Only countries may be parties to World Court cases

Based on my understanding of history and law, a compelling argument can be made that the Hawaiian kingdom still exists, and is under prolonged illegal occupation by my country, the United States.

I also support efforts to protect the interest of Hawaiian families in their land and to expose the truth about land titles in Hawaii. However, I question the potential role of the International Court of Justice (also known as the World Court) in such local land title cases.

The Handbook of the ICJ, which is available at its Web site, clearly states that "Only States may be parties to cases before the Court" and the Court will only decide disputes which are "submitted to it by States." (States in an international context means countries.)

The handbook says: "Hardly a day passes without the Registry receiving written or oral applications from private persons. However heart-rending, however well-founded, such applications may be, the ICJ is unable to entertain them and a standard reply is always sent: 'Under Article 34 of the Statute, only States may be parties in cases before the Court.'"

Additionally, the handbook says, "A case can only be submitted to the Court with the consent of the States concerned," and that "no sovereign State can be made a party in proceedings before the Court unless it has in some manner or other consented thereto." Unlike domestic courts that can compel parties to appear and enforce rulings regardless of parties' consent, the ICJ has no such jurisdiction.

For these reasons, my understanding is that the International Court of Justice is not the proper venue for filing local land title claims, and that, in spite of the best intentions of those who may do so, such action presents at best a false hope.

Scott Crawford
Hana