is limited to U.S. territory acquired by annexation treaty.

Statehood admission of Texas by joint resolution in 1845 is not a valid precedent for alleged territorial annexation of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution in 1898. The U.S. claim of territorial annexation of Hawaiʻi by a congressional joint resolution (unilateral declaration) is an unprecedented historical anomaly. The Newlands Resolution has never been followed by the U.S. or other countries as a new precedent set for territorial cession (annexation).

Since at least 1783, a bilateral treaty of cession remains a necessary instrument for territorial annexation under customary international law. Crimea was unilaterally seized by Russia in 2014 without a bilateral treaty of cession. The annual War Report published by the Geneva Academy classifies Crimea as a state under belligerent occupation by Russia since 2014.

The Hawaiian Kingdom government was compromised by insurgents on 7/1/1887, and remains unlawfully seized since 1/17/1893. The landing of United States troops in Honolulu on August 12, 1898, as a result of the Spanish-American War, violated the neutrality of the Hawaiian Kingdom by using the islands as a base of military operations. ​

​The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign, independent State is presumed under international law, despite ongoing unlawful seizure of its government under prolonged occupation by the United States.

The number of those eligible to vote who voted for statehood in 1959 was 132,773. When this number is divided by the 140,744 who voted on the statehood question, the percentage is 94%. When divided by the voter turnout of 171,383, the percentage drops to 77%. When divided by the 183,118 registered voters, the percentage drops to 73%. When divided by the 381,859 people eligible to vote in Hawaiʻi, the percentage drops to 35%.

While a 35% yes vote (from a 45% turnout) would be acceptable in a domestic election, it does not constitute a mandate for a plebiscite under customary international practice.

Why did 65% of those eligible not vote for statehood in 1959? For some, it could have been a way to boycott the prolonged belligerent occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the US. Others, perceiving correctly that Hawaiʻi would remain occupied regardless of the outcome of the statehood vote, may have decided that it was therefore meaningless to vote on the question. Another possible line of reasoning would be that the actions of registering to vote, then voting in the general election, conducted by an unlawful government during prolonged occupation, would justify its presence. These potential reasons why 65% did not choose statehood are not unlikely given the voter disfranchisement that the Hawaiian population had endured for 72 years since the insurgency began in 1887 (with the so-called "bayonet constitution").

The 1959 vote for US statehood purported to be a plebiscite. This is invalid because there were only two choices: become a US state (by voting "yes"); or remain a US territory (by voting "no"). In either case, Hawaiʻi would remain under belligerent occupation by the US​​ due to the absence of a bilateral treaty of cession between the US and the Hawaiian Kingdom. So, with no other choice, the majority of those who voted on the question chose the lesser of the two evils. After 66 years of being prohibited from choosing the top official in control of Hawaiʻi's government, they could now elect the governor.

Not included as options on the plebiscite were de-occupation, or the choices for decolonization: independence, free association, and commonwealth. If the organizers of the statehood question were confident that a majority would vote for US statehood (albeit under occupation without a treaty), there would be no need to exclude the aforementioned continuum of options for greater autonomy than joining a federation (US statehood).

On January 16, 1893, a company of US Marines from the USS Boston, under a false pretext of public safety for American nationals, unlawfully invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom, a neutral nation-state. On the next day, January 17, 1893, the US Marines provided a protectorate for thirteen haole insurgents to unlawfully seize the Hawaiian Kingdom government through a fake revolution, installing a puppet regime calling themselves the "Provisional Government." This insurgent militia immediately submitted a proposed annexation treaty to the United States, but US President Grover Cleveland withdrew it from the US Senate after learning about the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government.

​Having failed to obtain an (illegal) annexation treaty with the US, the insurgent militia renamed itself to the "Republic of Hawaii," on July 4, 1894.

After a proposed annexation treaty failed for the second time, in 1898, the US Congress enacted a joint resolution to unilaterally seize the Hawaiian Islands, using the Spanish-American War as a pretext. A joint resolution is an agreement between both houses of the legislature in one nation, not between the legislative and executive branches of two nations. Therefore, a congressional joint resolution enacted within a nation is confined to its  domestic borders, having no legal force and effect in a foreign nation. This is true under both international law and US constitutional law (as interpreted through customary practice).

On June 14, 1900, US Congress passed an organic act, renaming its puppet regime, the "Republic of Hawaiʻi," to the "Territory of Hawaiʻi." However, it was no less a domestic law than the joint resolution of 1898. Therefore, it too did not annex the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, nor did it claim to. Instead, it defined its territory as the islands acquired by the joint resolution, which is legally impossible in lieu of a bilateral treaty of cession.

On August 21, 1959, following the fraudulent plebiscite held on June 27, 1959, ​US President Dwight Eisenhower signed into law the congressional act, purporting to admit the occupied "Territory of Hawaiʻi" as the "50th State." Hence, the belligerent occupation changed its name for the third time in 67 years, this time to the "State of Hawaiʻi," which is an armed force of the US, pretending to be a lawful government.

The act by which the US government allegedly admitted Hawaiʻi as its "50th State" in 1959 is congressional legislation, domestic in its operation, with no legal force and effect beyond the borders of the 49 US states—all of which were acquired by treaties of cession, unlike Hawaiʻi. Therefore, the statehood admission act of 1959 could no more annex Hawaiʻi than could the joint resolution of 1898 or the organic act of 1900. Nor does the 1959 statehood act claim to annex the Hawaiian Islands.

Instead, the "State of Hawaiʻi" defines its territory as that which was in the "Territory of Hawaiʻi." In turn, the "Territory of Hawaiʻi" defined its territory as those islands acquired by the joint resolution. Therefore, due to the impossibility of annexing foreign territory with a joint resolution, the so-called "State of Hawaiʻi" never acquired any territory, nor did any of its three previous incarnations. Consequently, this fake state—as it is accurately referred to today in the Hawaiian Kingdom under belligerent occupation—does not legally exist beyond the borders of the 49 states of the US. With an alleged territory inherited from the joint resolution of 1898, which had no ability to annex the Hawaiian territory, the so-called "50th State" admittedly has no territory. By analogy, one can say that an empty container exists, but it is empty nonetheless.

Under the US Constitution, the power of Congress is clearly domestic in scope, with no enumerated power to engage directly in foreign affairs. The power to enter treaties is vested jointly in the President and Senate. Therefore, while Congress does have the constitutional power to admit states, it can only do so from territory already annexed through a bilateral international instrument.

When Congress adopted a joint resolution to acquire Texas in 1845, it did so as a statehood admission and not as a territorial annexation. The territory of Texas was not annexed until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ratifying the premature admission of Texas as a state three years earlier.

In 1898, US Congress did not adopt a joint resolution to admit Hawaiʻi as a state, as it had done with Texas in 1845. Instead, the joint resolution adopted by Congress in 1898 purported to annex Hawaiʻi as an unincorporated territory, which was without precedent. Nor did it set a new precedent for subsequent territorial annexations by the US and other world powers.

While a single congressional act of one nation cannot unilaterally acquire the territory of another nation, neither can a series, or sum, of consecutive domestic laws. In the case of Hawaiʻi, the joint resolution of 1898, the organic act of 1900, and the statehood admission act of 1959, cannot be construed by summation as equivalent to a bilateral treaty of cession between the US and the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has never been produced. This is especially true after the two failures to annex Hawaiʻi through a senate treaty for (illegal) annexation in 1893 and 1898. 

Just as consecutive domestic laws cannot add up to a treaty, neither can the four successive names of the ongoing belligerent occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since January 17, 1893: "Provisional Government," "Republic of Hawaiʻi," "Territory of Hawaiʻi," and "State of Hawaiʻi."

The Hawaiian Kingdom achieved formal recognition of its independence as a sovereign state, on November 28, 1843, through joint proclamation by Great Britain and France. On July 6, 1844, the US formally recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent state. Having secured this international recognition from the three major naval powers of the world at the time, the Hawaiian Kingdom became the first non-European country to enter the Family of Nations. Since that time, a bilateral treaty of cession has never been produced to terminate the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent state. The unlawful seizure of the government, and prolonged occupation of the country, since January 17, 1893, is not a recognized mode of state extinction under international law.

Since Hawaiʻi already achieved international statehood in 1843, which has never been lost to a treaty of cession, said statehood of the Hawaiian Kingdom has never ceased to exist. International statehood does not have an expiration date, and therefore does not need to be renewed after a lapse of time. Nor did the 1959 statehood act by the US supersede or replace the statehood already achieved by Hawaiʻi in 1843, since the 1959 statehood admission is merely congressional legislation of the US confined in its operation to the borders of its 49 states.

Under international law, there is a recognized mode of state extinction through the passage of time, called prescription or acquiescence. The Hawaiian Kingdom government, through both its legislative and executive branches, never acquiesced to being succeeded by another government. Furthermore, due to the abundant history of protest since the insurgency began in 1887, and since the occupation began in 1893, a prescription claim by the US to the sovereignty and territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom cannot be substantiated under international law. Nor has the US ever made such a claim. The only official claim that the US has ever made for acquiring the sovereignty and territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is through the joint resolution of 1898. However, annexation of a foreign country by unilateral declaration, in the form of a congressional joint resolution, has been thoroughly refuted by simple logic and by the foremost scholars on the subject.

The pretense of statehood in 1959 occurred 72 years after the insurgency began in 1887, 66 years since the belligerent occupation began in 1893, and 61 years after the pretense of annexation by joint resolution in 1898. This gave the US more than 6 decades to transfer portions of its military and civilian populations into the occupied Hawaiian territory, and to denationalize the national population of the occupied territory through propaganda—actions that are considered war crimes under international law. This process, tantamount to stuffing the ballot box for the statehood vote in 1959, further negate any potential claim by the US to Hawaiian sovereignty and territory through prescription.

​The Hawaiian Kingdom is a neutral nation-state that was unlawfully invaded by a military force of the United States on January 16, 1893. This established an unlawful protectorate for a handful of insurgents to implement a regime change one day later, on January 17, 1893. This unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian Kingdom government by the installed puppet regime did not terminate the Hawaiian Kingdom as a nation-state and a subject of international law.

To this day, there is no bilateral treaty of cession that gives the United States and its agent, the armed-force, self-declared "State of Hawaiʻi," jurisdiction over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The joint resolution of 1898 is a domestic statute and unilateral declaration, which, under customary international law, has no force and effect outside of the continental borders of the U.S., across 2,467 miles of ocean, and in the foreign country called the Hawaiian Kingdom. The joint resolution is an agreement between both chambers of the legislature in one country, not an agreement between the legislative and executive branches of the two countries involved: Hawaiian Kingdom and United States. Consequently, the Hawaiian Kingdom remains under a belligerent occupation prolonged illegally since January 17, 1893.

​Therefore, until this military occupation is brought to an end, there should be a moratorium on all construction projects on Hawaiian Kingdom lands. The proposal to build a multinational Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) on Mauna Kea is no exception. A permit for such construction could only be approved by the Hawaiian Kingdom government following U.S. de-occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

​ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi (and Hawaiian culture generally) is the only row in the table where the two columns overlap. Otherwise, the columns are mutually exclusive: a person of Hawaiʻi either falls in the left column (Aloha ʻĀina) or the right column (Americanized Hawaiian). By default, part-time Hawaiians, because of assimilation, step foot into the right column. If you call yourself Hawaiian, which column are you in?

​To revitalize the Hawaiian language is to revitalize the national language of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a Country never terminated without a treaty of cession. To regain fluency in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi is to de-occupy Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina from the inside out.

Belligerent occupation is the most common form of international armed conflict, abbreviated, "IAC." According to The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights:

 (War Report 2017, p. 20)

​That is exactly what took place in the Hawaiian Islands beginning on January 16, 1893, and again on August 12, 1898.

The self-proclaimed "Republic of Hawaiʻi" (ROH) was an insurgent militia and puppet regime installed by the US on January 17, 1893, which US President Grover Cleveland correctly diagnosed as "neither de facto nor de jure." Hence, it was an armed force of the US by way of proxy. Therefore, it was neither a government nor a state. Consequently, it had no ability under customary international law to convey Hawaiian sovereignty and cede Hawaiian territory to the United States.

Even if ROH was a legitimate government, transfer of Hawaiian sovereignty to the USA would require bilateral approval by both the head of state and legislature in each country. However, neither legislature approved it. The US Senate failed to ratify the proposed annexation treaty in 1898, as required by the US Constitution and defined by customary practice: the territories of all 49 US states were acquired through bilateral treaties of cession negotiated by the US President and ratified by the US Senate.

There is no historical precedent where a law enacted by US Congress can be used in lieu of a Senate treaty to acquire the territory of a foreign country, especially after two failed attempts to ratify such an annexation treaty. The power of US Congress to admit states was used prematurely for Texas in 1845, but undisputed annexation of the territory did not occur until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.

Texas was being admitted as a state by US Congress in 1845. Hawaiʻi was not being admitted as a state by US Congress in 1898. Rather, it was purportedly being annexed as an unincorporated territory by unilateral declaration via a joint resolution, using the Spanish-American War as a pretext. Therefore, the premature statehood admission of Texas in 1845 is an invalid precedent for the alleged territorial annexation of Hawaiʻi in 1898.

There is abundant history of opposition to the insurgency in Hawaiʻi nei, both before and after the unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893. This includes petitions by Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, submitted during the respective reigns of both Kalākaua and Liliʻuokalani, to replace the unlawful "bayonet constitution." The Queen herself submitted a protest against the illegal overthrow, to the US.

The Hawaiian Patriotic League submitted a formal protest against annexation that became part of the Blount Report, which resulted in US President Grover Cleveland withdrawing the proposed annexation treaty of 1893, submitted by the puppet regime of insurgents to the US Senate.

There were the three armed revolts against the insurgency, led by Robert Kalanihiapo Wilcox, in 1888, 1889, and 1895.

There were the two mass signature petitions, submitted respectively by the two largest Hawaiian patriotic societies in 1897. One called for restoration of the monarchy, and the other successfully defeated annexation in 1898.

Consequently, with plenty of examples of protest against illegal takeover of the Hawaiian government, prescription cannot be claimed by the US as a mode for acquisition of the Hawaiian territory. This holds true even after the lapse of 6 decades between the false territorial annexation in 1898 and the pretense of statehood admission in 1959. Both were laws enacted by US Congress, i.e., domestic statutes incapable of acquiring a foreign country.

After 61 years of transferring portions of its military and civilian populations into the occupied territory, an implicit claim could not be made to the Hawaiian territory by the congressional act of statehood admission in 1959. As a domestic statute, it had no ability to annex the Hawaiian territory, nor did it even claim to. Instead, it stated the false premise that the Hawaiian Islands were acquired by the congressional joint resolution of 1898.

Nor could the 1959 statehood admission ballot be considered a valid plebiscite under international law, since it excluded any independence options.

Nor did the 1959 statehood vote carry the weight of a mandate with only 35% of the "eligible" voting population, as defined by the U.S. puppet government, which included US nationals transferred into the occupied territory—a war crime under international humanitarian law—during the prior 61 years.

The turnout for the 1959 statehood vote was 45% of "eligible" voters as defined by the US puppet government. When Americans claim that 97% voted for statehood, this is out of the 45% turnout, which actually equals 35% of the occupier-defined voting population. While the turnout percentage may be overlooked in a domestic election, it cannot be overlooked in an international plebiscite, or one that pretends to be. A turnout of less than 50% is not considered a mandate under customary international practice for sovereignty transfer (territorial acquisition). In any case, the vote did not change the fact that the statehood admission was an act of US Congress, like the joint resolution of 1898, neither of which could reach across US borders--and nearly 2,500 miles of ocean--to acquire the Hawaiian Islands.

In summary, no matter how the legal history of Hawaiian sovereignty is analyzed, there is insufficient evidence to support a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty by the United States, and ample evidence against any such claim.

In conclusion, the question of correctly diagnosing the current legal status of Hawaiʻi belongs to the living descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects alive prior to January 17, 1898. The question cannot be decided for this national body—the Lāhui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina—by any other country or its nationals. It cannot be decided by an organization outside of the Lāhui.

There are no persons or organizations in the world today more qualified to diagnose the history and legal status of Hawaiʻi nei than its true nationals, the descendants of those alive prior to January 17, 1893. Especially, those of us who embrace Hawaiian nationality, the continued existence of which is presumed in the absence of a bilateral treaty of cession, between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, necessary to overcome that presumption.

--International Committee of the Red Cross

Every ethnic group that has migrated to Hawaiʻi has a culture and a nationality that they can connect to in the homelands that they came from. Descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, are the only group in Hawaiʻi that that has been arbitrarily deprived of its nationality. This began with the insurgency in 1887, followed by unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian government in 1893.

Kalākaua was instrumental in sparking the revitalization of Hawaiian culture that continues to this day. However, the Hawaiian nationality that went with it has been dismantled through a systematic process of denationalization. The hālau hula movement has internalized this separation of Hawaiian culture from nationality, so that denationalization is perpetuated through a self-imposed process.

Decades of this socialization make it a challenge for Hawaiian cultural practitioners to snap out of this culture-only trap. In other words, Hawaiian society has largely been reduced to a culture without its nationality. There is a resurgence in Hawaiian nationality, but we have to avoid the danger of letting it develop separately from Hawaiian culture. By reducing us to a culture without a nationality, the world has been trained into perceiving us merely as a group akin to an indigenous tribe.
​
Why do Hawaiians have a nationality today? Because there is no treaty of cession transferring the sovereignty and territory of the Hawaiian Islands to another country. Historically, there have been two attempts to obtain a bilateral annexation treaty, in 1893 and 1897, both of which failed. Consequently, Hawaiian nationality remains intact and is undergoing a process of rediscovery.