I recently read a story in the Maui News at by Ken Conklin. Although he provides that same jiberish he does provide a very interesting link. His contention is that the overthrow of the Hawaiian government was legalized by the international recognition of the republic by the Queen and other States.

Firstly, other countries, as third parties, cannot legitimize an illegal situation between two States. And secondly, the investigation done by the U.S. President found that the provisional government was neither de facto (successful revolution) nor de jure (lawful by constitutional means), but self-proclaimed (criminal). This is what prompted the President to negotiate with the Queen, through U.S. Minister Albert Willis, to grant amnesty to those involved once restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom government was complete. You don't ask for amnesty, which means "a general pardon for offenders by a government," if they weren't criminals and the Queen didn't represent the Hawaiian Government. So how did these roles reverse whereby the criminals miraculously became the lawful Government and the representative of the lawful Government somehow became the criminal?

Conklin says it was the Morgan Report that waived the magic wand and reversed the President's findings and commitment to the Queen to restore the government as it was prior to the landing of the U.S. troops. He tends to equate the Morgan report with the Blount report, when both have nothing in common other than stemming from the U.S. government. Under the separation of power doctrine, the President, as the chief executive, is the only branch capable of negotiating and having relations with foreign States. The Senate, being a part of the legislative branch, is limited to legislating matters with the House of Representatives for U.S. citizens and U.S. territories. The Senate had no extra-territorial force in the 1890's nor does it have it today. The purpose of the Morgan report was to vindicate Minister Stevens and Capt. Wiltse from being prosecuted by U.S. authorities for the illegal actions done in the Hawaiian Kingdom. This comes from the principle that "a crime committed by the envoy on the territory of the receiving State must be punished by his home State" (Oppenheim). The Morgan report had nothing to do with the Blount report and the 1893 Cleveland-Lili`uokalani Agreement of restoration. It was political pure and simple. To ensure consistency in State behavior, the Permanent Court of International Justice, in a number of cases, affirmed the principle "that a State cannot invoke its municipal law as a reason for failure to fulfill its international obligation." This principle was later codified under Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, whereby "a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." The Morgan report is a matter of U.S. municipal law.

The principle that a State cannot benefit from its own wrongful act is a general principle of international law referred to as estoppel. The rationale for this rule derives from the maxim pacta sunt servanda—every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith, and "operates so as to preclude a party from denying the truth of a statement of fact made previously by that party to another whereby that other has acted to his detriment." According to I.C. MacGibbon, a legal scholar in international law, underlying "most formulations of the doctrine of estoppel in international law is the requirement that a State ought to be consistent in its attitude to a given factual or legal situation.

Regarding the contractual relations of foreign governments with the so-called Republic, "It is settled law that an agreement to do an act that is illegal or immoral or contrary to public policy, or to do any act for a consideration that is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy, is unlawful and therefore void." (Alexander v. Rayson (1936) 1 KB 169, 182). Estoppel is used to bar even these so-called recognitions from having any legal basis. These records of recognition that Conklin relies on now serve not as legitimizing the overthrow but rather more evidence of the violation of Hawai`i's sovereignty under international law. It's great that Conklin is making these records known!!!

Hmm, how does that saying go again? Oh yeah, "Be careful of what you say, because whatever you say can be used against you in a court of law."

Keanu.