Summary

Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom 2000-05-22 (2000)

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples ... of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their rights to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support. Thus the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom also has a duty to protect Mr. Larsen, despite his nationality as a Hawaiian subject, because he is seeking his rights to self-determination, freedom and independence.
Source: Wikisource

Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom 2000-05-22 (2000)

A judicial determination that an act of Congress is to prevail over a treaty does not relieve the Government of the United States of the obligations established by a treaty. The distinction is often ignored between a rule of domestic law which is established by our legislative and judicial decisions and may be inconsistent with an existing Treaty, and the international obligation which a Treaty establishes.
Source: Wikisource

Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom 2000-05-22 (2000)

Because the United States has never ratified a treaty of annexation over the Hawaiian islands, the territorial sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom over the Hawaiian Islands has never been lawfully or legally diminished. Despite the inability of the United States of America to acquire sovereignty of the Hawaiian islands, the United States of America has been occupying the Hawaiian islands through its military presence in the Hawaiian islands and by imposing and enforcing its own municipal laws within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian islands since 1893.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature