A comprehensive reference examining the historical record, federal acknowledgments, and ongoing questions regarding Hawaiʻi’s legal status

1. Was Hawaiʻi Ever Legally Annexed?

The conventional narrative holds that Hawaiʻi became U.S. territory through annexation in 1898. The historical record reveals a more complex situation that the United States government has itself acknowledged.

The Overthrow of 1893

On January 17, 1893, the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi’s constitutional government was overthrown. The participants included a group of businessmen and sugar planters, many of American descent, who formed a “Committee of Safety.” The action was supported by John L. Stevens, the U.S. Minister to Hawaiʻi, who ordered the landing of U.S. Marines from the USS Boston.

Queen Liliʻuokalani yielded her authority under protest, explicitly stating she did so “until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.”

The Blount Report (1893)

President Grover Cleveland dispatched Congressman James Blount to investigate. His report concluded that Minister Stevens had conspired with the revolutionaries and that U.S. forces were instrumental in the overthrow. Cleveland addressed Congress on December 18, 1893, stating that the United States had committed “an act of war” against a “feeble but friendly and confiding people.”

Cleveland attempted to restore the Queen but was blocked by the provisional government. He referred the matter to Congress, which took no action to restore the monarchy.

The Question of Annexation (1898)

Following the overthrow, the provisional government sought annexation to the United States. A treaty of annexation was submitted to the U.S. Senate in 1893 but was withdrawn by President Cleveland. A second treaty was submitted in 1897 under President McKinley.

The 1897 treaty failed to achieve the two-thirds Senate majority required by the U.S. Constitution for treaty ratification. With the treaty stalled, Congress instead passed the Newlands Resolution, a joint resolution, which President McKinley signed on July 7, 1898.

The constitutional question: The U.S. Constitution specifies that territory may be acquired through treaty (Article II, requiring two-thirds Senate approval). Whether a joint resolution—requiring only simple majorities—constitutes valid authority for territorial acquisition remains a matter of legal debate. No other territory has been acquired by joint resolution alone.

Additionally, the joint resolution was a unilateral act of the U.S. Congress. The Hawaiian Kingdom was not a party to this resolution. International law generally requires the consent of a sovereign nation for a valid transfer of sovereignty.

What the Record Shows

The factual record establishes:

  • The overthrow occurred with the participation of U.S. diplomatic and military personnel
  • President Cleveland characterized the U.S. role as “an act of war”
  • The constitutional method for acquiring territory (treaty ratification) was not achieved
  • Native Hawaiians did not consent to annexation—in fact, over 21,000 Kānaka Maoli signed the Kūʻē Petitions opposing annexation in 1897

2. What U.S. Public Law 103-150 Acknowledges

In 1993, one hundred years after the overthrow, Congress passed and President Clinton signed Public Law 103-150, commonly known as the “Apology Resolution.” This law contains specific historical and legal acknowledgments.

Text of Key Provisions

The joint resolution states, in part:

“Whereas, 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, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum…”

“Whereas, the Republic of Hawaiʻi combated efforts by President Cleveland and Congressional Democrats to restore the monarchy…”

The resolution formally apologizes “to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.”

Federal Acknowledgments in the Resolution

Public Law 103-150 contains 37 “Whereas” clauses establishing historical facts as matters of federal record:

  1. Prior to 1893, Hawaiʻi was “an independent nation… recognized as such by the United States”
  2. The overthrow occurred “with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States”
  3. U.S. Minister Stevens “conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents”
  4. Stevens “ordered the landing of United States armed naval forces”
  5. The Republic of Hawaiʻi “combated efforts by President Cleveland… to restore the monarchy”
  6. Native Hawaiians “never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty”

What the Resolution Does and Does Not Do

The resolution is an apology and an acknowledgment of historical facts. Courts have generally held it does not create enforceable legal rights or restore sovereignty. However, its significance lies in the federal government’s formal acknowledgment of the historical record.

The text itself urges Congress and the President to support “reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.”

Source: Public Law 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510

3. International Law and Self-Determination

The status of Hawaiʻi presents questions under international law that extend beyond U.S. domestic legal frameworks.

Recognition as a Sovereign Nation

Between 1826 and 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into treaties with the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan, and numerous other nations. These treaties—agreements between sovereigns—establish that Hawaiʻi was recognized as an independent nation under international law.

The Kingdom maintained embassies abroad and foreign nations maintained diplomatic missions in Honolulu. This network of diplomatic relations is evidence of recognition as a sovereign state under international law.

The Principle of Self-Determination

The United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights all affirm the right of peoples to self-determination.

Article 1 of both Covenants states: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), which the U.S. endorsed in 2010, further affirms:

“Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

International Bodies and Hawaiian Status

Hawaiʻi’s status has been raised in international forums:

  • The Hawaiian Kingdom was briefly listed as a Non-Self-Governing Territory by the United Nations in 1946 but was removed in 1959 following the statehood vote
  • Challenges to this removal have been presented to UN bodies, arguing the 1959 plebiscite did not meet international standards (it offered only statehood or territorial status, not independence)
  • The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has visited Hawaiʻi and reported on conditions

The Continuing State Doctrine

Under international law, belligerent occupation does not transfer sovereignty. Legal scholars have argued that if the 1893 overthrow and subsequent events constituted occupation rather than lawful acquisition, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a matter of international law, even if it cannot currently exercise governmental functions.

This remains a debated legal theory, with some scholars supporting it and others maintaining that prolonged acquiescence and the practical reality of U.S. governance have resolved the question.

4. The Nation of Hawaiʻi: Governance and Continuity

Various organizations have worked to maintain or restore Hawaiian governance. Among these is the Nation of Hawaiʻi, a constitutional Hawaiian governance body.

Constitutional Foundation

The Nation of Hawaiʻi operates under a written constitution establishing governmental structure, citizenship, and laws. This constitution draws on Hawaiian legal traditions while addressing contemporary governance needs.

The organization maintains that it represents a continuation of Hawaiian sovereignty that was never lawfully extinguished, rather than an attempt to create a new nation.

Governmental Structure

The Nation of Hawaiʻi has established governmental bodies including:

  • Executive leadership (Alii Nui)
  • Legislative council
  • Judicial system for internal matters
  • Citizenship enrollment processes
  • Land management systems

Relationship to Federal Recognition Efforts

The Nation of Hawaiʻi has generally distinguished itself from federal recognition efforts, which would classify Native Hawaiians similarly to federally recognized tribes. The organization’s position is that such recognition would be inconsistent with the historical status of Hawaiʻi as an independent nation, rather than an indigenous nation within a larger nation-state.

This represents a point of divergence from some Native Hawaiian organizations that have pursued federal recognition as a path toward self-governance.

5. Puʻuhonua o Waimānalo and Land-Based Sovereignty

Puʻuhonua o Waimānalo represents an expression of sovereignty rooted in physical stewardship of land.

The Concept of Puʻuhonua

In traditional Hawaiian culture, a puʻuhonua was a place of refuge—sacred ground where those who reached it were protected and could not be harmed. The concept encompasses sanctuary, healing, and restoration.

Land-Based Practice

Puʻuhonua o Waimānalo operates on land in Waimānalo, Oʻahu, where the community practices Hawaiian cultural traditions, sustainable agriculture, and self-governance according to Hawaiian values and customs.

The site serves as:

  • A living demonstration of Hawaiian governance in practice
  • A center for cultural education and revival
  • Housing for Native Hawaiians
  • A space for practicing traditional food sovereignty

Sovereignty as Practice, Not Just Theory

The significance of places like Puʻuhonua o Waimānalo lies in demonstrating sovereignty through action. Rather than waiting for external recognition, communities exercise sovereignty by governing themselves, caring for the land, and maintaining Hawaiian culture and traditions.

This approach reflects an understanding that sovereignty is inherent and exercised, not granted by outside authorities.

6. Common Myths and Legal Misconceptions

Several misconceptions circulate regarding Hawaiian sovereignty. Examining these claims against the historical and legal record is useful.

Myth: “Hawaiians voted for statehood, so the sovereignty question is settled.”

The record: The 1959 statehood vote offered only two options: statehood or continued territorial status. Independence was not on the ballot. Additionally, the electorate included all residents of the territory, not just Native Hawaiians, and did not include Native Hawaiians living outside the territory. Whether this plebiscite met international standards for self-determination remains disputed.

Myth: “Public Law 103-150 is just symbolic and has no legal significance.”

The record: While courts have held that PL 103-150 does not create enforceable legal claims, the law does establish historical facts as matters of federal record. These include that the overthrow occurred with U.S. participation and that Native Hawaiians never relinquished sovereignty. These acknowledgments are federal law, signed by the President.

Myth: “Hawaiʻi was legally annexed like other U.S. territories.”

The record: The annexation of Hawaiʻi differed from other territorial acquisitions. The treaty of annexation failed to achieve ratification. Annexation occurred through joint resolution, a method not used for any other territorial acquisition. Whether this constituted valid acquisition under the U.S. Constitution is a legal question that has not been definitively resolved.

Myth: “Hawaiian sovereignty movements want to expel non-Hawaiians.”

The reality: Hawaiian sovereignty encompasses diverse perspectives. Many advocates envision a restored Hawaiian nation that honors all who call Hawaiʻi home while restoring Hawaiian governance, cultural authority, and land rights. The historical Hawaiian Kingdom itself was a multiethnic nation with non-Hawaiian citizens.

Myth: “The sovereignty question was settled long ago.”

The reality: The United States Congress addressed this question in 1993—not in the 19th century—and acknowledged that Native Hawaiians “never directly relinquished” their sovereignty. The continued vitality of this discussion reflects that the matter remains unresolved rather than settled.

Conclusion

The legal status of Hawaiian sovereignty involves questions that the United States has itself acknowledged remain open. The historical record, preserved in federal law through Public Law 103-150, documents that:

  • The Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was an independent nation
  • Its government was overthrown with U.S. participation
  • Native Hawaiians never relinquished their sovereignty
  • The United States apologizes for these events

Organizations like the Nation of Hawaiʻi and communities like Puʻuhonua o Waimānalo represent ongoing expressions of Hawaiian governance and self-determination. Whether one views these as continuation of existing sovereignty or aspirations toward restored sovereignty, they represent the living practice of Hawaiian self-governance.

The question is not whether Hawaiians desire sovereignty—the question is how the historical record is understood and what forms reconciliation might take.

This document draws on primary sources including Public Law 103-150, the Blount Report, President Cleveland’s 1893 address to Congress, and international legal instruments. For additional documentation, see the [Legal Archive] of the Nation of Hawaiʻi.

,