EXAMINING THE IDEA OF NATIONHOOD FOR THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE JEAN KADOOKA MARDFIN Researcher Report No.6, 1994 Legislative Reference Bureau State Capitol Honolulu, Hawaii FOREWORD This study on how to identify a sovereign nation was undertaken in response to Senate Resolution No. 209, S.D. 1, adopted during the 1994 legislative session. Thisrepott therefore examines the conceptual underpinnings of sovereignty beginning with a discussion of the vocabulary of international law. The report goes on to discuss American Indian tribal sovereignty in the federal context and concludes with a description of the work of the Hawaii Sovereignty Advisory Council. It is hoped that this report will broaden the Legislature's understanding of this complex area. Samuel B. K. Chang Director September 1994 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD................................................................................................................. ii 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... Organization of the Report........ ......................................... .......... ............ ..................... 1 Methodology................................................................................................................ 1 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS.............................................................................................. 3 The Meaning of "State"................. ......................................................................... 3 Defining Sovereignty.......................................... .................................................... 4 Tribal Sovereignty ........................................... :...................................................... 9 Recognition .......................................................................................................... 11 Treaties................................................................................................................ 12 Self-determination........... ............. ...... ..................... ............. ............................ ..... 13 Self-determination in the United Nations Context .................................................... 16 Summary.............................................................................................................. 17 3. TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY .............................................................................................. 18 Indian Tribes as Independent Sovereign Nations .................................................... 18 Indian Treaties........ ................................................................... .............. .... ......... 20 Alaska.................................................................................................................. 24 Hawaiian Sovereignty History ................................................................................ 25 Summary.............................................................................................................. 28 4. HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNlY PREPARATIONS............................................................... 30 Act 301, Session Laws of Hawaii 1991 ................................................................... 30 Act 359, Session Laws of Hawaii 1993 ................ .............................. ............. ........ 33 Movement Toward Self-determination ........... ....... ......... ..................... .................... 34 Implications of the State's Actions Since 1991........................................................ 35 5. FINDINGS.................................................................................................................. 36 APPENDICES A. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 209, S.D. 1 (1994).................................................... 39 B. Recommendations to the Hawai'i State Legislature... ..... .......... ................ ............... ...... 41 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHy ...................................................... ~....................................... 47 iii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION How can the state Legislature identify or know that a group of people is a sovereign nation, and what can the state legislature do to aid or facilitate the sovereignty movement? Senate Resolution No. 209, S.D. 1, a copy of which is included as Appendix A, requested the legislative Reference Bureau (Bureau) "to study the processes by which the federal government confers sovereignty on native governments and the manner in which states recognize and document such conferrals". To that end this report examines the aspects of sovereignty which confirm the existence of a group of people having a common desire to determine their future and their sovereign status. Organization of the Report This chapter, Chapter 1, introduces the report and describes the methodology. Chapter 2 defines terms such as "sovereignty", "self-determination", "recognition", and the like i.l order to properly respond to Senate Resolution No. 209, S.D. 1. Chapter 3 provides a brief summary of the United States government's experience with indigenous nations such as American Indian tribes and the nature of Indian tribal authority within the federal system today. The chapter presents a very brief history of Hawaiian sovereignty and outlines the self-determination elements which its various supporters have concluded exist for purposes of establishing a group of self-governed peoples. Chapter 4 describes the recent activities of the legislatively mandated Sovereignty Advisory Council including its published reports. By these past legislative acts, the movement towards sovereignty might be presumed to have been anticipated leaving the structure of the Hawaiian "nation" or "state" to the plebiscite and subsequent decisions for the native Hawaiian citizens to determine. However, it is stili instructive for purposes of answering S.R. No. 209, S.D. 1, to examine the findings of the Sovereignty Advisory Council and its recommendations to the legislature. Chapter 5 presents the Bureau's findings and conclusions. Methodology The Bureau's methodology is one of examining writings about sovereignty and how these findings might be applied to the Hawaiian people. In this report the Bureau examines the conceptual underpinnings of sovereignty to explain to the legislature the reasoning which preceded the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. As earlier stated it is not a question of whether or not sovereignty should or shall occur. By the adoption of Act 200 in 1994 (giving the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council authority to oversee a plebiscite in 1995),1 Act 1. According to Ka Wai Ola 0 OHA, a newsletter published by OHA, the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council voted on August 16, 1994, to move the date of the plebiscite from 1995 to January 1996 (p. 3, September 1994). 1 EXAMINING THE IDEA OF NATIONHOOD FOR THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE 356 in 1993 (acknowledging the unique status of the native Hawaiians and establishing the Sovereignty Advisory Council in the Office 9f State Planning), and Act 301 in 1991 (creating the Sovereignty Advisory Council in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs), the Legislature indicated that sovereignty is an ongoing accepted fact. A plebiscite in 1995 to be overseen by the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council will more specifically determine the timing, status, and structure of the new nation. 2 This report does not discuss the legality or illegality of the United States' overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, argue for any group's position on sovereignty (in its global sense), or specify the shape and nature of the Hawaiian political, cultural, or social structure if and when the Hawaiian nation is formed. All of these issues are beyond the scope of this study. The sole purpose of the report is to present to the Legislature a variety of international law writers' and scholars' views on ways to think about sovereignty, self-determination, and similar concepts. Before presenting its findings and concluSions in the last chapter, this report presents the current status of the sovereignty discussions in Hawaii. It is important to note at the outset that the nature of the subject of sovereignty is at its more scholarly leveL highly complex. Many treatises exist ranging from moral philosophy to international law in .which even scholars have differing views. Therefore, readers are encouraged to investigate on their own, any and other books suggested from the selected bibliography printed in this report. 2. 1991 Hawaii Sess. Laws, Act 200; House Bill No. 3630. H.D. 3, S.D. 2, C.D. 1, Seventeenth Legislature, 1994, State of Hawaii. 2 Chapter 2 DEFINITION OF TERMS This chapter attempts to remedy a situation in which the author's task, the Legislature's request, and the public's perceptions may all be brought together through the use of a common vocabulary, for, as J.e. Gray has been credited for saying: "on no subject of human interest, except theology, has there been so much loose writing and nebulous speculation as on international law. "1 The Meaning of "State" At the international level, it is a state, not an individual that has a legal personality with attendant rights, duties, and obligations. The word "state" means, in the philosophical sense, "a complete association of free men, joined together for the enjoyment of rights and for their common interest."2 Crawford, in describing statehood in early international law doctrines, relates the conclusions of several early writers in this