Benutzer:IslandGyrl/Testseite 1

Legal status of Hawai‘i
1843–1893: international recognition of Kingdom of Hawai‘i as an independent and sovereign nation-state
1893: Queen Lili‘uokalani deposed through actions of annexationists Sanford B. Dole | Lorrin A. Thurston | Committee of Safety and U.S. minister (ambassador) John L. Stevens
Hawaiian nationalists have disputed the annexationist official U.S. view of the legal status of Hawai‘i ever since.
Annexationist view ←	→ Nationalist view
A purely internal revolution 1893 Provisional Government 1894 Republic of Hawai‘i, recognized by other countries, hence legitimate Stated goal: annexation by U.S.	Armed intervention, violated treaties Start of white-supremacist oligarchy Illegitimate, no consent of governed Popular unrest, Wilcox rebellion 1897 Anti-annexation petitions
View supported in U.S. by: Presidents Harrison & McKinley John Tyler Morgan The Morgan Report	View supported in U.S. by: President Grover Cleveland James Henderson Blount The Blount Report
After outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the U.S. covets Hawai‘i as a base for waging war in the Philippines / asserting control of the Pacific
1898 Newlands Resolution formally annexes Hawai‘i without a treaty. 1900 Organic Act defines U.S. admini- stration of the Territory of Hawai‘i 1959 Admission Act and referendum make Hawai‘i a U.S. state	No consent of the governed / no treaty, hence annexation void. Sovereignty of independent Hawai‘i continues to exist de jure, though no government is able to exercise it de facto because of belligerent occupation by the U.S.
1921 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 1978 Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) established by state constitutional convention and referendum 1993 Apology Resolution (full text) 2005 (proposed "Akaka Bill") Native Hawaiian Gov't Reorganization Act	Reject "native" status within U.S. as obscuring clear, non-racial concept of Kingdom citizenship and sub- stituting a divisive racial concept of blood quantum instead. Ultimately (and improperly) trying to fit Hawai‘i into an "Indian tribe" model
Key legal arguments behind the two views
Republic legitimately tendered sovereignty to the United States. Reach of U.S. law and lawmaking power thus extends to Hawai‘i	U.S. law is not valid in Hawai‘i, as international law obliges the U.S. as occupier to administer the laws of the Kingdom as occupied country
Large majority vote for statehood rectifies any earlier lack of consent and denial of self-determination. The United Nations decolonization committee later removed Hawai‘i from its list of non-self-governing territories, so the vote should be seen as legitimate and binding	Vote flawed (no UN supervision, no independence option on ballot, no bar to voting by occupier's military/civilian migrants); did not meet UN criteria for true self-determination. Because U.S. actions had made Hawai‘i nationals a minority in their own country, a vote under such circumstances is a sham
See also: History of Hawaii | Hawaiian sovereignty movement