Understanding the distinction between recognition and legality in the context of Hawaiian sovereignty

The question “Is the Nation of Hawaiʻi legally recognized?” contains an assumption worth examining: that recognition determines legality.

In discussions of sovereignty, recognition and legality are related but distinct concepts. A nation may exist legally without being widely recognized. A government may be recognized for diplomatic purposes without that recognition resolving underlying legal questions.

Understanding this distinction is essential to understanding the Nation of Hawaiʻi’s position.

What Is Recognition?

In international relations, “recognition” typically refers to one state acknowledging another state’s existence, sovereignty, or government. Recognition is a political act, performed by states at their discretion.

Recognition can take different forms:

Recognition of statehood: Acknowledging that an entity meets the criteria to be considered a state under international law (defined territory, permanent population, effective government, capacity to enter relations with other states).

Recognition of government: Acknowledging a particular government as the legitimate authority of a state—which can occur even when a state’s existence is not in question.

Diplomatic relations: Establishing formal relations including embassies, treaties, and official communications.

A crucial point: under international legal theory, recognition is generally considered “declaratory” rather than “constitutive.” This means recognition acknowledges a legal reality—it does not create that reality.

If an entity meets the criteria for statehood, it is a state under international law whether or not other states choose to recognize it. Recognition reflects political relationships, not legal determination.

What Is the Nation of Hawaiʻi?

The Nation of Hawaiʻi is a constitutional Hawaiian governance organization that asserts continuity with the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The organization maintains:

  • A written constitution establishing governmental structure
  • Enrolled citizenship
  • Executive, legislative, and judicial functions
  • Land-based governance at sites including Puʻuhonua o Waimānalo
  • Diplomatic outreach

The Nation of Hawaiʻi’s position is that Hawaiian sovereignty was never lawfully extinguished. On this view, the relevant question is not whether the Nation of Hawaiʻi should be “recognized” as a new entity, but whether the continuing sovereignty of the Hawaiian people—which the U.S. Congress has acknowledged was “never directly relinquished”—is being properly respected.

Recognition by Whom?

When people ask whether the Nation of Hawaiʻi is “legally recognized,” they typically mean one of several things:

Recognized by the United States?

The United States does not recognize the Nation of Hawaiʻi as a sovereign government. The U.S. position, as a practical matter, is that Hawaiʻi is the 50th state, and the state and federal governments exercise jurisdiction there.

However, the U.S. position is more complex than simple non-recognition. Through Public Law 103-150, the United States has acknowledged:

  • Native Hawaiians “never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty”
  • The overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was “illegal”
  • Reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people is needed

The federal government has not specified what “reconciliation” means or what it might entail regarding governance.

Recognized by other nations?

The Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, before 1893, was recognized by numerous nations including the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and others. The Kingdom maintained embassies and entered into treaties.

Those recognition relationships were disrupted by the overthrow and subsequent events. Contemporary Hawaiian sovereignty organizations have sought engagement with international bodies and foreign governments, with varying degrees of formal acknowledgment.

Recognized by international bodies?

Hawaiian representatives have engaged with United Nations bodies including:

  • The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
  • The UN Human Rights Council
  • The UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has visited Hawaiʻi and reported on conditions facing Native Hawaiians.

The Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was briefly listed as a Non-Self-Governing Territory by the United Nations in 1946 but was removed following the 1959 statehood vote. Challenges to this removal have been raised in international forums.

The Question Behind the Question

When people ask about legal recognition, they often mean: “Is this real? Is it legitimate?”

This framing misunderstands how sovereignty works.

Consider: The United States was not “recognized” as legitimate by Great Britain until 1783, six years after independence was declared. Did the United States not exist during those six years? Was the revolution illegitimate until London acknowledged it?

Sovereignty, in political philosophy and international law, is fundamentally about the relationship between a people and their governance—not about external validation.

The Nation of Hawaiʻi’s position is that Hawaiian sovereignty is inherent to the Hawaiian people, was never lawfully transferred, and continues to exist regardless of whether external authorities choose to recognize it. On this view, the United States is an occupying power, and U.S. “recognition” would actually be acknowledgment of a pre-existing reality, not a grant of legitimacy.

Whether one accepts this framing or not, it clarifies why “Is it recognized?” may not be the most relevant question.

What Federal Law Actually Says

The U.S. government’s position involves internal contradictions that have not been resolved.

On one hand, Hawaiʻi is administered as a state, and the federal government does not recognize alternative governance structures as having legal authority.

On the other hand, Public Law 103-150 establishes these findings:

“the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States”

The overthrow resulted in “the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people”

The United States apologizes for “the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination”

These findings remain federal law. They have not been repealed or superseded. They acknowledge that something significant remains unresolved regarding Hawaiian sovereignty and self-determination.

The Nation of Hawaiʻi operates within this unresolved space—asserting sovereignty that the United States itself has acknowledged was “never directly relinquished.”

What Recognition Would and Wouldn’t Mean

If the United States were to formally recognize the Nation of Hawaiʻi or another Hawaiian sovereignty organization, it would represent a political decision—not a discovery of legal facts.

Similarly, the current lack of U.S. recognition does not mean Hawaiian sovereignty claims are legally invalid. It means the United States has not chosen to acknowledge them in a way that would change its administrative relationship to Hawaiʻi.

Many things exist and function without recognition from those who might object to them. The relevant questions are:

  • Does the organization serve its members effectively?
  • Does it maintain legitimate governance structures?
  • Does it preserve and advance Hawaiian interests and culture?
  • Does it represent a genuine expression of Hawaiian self-determination?

These are the questions that matter for those involved in Hawaiian sovereignty work. External recognition may be politically significant, but it is not the measure of legitimacy.

The Nation of Hawaiʻi’s Approach

The Nation of Hawaiʻi has generally distinguished itself from efforts to seek federal recognition similar to that extended to Native American tribes. The organization’s position is that federal “recognition” would be inappropriate because:

  • Hawaiʻi was an independent nation, not an indigenous nation within a larger nation-state
  • Accepting federal recognition would concede U.S. sovereignty over Hawaiʻi
  • The Hawaiian Kingdom’s status under international law is different from tribal nations’ status under U.S. law

This approach prioritizes continuity with the Kingdom’s historical status over potential benefits that might come with federal recognition.

Other Native Hawaiian organizations have taken different approaches, including support for federal recognition. The diversity of approaches reflects genuine disagreements within the Hawaiian community about the best path forward.

The Honest Answer

Is the Nation of Hawaiʻi legally recognized?

The honest answer is: it depends what you mean.

Recognized by the U.S. as having governmental authority over Hawaiian territory? No.

Recognized by the U.S. as representing a sovereignty claim that was “never directly relinquished”? In a sense, yes—that’s what PL 103-150 acknowledges.

Recognized as legitimate by its members and the communities it serves? Yes.

The more useful question may be: What is the legal and historical basis for Hawaiian sovereignty claims, and what do those claims mean for the future?

Those questions have substantive answers, grounded in documented history and federal law. The answers do not depend on whether any particular government chooses to recognize them.

Sources: Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510); Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933); Nation of Hawaiʻi constitutional documents; UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

,