Doctrine can be argued because of Hawaii's disputed occupation

The writer of a June 29 letter cites the doctrine of acquisitive prescription to argue that "Hawaii's long acquiescence as a territory and state removes any legal defects in the United States' claim of sovereignty."

In a legal brief on the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom (available at www.hawaiiankingdom.org), Dr. Matthew Craven of the University of London examines this argument in some detail.

"If a claim as to acquisitive prescription is to be maintained in relation to the Hawaiian Islands, various indica have to be considered including, for example ... the extent of opposition to or acquiescence in, that occupation."

In "The Acquisition of Territory in International Law" (1963), a widely cited authority on the subject, R. Jennings, states that in cases of acquisitive prescription, "an acquiescence on the part of the State prescribed against is of the essence of the process."

Queen Lili'uokalani filed formal diplomatic protests on several separate occasions. The Hawaiian people filed with the Senate a petition against annexation containing the names of a majority of the Hawaiian population at the time. These protests resulted in the refusal of the Senate to ratify the treaty of annexation.

The U.S. 1993 Apology Resolution says the Hawaiian population "never directly relinquished their claims to the inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States."

Just because the occupation has been prolonged doesn't mean it isn't still an occupation.

Scott Crawford
Hana