DOCSLIB.ORG

A Hand-Book on the Annexation of Hawaii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A HAND-BOOK ....ON THE.... ANNEXATION OF HAWAII BY "" LORRIN A. THURS|TjQK nWvF; If;IMJ • 1. Shall Hawaii Be Annexed? . / . 1 ' 2. Arguments in Favor of Annexation i . 3 3. A Brief Description of Hawaii, its People, Govern- ment, Laws, Commerce, Finances, Educational System and Resources . .20 4. Twenty Objections to Annexation and Replies . thereto . .27 5. A Digest of the Official Opinions of American Presidents, Secretaries of State, Ministers, and Military and Naval Officers concerning the Annexation or Control of Hawaii . -47 6. President Harrison’s Message to the Senate Ad- . vocating Annexation . -49 7. President McKinley’s Message to the Senate Ad- vocating Annexation . -50 8. Report of Secretary Sherman to President McKinley Advocating Annexation . -59 9. A Digest of the Acts of Congress and of Hawaii concerning American Control or Annexation of Hawaii .........74 10. Text of the Hawaiian Annexation Treaties of 1854, 1893, and 1897; and of the Reciprocity and - Pearl Harbor Treaties of 1875 and 1887 . -77 be no near to and passing as States. and a there Station. numbered to failed, the Fernandez, coast United Supply coal the between only and Juan to which the connecting and American there, islands is water, belongs line the Hawaii wood, Callao, near station small black so Honolulu, the which near are naval of heavyfurnish of a within and any the can on, west on Pacific by Gallapagos, miles establish or the which to of spot depended 1867there Hawaii. in portion is be surrounded one it. thousanda the spacebut spot of madeavailable is part Island, now the that cannot a was 1. showing there are MAR No. Map Within and Midwav attempt stations, vessel, Valparaiso,practically An suppliesHonolulu. the the and upon as from which stations size is station, wide now within same as it the supplysuperimposed it as numbered of Pacific the India. only make great Atlantic. space as the the to being to of a the as be within is and Kong so Pacific portionbeing Francisco enclosingHawaii back would the scale. San Hong of that portion line by Size same from which pushed Gibralter black to the such within Relative to particularly, surface heavy occupied were York the line. a drawn Station, isPacific line New showing are more black earth's the Atlantic 2 Supply the of such the from jMap heavy thereon on and shows, • of Persia. i 2. > only th portion to snows2 No. isjthe by fhe position shores distance MAR MapJJtrl^ Superimposed as the the Maprijlo. Francisco. If Francisco CJ2 GOvTap4^togs* Hawaii shaperelative San Pacific, San INDEX PAGE PAGE' Alexander, Gen’l on strategic value A ssets 42 of Hawaii 33, 70 Australian ballot system in 31 Aleution Islands, distance from con- Asiatics (see Chinese and Japanese) tinent 30 Australasia, growingpower and claims Alaska, annexation of—27; No popu- of 18 lar vote on annexation 37; Popu- lation of at time ofannexation 30 Beet sugar, annexation not injurious American currency standard in Ha- to 39 waii 31 Belknap’s opinion of strategic value Competition with Japanese 7 of Hawaii 33, 73 Interests endangered by Hawaiian Bonded debt, amount of Hawaiian independence 18 and where held Interests in Hawaii, 5, 8, 31, 33, 44. 65, 69 23, 24 Ministers, opinions on Hawaii 61 to 70 Buchanan, President, opinion con- Shipping, (see Shipping) cerning Hawaii 47, 52 Annexation of Hawaii, Blaine, Hawaii within scope of Mon- (see Protectorate) roe Doctrine 36 Advocated by President Pierce 47; On annexation 57, 58 Johnson,48; Grant. 48; Arthur. 48; Harrison, 49; McKinley, 50; Sec- Cable, attempt of England to get an retary Marcy 54; Seward, 56; Fish, island for 6 56; Blaine. 57-8; Foster, 58; Sher- U. S. Minister Sever- California, annexation of 27 man, 59; No popular vote 37 ance. 62; Gregg, 63; McCook, 64; (see Pacific Coast) Pierce, 65: Stevens, 68; Mahan, 71-2; Schofield, 72; Belknap, 73; Census of Hawaii (see Hawaiians) 24 Turpie and Butler, 75. China, distance from California 4 American and Hawaiianlaws relat- Chinese immigration prohibited by ing to 37, 38 Annexation Treaty 8, 61, 83 Asiatics acquire no new rights un- Number (see Census) der 32 Character of in Hawaii 32 Constitutionality of 27 to 30 Gain no rights by annexation 32 Decisions of Supreme Court on con- stitutionality of 28 Citizens, Asiatics in Hawaii cannot be 7 Effect on commerce 14 Clayton, Secretary, opinion con- Shipping 14 to 17 cerning Hawaii 53 Hawaiian population 14, 38, 58 Climate of Hawaii 21, 22 Grant’s confidential message con- value of Hawaii a base for cerning Coal, as 48 war ships 34 Hawaiian constitution provides for 37, 76 Incidental only to U. S. Hawaiian Coffee, importance of as a Hawaiian policy 35 product 22 Objections to, and replies thereto 27 to 46 Commerce, Hawaiian, statistics 9 to 16, 35, 66 Of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Cali- Per capita 14 fornia. Alaska, Guano Islands Under annexation 14 and Midway Island 27 Importance to U. S. shipping 14 to 16 Population of territories when an- To U. S. interests 45, 46 nexed 30 Congress, Acts of. concerning annex- Question of long standing, 1, 2, 51, 67, 75 ation 27, 28 Reasons in favor of 1 to 19 Resolution concerning Control of Reciprocity intended to promote 2,48, 56, 68 Hawaii 74, 75 Resolutions by Hawaiian legislature provides for in 1851-76, in 1896 77 Constitution of Hawaii Sugar Trust, not beneficial to 41 annexation 37, 60, 76 Treatv of 1851, 62, 63, 67, 76; of 1854 Constitutionality of annexation, con- 54, 55, 77; of 1893, 80: of 1897 82 struction by Executive 27 Will not be precedent for other an- Congress 27 nexations 35 Supreme Court 28 Will not necessitate fortifications or Non-contiguous territory 29 navy 35 Non-homogeneouspeople 30 Will prevent international friction 17, 18 Courts, number and character of Ha- Annexation treaties negotiated by U. waiian 25 S. 27 Common Law (see Laws) Area of Hawaii 35 Currency, U. S. standard in Hawaii 31 II PAGE PAGE ■Customs Revenue, amount of Ha- Germany, refusal of jointaction, by waiian 23 U. S. 50 Customs Union, objections to 60, 69 Government, present Hawaiian 24-5 Future form left to Congress 33, 51, 60, 83 Senator, Senate Grant, President, opinion favoring Davis. report to on annexation 48,56 Hawaii 75 of annexation Debt, Gregg, negotiation in schedule of Hawaiian and by 63 where held 23, 24 1854, Less than public assests 42 Guano Island legislation, authorizing annexation Distance of Hawaii from principal 27, 28 ports (see Map on cover) 20 Dolph, Senator, report to Senate on Harrison treaty 80 Hawaii 75 Messages 49 Dole, President, description and char- On a protectorate 39, 49 acter of 25, 41 Hawaii, area islands 20, 35 A sovereign state 42, 59 Education in Hawaii 22, 31 American state 75 Climate 21 Emigration, rate of from Japan 6, 7 Treaty gives U. S. control of Danger to U. S. of foreign control 8, 83 (see Foreign Powers) England (see Foreign Powers), at- Distance from (see Map on cover) tempt to get island for cable 6 Description of 20 to 26 Colonial influence in Pacific 18 Decrease of population, problems Distance from California 4 raised (see Population) Influence in Hawaii 64 Issue in, is Eastern vs. Western civ- Joint action with, refused by U. S. 50 ilization 8 Seizure of Hawaii 17, 61, 66 Foreign control inevitable 5, 58, 65 Treaty with France concerning Drifting Japanwards 7 Hawaii 66 Why called “Key of Pacific” 5 Electorate, qualifications of Hawaiian 25 Necessity for action by U. S. 5 Everett, Edward, opinion concerning Official acts concerning annexation 76 Hawaii 61 Products 22 People (see Population) Expenses and revenue of Hawaii, Physical character of 21 statistics 23 Strategical value of (see Strategic Exports, Hawaiian 9, 16, 22 Value of Hawaii) Per capita 14, 31 Seizures of 17,44 Policy of U. S. concerning, (see U. Fillmore, President, opinion con- S. Policy) cerning Hawaii 47 Steamship lines stopping at 4 Within scope Monroe Doctrine, (see Financial status of Hawaii 23, 42 Monroe Doctrine) Fish, Secretary, opinion in favor of Hawaiian constitution (see Constitu- annexation 56 tion) Florida, date of annexation 27 Commerce (see Commerce) Population 30 Debt (see Debt) No popular vote 37 Form and character of government 24, 25 Foreign Powers, opinions concerning Character of officials 41 occupation of Hawaii by—Tyler. Legislative ratification of annexa- 47; Fillmore, 47; Pierce, 47; Buch- tion 76, 77 anan, 47, 52; Johnson, 48; Harri- Law (see Laws) son, 49; McKinley, 50; Webster, Population (see Population) 52-3; Legare, 52. Tariff’, present and under annexa- Danger of to U. S., 4, 34, 47, 52 to 58, 64, 66, tion 14 68, 72. 73. Treaties of annexation (see Annexa- Opposition to annexation 18, 40 tion treaties) Seizure of Hawaii during war 44, 66 Voters (see Voters) Troops landed in Hawaii 17, 66 Hawaiians, decrease of, question rais- Fortifications, annexation does not ed by 5, 57, 65 necessitate 34, 35 Effect of annexation on 38 Foster, opinion on annexation 58 Will not emigrate to U. S. 45 Protectorate 59 Holidays, IT. S. observed in Hawaii 31 Treaty negotiated by 80 Honolulu, population and description France (see Foreign Powers), distance of 21 from California 4 Seizure of Hawaii by 17, 34, 53, 61, 62, 66 House of representatives, resolution by Hawaiian (see Resolutions) Frye, Senator, report to Senate on Hawaii 75 Immigration laws objected to by Gadsden Purchase, New Mexico and Japan 31 Arizona 27 Imports. Hawaii 9, 11 to 13, 16 III PAGE PAGE Income and expendituresof Hawaii 23 Not overthrown by U. S. troops 42 International friction diminished by Overthrow predicted in 1873 67 annexation 18, 19 Overthrow
Recommended publications
  • The-Legal-Status-Of-East-Jerusalem.Pdf

    The-Legal-Status-Of-East-Jerusalem.Pdf

    December 2013 Written by: Adv. Yotam Ben-Hillel Cover photo: Bab al-Asbat (The Lion’s Gate) and the Old City of Jerusalem. (Photo by: JC Tordai, 2010) This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position or the official opinion of the European Union. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) is an independent, international humanitarian non- governmental organisation that provides assistance, protection and durable solutions to refugees and internally displaced persons worldwide. The author wishes to thank Adv. Emily Schaeffer for her insightful comments during the preparation of this study. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 6 3. Israeli Legislation Following the 1967 Occupation ............................................................ 8 3.1 Applying the Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to East Jerusalem .................... 8 3.2 The Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel ................................................................... 10 4. The Status
  • QATAR V. BAHRAIN) REPLY of the STATE of QATAR ______TABLE of CONTENTS PART I - INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I - GENERAL 1 Section 1

    QATAR V. BAHRAIN) REPLY of the STATE of QATAR ______TABLE of CONTENTS PART I - INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I - GENERAL 1 Section 1

    CASE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION AND TERRITORIAL QUESTIONS BETWEEN QATAR AND BAHRAIN (QATAR V. BAHRAIN) REPLY OF THE STATE OF QATAR _____________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I - GENERAL 1 Section 1. Qatar's Case and Structure of Qatar's Reply Section 2. Deficiencies in Bahrain's Written Pleadings Section 3. Bahrain's Continuing Violations of the Status Quo PART II - THE GEOGRAPHICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER II - THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF QATAR Section 1. The Overall Geographical Context Section 2. The Emergence of the Al-Thani as a Political Force in Qatar Section 3. Relations between the Al-Thani and Nasir bin Mubarak Section 4. The 1913 and 1914 Conventions Section 5. The 1916 Treaty Section 6. Al-Thani Authority throughout the Peninsula of Qatar was consolidated long before the 1930s Section 7. The Map Evidence CHAPTER III - THE EXTENT OF THE TERRITORY OF BAHRAIN Section 1. Bahrain from 1783 to 1868 Section 2. Bahrain after 1868 PART III - THE HAWAR ISLANDS AND OTHER TERRITORIAL QUESTIONS CHAPTER IV - THE HAWAR ISLANDS Section 1. Introduction: The Territorial Integrity of Qatar and Qatar's Sovereignty over the Hawar Islands Section 2. Proximity and Qatar's Title to the Hawar Islands Section 3. The Extensive Map Evidence supporting Qatar's Sovereignty over the Hawar Islands Section 4. The Lack of Evidence for Bahrain's Claim to have exercised Sovereignty over the Hawar Islands from the 18th Century to the Present Day Section 5. The Bahrain and Qatar Oil Concession Negotiations between 1925 and 1939 and the Events Leading to the Reversal of British Recognition of Hawar as part of Qatar Section 6.
  • Explaining Irredentism: the Case of Hungary and Its Transborder Minorities in Romania and Slovakia

    Explaining Irredentism: the Case of Hungary and Its Transborder Minorities in Romania and Slovakia

    Explaining irredentism: the case of Hungary and its transborder minorities in Romania and Slovakia by Julianna Christa Elisabeth Fuzesi A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Government London School of Economics and Political Science University of London 2006 1 UMI Number: U615886 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615886 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 DECLARATION I hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis is entirely my own. Signature Date ....... 2 UNIVERSITY OF LONDON Abstract of Thesis Author (full names) ..Julianna Christa Elisabeth Fiizesi...................................................................... Title of thesis ..Explaining irredentism: the case of Hungary and its transborder minorities in Romania and Slovakia............................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................... Degree..PhD in Government............... This thesis seeks to explain irredentism by identifying the set of variables that determine its occurrence. To do so it provides the necessary definition and comparative analytical framework, both lacking so far, and thus establishes irredentism as a field of study in its own right. The thesis develops a multi-variate explanatory model that is generalisable yet succinct.
  • Republicans' Mexican-American Presidential Candidate: Mitt Romney?

    Republicans' Mexican-American Presidential Candidate: Mitt Romney?

    Republicans’ Mexican-American Presidential Candidate: Mitt Romney? By Ted J. Chiappari and Angelo A. Paparelli* Four years ago, one of the challenges to President Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for the presidency as a “natural born Citizen” was based on his ostensible dual citizenship at birth and the divided loyalties1 that can result from multiple citizenships. More recently, Mitt Romney’s Mexican heritage made it into the news because of Newt Gingrich’s claim that Romney was “anti- immigrant.”2 Reports of Mitt Romney’s eligibility for Mexican citizenship appeared around the same time.3 With the suspension of Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign and Newt Gingrich’s concession that Mitt Romney will probably be the Republican Party’s 2012 candidate, Romney and Obama are beginning in earnest to highlight their differences. Since both candidates are facing the potential liability of having a father born abroad (George Romney in Mexico and Barack Obama Sr. in Kenya) from whom eligibility for dual citizenship may flow, it is unlikely that either candidate will wish to highlight his opponent’s transnational ties. If they did, as unlikely as it may be, a brief reflection on the issue could result in a new appreciation of the intricacies of the U.S. citizenship laws. In the wake of the last presidential election, we explored the complexities of U.S. citizenship law in connection with the candidacies of both Senator John McCain – born in the Panama Canal Zone – and then President-Elect Obama.4 Given Mitt Romney’s birth in Detroit, no one is questioning that he is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President pursuant to Article II of the 1 Competing loyalties have long been a concern in policy and legal arguments against dual citizenship.
  • Annexation Resources

    Annexation Resources

    ANNEXATION RESOURCES WEBINARS and PODCASTS Webinars: The Jewish Council for Public Affairs o Increasing Sovereignty over areas in the West Bank: An Israeli Perspective o Scenarios of Government and Civil Society Responses to Israeli Annexation of the West Bank: A US Perspective Webinars: Israel Policy Forum o Israelis and Palestinians React to Annexation o Israel's Security Establishment Prepares for Annexation o The International Angle - Potential Ramifications of West Bank Annexation Webinar: Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington DC Implications of Annexation in the US-Israel Relationship Podcast: Shalom Hartman Institute - What Does the Israeli Annexation Plan Mean for North Americans? Podcast: Israel Policy Forum - Annexation in the Dark Rosner’s Domain: Michael Herzog: Will Israel annex the west bank this summer? ARTICLES/OP EDS/REPORTS The Washington Institute o On Annexation, Netanyahu Must Choose a Lasting Legacy by David Makovsky and Dennis Ross o Did Pompeo’s Visit Shift the Annexation Debate in Israel and Washington? by David Makovsky o Wrestling with Annexation-The Elusive Search for a Policy Rationale by Robert Satloff o Mapping West Bank Annexation: Territorial and Political Uncertainties By David Makovsky with Basia Rosenbaum and Lauren Morganbesser The New York Times - On Annexation, a Green Light Turns Yellow, Pompeo’s Visit to Israel Signals by David M. Halbfinger and Lara Jakes - The Israel Democracy Institute - Israeli Voice Index: Over Half of Jewish Israelis Support Annexation by Prof. Tamar Hermann and Dr. Or Anabi Haaretz o AIPAC: Annexation Should Not Change U.S.-Israel Relationship – by Amir Tibon o Still No Consensus With U.S.
  • Faqs: Israel's Changing Policies on the West Bank the Government of Israel Is Discussing Whether to Incorporate Land Currently

    Faqs: Israel's Changing Policies on the West Bank the Government of Israel Is Discussing Whether to Incorporate Land Currently

    FAQs: Israel’s Changing Policies on the West Bank The Government of Israel is discussing whether to incorporate land currently governed by Israel’s Judea and Samaria Civil Administration (JSCA) into the State of Israel. The JSCA is a formally independent body accountable the Israeli military. Press reports have indicated this decision could be made as early as July 1. Israeli government officials who support this change believe that it will lead to further negotiations with Palestinians. They also argue that inaction, maintaining the status quo, will be harmful. Those who oppose the move claim annexation would negatively impact future negotiations with Palestinians and bring condemnation from around the world. ‘Annexation’ vs. ‘Applied Sovereignty’ “Annexation” is used in mainstream media to describe what Israelis call “applied sovereignty.” It suggests that the same Israeli law that governs all of Israel replace the JSCA currently in place. This language has become politically charged, but many use these terms interchangeably. Applying Israeli sovereignty to the West Bank, or areas within it, has been proposed several times since the 1967 Six-Day War, after which Israel took control over the West Bank. View 1967 border map here. Today, there is no clear idea about what plans are being discussed. Some reports suggest that Israel will apply sovereignty over 30 percent of the West Bank. Others are more conservative and suggest "a more symbolic annexation of a small amount of land"1 or just 128 existing settlements2 or even a smaller number of settlements closer to Israeli territory3. Why is Israel talking about this now? In late January 2020, President Trump unveiled a plan to address the Israeli Palestinian conflict, called the Peace to Prosperity Plan.
  • Legal Status of the Virgin Islands Divorces

    Legal Status of the Virgin Islands Divorces

    LEGAL STATUS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVORCES By VimN D. CALLoWAY, JR.* L Introduction In recent months it has become increasingly popular among United States citizens seeking divorces to forsake the time-honored trek to Reno, and head instead for the outlying territory of the Virgin Islands. This change in direction of the so called "divorce trade" is due to the comparative ease with which one can obtain a divorce decree and the attractions of the Islands. For those who can afford the trip, it is thought that two birds can be killed with one stone, so to speak: a divorce obtained and a restful vacation enjoyed. By provision of Congress, the Legislative Assembly of the Virgin Islands was set up to enact legislation applicable to the Virgin Islands as a whole,' the District Court of the Virgin Islands being given jurisdiction of all cases of divorce and annulment of mar- 2 riage. The current divorce law was enacted by the eighth Legislative Assembly of the Virgin Islands on December 18, 1944; approved December 29, 1944, by the acting Governor; and went into effect on January 28, 1945. The law gives as grounds3 for either party to obtain a legal separation, or to have their marriage contract dis- solved, at the plantiff's option, for: adultery, cruelty, impotency, desertion for one year, habitual drunkenness for one year, convic- 4 tion of a felony, insanity, and incompatibility of temperament. If the marriage was not celebrated in the district of the suit, before commencing action, the plaintiff must have been an inhabi- tant for a six-week period; such period being declared "Sufficient to give the court jurisdiction without regard to the place where the marriage was performed or the cause of action arose."'5 When the dissolution judgment has become final, and after the expiration of * 2nd year law student, Duke University; A.B.
  • Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses A study of the client kings in the early Roman period Everatt, J. D. How to cite: Everatt, J. D. (1972) A study of the client kings in the early Roman period, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10140/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk .UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM Department of Classics .A STUDY OF THE CLIENT KINSS IN THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE J_. D. EVERATT M.A. Thesis, 1972. M.A. Thesis Abstract. J. D. Everatt, B.A. Hatfield College. A Study of the Client Kings in the early Roman Empire When the city-state of Rome began to exert her influence throughout the Mediterranean, the ruling classes developed friendships and alliances with the rulers of the various kingdoms with whom contact was made.
  • De Facto and De Jure Annexation: a Relevant Distinction in International Law? Israel and Area C: a Case Study

    De Facto and De Jure Annexation: a Relevant Distinction in International Law? Israel and Area C: a Case Study

    FREE UNIVERSITY OF BRUSSELS European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation A.Y. 2018/2019 De facto and de jure annexation: a relevant distinction in International Law? Israel and Area C: a case study Author: Eugenia de Lacalle Supervisor: François Dubuisson ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, our warmest thanks go to our thesis supervisor, François Dubuisson. A big part of this piece of work is the fruit of his advice and vast knowledge on both the conflict and International Law, and we certainly would not have been able to carry it out without his help. It has been an amazing experience to work with him, and we have learned more through having conversations with him than by spending hours doing research. We would like to deeply thank as well all those experts and professors that received an e-mail from a stranger and accepted to share their time, knowledge and opinions on such a controversial topic. They have provided a big part of the foundation of this research, all the while contributing to shape our perspectives and deepen our insight of the conflict. A list of these outstanding professionals can be found in Annex 1. Finally, we would also like to thank the Spanish NGO “Youth, Wake-Up!” for opening our eyes to the Israeli-Palestinian reality and sparkling our passion on the subject. At a more technical level, the necessary field research for this dissertation would have not been possible without its provision of accommodation during the whole month of June 2019. 1 ABSTRACT Since the occupation of the Arab territories in 1967, Israel has been carrying out policies of de facto annexation, notably through the establishment of settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall.
  • Israel's De Facto Annexation of Palestinian Territory

    Israel's De Facto Annexation of Palestinian Territory

    AL-HAQ QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: ISRAEL’S DE FACTO ANNEXATION OF PALESTINIAN TERRITORY Al-Haq - 54 Main Street 1st & 2nd Fl. - Opp. Latin Patriarchate Saint Andrew’s Evangelical Church - (Protestant Hall) P.O.Box: 1413 - Ramallah - West Bank - Palestine Tel: + 970 2 2954646/7/9 Fax: + 970 2 2954903 www.alhaq.org Author Asma Jaber Editor Dr. Susan Power ISBN 978-9950-327-79-5 Design Hamza Dado Publisher Al-Haq - © All Rights Reserved - 2021 Al-Haq - © All Rights Reserved Any quotation of up to 500 words may be used without permission provided that full attribution is given. Longer quotations or entire chapters or sections of this study may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the express written permission of Al-Haq. TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I: International Law on Annexation ..................................................................................................................... 4 Part II:Israel’s Annexation De Facto and De Jure of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) ................. 16 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 International Law on Part I Annexation 4 Q&A on Israel’s De Facto Annexation of Palestinian Territory AL-HAQ 1. WHAT IS ANNEXATION? Annexation is the unilateral act of a State proclaiming its sovereignty over the territory of another.1 Usually annexation involves the threat or use of force. In many cases a State will occupy the territory of another during the course of an international armed conflict, and subsequently in an act of annexation, assert its sovereignty over it.2 Annexation is strictly prohibited under international law.
  • Israel's Possible Annexation of West Bank Areas: Frequently Asked

    Israel's Possible Annexation of West Bank Areas: Frequently Asked

    Israel’s Possible Annexation of West Bank Areas: Frequently Asked Questions Updated July 14, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46433 SUMMARY R46433 Israel’s Possible Annexation of West Bank July 14, 2020 Areas: Frequently Asked Questions Jim Zanotti Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has stated his intent for Israel to annex parts Specialist in Middle of the West Bank in 2020. Annexation could raise issues for Congress, and varying Eastern Affairs congressional views on the subject have contributed to debate about implications for U.S.-Israel relations. Congress may conduct additional oversight of Trump Administration actions and could modify or place conditions on U.S. funding for Israel, the Palestinians, and various international organizations. While the West Bank has been under Israeli military administration since its capture from Jordan in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, its status has been different from Israel proper (the territory Israel controlled before the war). Israel’s government has a mandate—based on the May 2020 power-sharing agreement between Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz—to bring the matter of annexation to a cabinet and/or Knesset vote as early as July 1, 2020, provided that it is done in coordination with the United States. Palestinian leaders strongly oppose annexation, partly because it could undermine their hopes for a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. Israeli annexation could thus have significant consequences for future U.S. efforts to secure a negotiated Israeli- Palestinian peace. In addition to the specific territorial and administrative impact of annexation, it could more broadly affect Palestinian national aspirations and the future of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel’s efforts to reconcile its actions with its self-proclaimed identity as both a Jewish and a democratic state, and Israeli and Palestinian security concerns.
  • Protectorates and Twists: Law, History and the Annexation of German New Guinea P.G

    Protectorates and Twists: Law, History and the Annexation of German New Guinea P.G

    Protectorates and Twists: Law, History and the Annexation of German New Guinea P.G. Sack Senior Fellow, Australian National University Introduction The 'annexation' of German New Guinea is frequently mentioned in the rapidly growing body of - more of less 'scholarly' - literature on the history of the Southwest Pacific. There is, however, not a single detailed discussion. Moreover, a comparison between the available accounts discloses not only a surprising degree of vagueness and variation, but also an almost total lack of critical analysis. At first we may be tempted to put this down to a mixture of political prejudice and shoddy workmanship, but it soon becomes apparent that we are, in fact, confronted by the products of a much more general and complex process of ritualisation. There appears to be a universal assumption that an 'annexation' is a formal legal ballet, with a series of prescribed movements, whose actual performance can be taken for granted. Strictly speaking, so it seems, the 'annexation' of German New Guinea is a matter of law and not a matter of history, so that a historical account can and should do no more than to state that this legal event took place. On the other hand, an 'annexation' cannot simply be left as a black, legal hole: in the interests of a well-rounded narrative it must, at least, be covered with a heap of legal jargon and historical trimmings. This problem is doubtless one reason why the process of ritualisation in the accounts of 'annexation' of German New Guinea reaches peaks of surrealistic absurdity. Consider, for instance, the following passage from the Papua New Guinea Handbook, where history has become a petrified chant that has long lost any connection with reality: I "In October 1899, the Germans incorporated the Marianas, Carolines and Marshall Islands (the three groups [sic] of Micronesia) into the administra­ tion [sic] and the following month, November 8, Bougainville and Buka were included as a result of an agreement with the U.S.