Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom

Created OnOctober 13, 2018

UpdatedOctober 13, 2018

byDisruptive Host

Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom

Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

In determining whether to accept or decline to exercise jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered the questions of whether there was a legal dispute between the parties to the proceeding, and whether the tribunal could make a decision regarding that dispute, if the very subject matter of the decision would be the rights or obligations of a State not party to the proceedings.

The Tribunal underlined the many points of agreement between the parties, particularly with respect to the propositions that Hawaii was never lawfully incorporated into the United States, and that it continued to exist as a matter of international law. The Tribunal noted that if there existed a dispute, it concerned whether the respondent has fulfilled what both parties maintain is its duty to protect the Claimant, not in the abstract but against the acts of the United States of America as the occupant of the Hawaiian islands. Moreover, the United States’ actions would not give rise to a duty of protection in international law unless they were themselves unlawful in international law. The Tribunal concluded that it could not determine whether the Respondent has failed to discharge its obligations towards the Claimant without ruling on the legality of the acts of the United States of America – something the Tribunal was precluded from doing as the United States was not party to the case.

Case information

NAME(S) OF CLAIMANT(S)	Lance Paul Larsen (Private entity )
NAME(S) OF RESPONDENT(S)	The Hawaiian Kingdom (State)
NAMES OF PARTIES	–
CASE NUMBER	1999-01
ADMINISTERING INSTITUTION	Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)
CASE STATUS	Concluded
TYPE OF CASE	Other proceedings
SUBJECT MATTER OR ECONOMIC SECTOR	Treaty interpretation
RULES USED IN ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS	UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976
TREATY OR CONTRACT UNDER WHICH PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED	[Other]
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING	English
SEAT OF ARBITRATION (BY COUNTRY)	Netherlands
ARBITRATOR(S)	Dr. Gavan Griffith QC Professor Christopher J. Greenwood QC Professor James Crawford SC (President of the Tribunal)
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CLAIMANT(S)	Ms. Ninia Parks, Counsel and Agent
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RESPONDENT(S)	Mr. David Keanu Sai, Agent Mr. Peter Umialiloa Sai, First deputy agent Mr. Gary Victor Dubin, Second deputy agent and counsel
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES
NUMBER OF ARBITRATORS IN CASE	3
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDING	08 November 1999
DATE OF ISSUE OF FINAL AWARD	05 February 2001
LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS	1-2 years
ADDITIONAL NOTES	–

The final award of the hearing is as follows;

AWARD
For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal determines as a matter of international
law, which it is directed to apply by Article 3 (1) of the Arbitration Agreement:
(a) that there is no dispute between the parties capable of submission to
arbitration, and
(b) that, in any event, the Tribunal is precluded from the consideration of the
issues raised by the parties by reason of the fact that the United States of
America is not a party to the proceedings and has not consented to them.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that these arbitral proceedings are not maintainable.
SIGNED as at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Peace Palace, Den Haag.
JAMES CRAWFORD SC
GAVAN GRIFFITH QC
CHRISTOPHER GREENWOOD QC