Aloha kākou,  

Let’s talk about succession law, the Hawaiian Kingdom, and why I’m not just claiming to be Queen because it sounds cool on a business card. Spoiler: it’s all backed by Hawaiian customary law and international law—and a sprinkle of mana.  

Hawaiian succession is rooted in centuries-old customary law that prioritizes genealogy, rank, and mana— spiritual power passed through bloodlines and gained through actions. According to these principles, the highest-ranking chief (that’s me) automatically assumes the throne, especially during times of war or occupation. No campaign speeches, no ballots—just the laws of Hawaiʻi Nei.

Fact: Hawaiʻi is a Sovereign Kingdom, Not the “5oth state” of the USA 

That Hawaiʻi is not legally the “50th state” but remains a sovereign Kingdom under an illegal belligerent occupation by the United States is not a matter of debate but one of unequivocal facts, extensively documented in history, international law, and U.S. government admissions.

President Grover Cleveland admitted in S.J.Res.19 - A joint resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii (1993) a.k.a. The Apology Resolution, that the United States committed “an act of war” in overthrowing the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893 with heavily armed soldiers from the U.S.S. Boston warship. This “an act of war” began a state of belligerent occupation, following Queen Liliʻuokalani’s forced and provisional surrender, given under the belief that Cleveland would right the wrong. Under international law, no war can end without a peace treaty, and no such treaty exists. Consequently, the war has not ended, and the Hawaiian Kingdom remains under illegal occupation to this day.

Under U.S. constitutional law, Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to legislate and regulate, but it does not authorize the annexation of a sovereign nation. Annexation requires a treaty, as per the Treaty Clause (Article II, Section 2), which mandates ratification by two-thirds of the Senate. The Hawaiian Kingdom’s annexation by joint resolution in 1898 violated these constitutional requirements, and a domestic resolution cannot extend U.S. jurisdiction over a foreign, sovereign state. International law, including the Hague Conventions (1907), prohibits the annexation of sovereign nations without their consent or a valid treaty. The United States’ actions also breached perpetual treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom, such as the 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, which guaranteed respect for Hawaiian sovereignty.

The Hawaiian Statehood Act of 1959 was a U.S. domestic law that proclaimed Hawaiʻi as the 50th state following a plebiscite in which Hawaiians refused to vote, and the participants were primarily U.S. citizens and settlers, and other foreign citizens and settlers. This act cannot legally transfer sovereignty under international law, as an occupied state cannot be unilaterally annexed or transformed into a part of the occupier's territory without a valid treaty.

To put this in perspective, Congress annexing France by resolution and American people voting to make it the 51st state would hold no legal validity under U.S. or international law—it is the same with Hawaiʻi. The Hawaiian Kingdom remains a sovereign state under illegal occupation.

Dr. Alfred M. deZayas, United Nations Independent Expert, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

As a professor of international law, the former Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee, co-author of book, The United Nations Human Rights Committee Case Law 1977-2008, and currently serving as the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation-state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and a fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (the Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of the laws of the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom), not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States).

The National Lawyers Guild (NLG), the oldest and largest progressive bar association in the United States, with 70 chapters and more than 6,000 members:

calls upon the State of Hawaii and its County governments, as the proxy of the United States, which is in effective control of Hawaiian territory, to immediately comply with international humanitarian law while the United States continues its prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1893.  

The USA is Legally Required to Recognize and Have Relations with the Monarch

Under international law, the United States is obligated to engage in relations with the Hawaiian Kingdom government, as required by the laws governing belligerent occupation and state sovereignty. Article 43 of the Hague Regulations mandates that the occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory and maintain the status quo of its governance. Furthermore, Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the occupying power from altering the status of officials or governance structures within the occupied state. 

These provisions affirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a recognized sovereign state with treaties still in effect, retains its governmental rights and obligations under international law.  

43 CFR Part 50 “Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community” implicitly acknowledges this obligation by creating a mechanism for “reestablishing” a formal relationship, yet they undermine this recognition by framing Hawaiians as a domestic entity subordinate to U.S. law. By failing to directly engage with the Hawaiian Kingdom’s lawful government, the United States not only violates its obligations under international law but also attempts to obscure the continued existence and rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign entity.

What Does Hawaiian Succession Law Say?

Customary Hawaiian Law, the supreme law of the land, which has governed the islands since time immemorial, is clear: the “greatest chief”—the one with the “closest genealogical descent from King Kamehameha I”—is the de jure monarch. And if you think the word “greatest” is up for grabs, Queen Lili‘uokalani laid it all out in her autobiography:  

“The unwritten law of Hawaii Nei required that the greatest chief, or the one having the most direct claim to the throne, must rule.” (Hawaii’s Story by Hawaii’s Queen by Queen Lili‘uokalani, 1898, p.43)  

She went on to reiterate:  

“The chief highest in rank—in other words, the reigning sovereign.” (Hawaii’s Story , p. 359)  

Genealogical descent plays a paramount role in determining succession in a hereditary monarchy. Hawaiian culture is deeply rooted in the importance of ancestry, where lineage is regarded as the ultimate measure of legitimacy and rank. Lili‘uokalani noted that Hawaiian governance is derived from genealogy on the first page of her book:

“A culture fundamentally based upon genealogy and derived rank, who regarded genealogical descent as the ultimate test of rank.” (Hawaii’s Story , p. 1)

Under the 1864 Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, elections for the monarch were stipulated in the event that no heir was formally named by the reigning sovereign. This provision required the Legislative Assembly to elect a successor from among eligible high-ranking chiefs. However, this clause is not absolute and must be understood within the broader context of customary law, which holds precedence in determining succession. Customary law mandates that the highest-ranking chief, determined by genealogy, automatically assumes the throne. 

Queen Liliʻuokalani herself emphasized the monarch’s supreme authority to adapt governance as needed:

“Let it be repeated: the promulgation of a new constitution, adapted to the needs of the times and the demands of the people, has been an indisputable prerogative of the Hawaiian monarchy.” (The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume II, 1854-1874, Twenty Critical Years by Professor Ralph S. Kuykendall, 1953).  

Moreover, regarding the constitutional clause for elections, Queen Liliʻuokalani clarified that such decisions were confined to “eligible chiefs”:  

“The legislature could not choose from the people at large, but was confined to a decision between rival claimants having an equal or nearly equal relation in the chiefhood to the throne.” (Hawaii’s Story, p. 43).  

This assembly, composed of appointed Nobles and elected Representatives, would vote to determine the next sovereign. However, the overthrow in 1893 dismantled this legislative body, making it impossible to conduct such elections today. 

Thus, while the constitutional election provision exists, it cannot supersede the prerogative of the monarch or the foundational principles of Hawaiian customary law. 

Customary law is recognized internationally as a legitimate legal system, especially in native governance. The Guide to International and Foreign Law Research explains:  

“Customary law systems are based on patterns of behavior (or customs) that have come to be accepted as legal requirements or rules of conduct within a particular country.”  

Additionally, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) affirms the validity of indigenous legal systems, including customary law, even when constitutional systems are disrupted.  

The highest-ranking chief is automatically the sovereign under Hawaiian law. This principle is supported by both Hawaiian tradition and international law.  

And Then There’s Wartime Succession

The United Sates has been illegally occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom for over a century, since 1893. According to the Geneva Convention (IV), Article 54, an occupying power cannot alter the status of public officials in the occupied state. That means the laws of belligerent occupation protect the Hawaiian Kingdom’s monarchy.  

“The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories.” 

Under customary law and international norms during wartime, the highest-ranking chief can automatically assume authority to preserve the Kingdom’s sovereignty. This aligns with the principles of wartime governance found in the Law of Armed Conflict and customary international law.  

The United States Department of Defense Law of War Manual (2023) emphasizes that:  

“Belligerent occupation… does not transfer sovereignty over occupied territory to the occupying power. Belligerent occupation is essentially provisional.” (p. 784)  

Under international wartime laws, the leadership of an occupied nation is not nullified but rather continues to exist, as articulated in Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907. This principle holds that the administrative and governing structures of an occupied nation must be preserved, making the lawful head of state—in this case, the monarch—the de facto leader under international law.

As admitted to by the United States, and under international law—particularly the Hague Regulations of 1907 (Articles 42-56) and the Geneva Conventions (Article 54)—the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom has never been extinguished. 

Senate Joint Resolution 19 - The Apology Resolution (1993):

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. 

This means that the Hawaiian monarchy remains the lawful government, even under occupation. As the lawful head of state, my genealogical and legal claim to the throne positions me as the legitimate diplomatic and sovereign representative of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Why Me?

Some might say, “I too am descended from King Kamehameha the Conqueror!” Fair enough—King Kamehameha I had 30 wives, the high chiefesses of 30 districts, as part of his master strategy to unite the islands and secure permanent legal title to the Kingdom for himself and his heirs. By having children with 18 of those chiefesses, he transformed his temporary right of conquest over the other island chiefdoms into a permanent hereditary right. 

The rank of his descendants is determined by the rank of each of those mothers, as the matriarchal line carries the greater mana. The King himself prostrated before his highest-ranking wife, Keōpūolani, honoring her superior status. Hawaiian customary law requires not just descent but the highest rank, which factors in inherited mana as well as mana earned through a person’s life—skills, education, accomplishments, and actions.

My ancestress, Kauhilanimaka, the High Chiefess of Hilo, was King Kamehameha’s sixth wife. Although not his highest-ranking wife, their only child, Princess Kahiwa Kānekapōlei, married Namikiaiokalani, Kahuna Nui Paʻao—a descendant of Paʻao, the highest-ranking priest in Hawaiian history, and I descend from the infamous Kahuna ʻAnāʻanā as well. This powerful lineage and combination of ancestors establish me as the highest-ranking descendant.

Why “Queen” and Not “Sovereign Princess”?  

Now, you might be thinking, “Shouldn’t you wait to be sworn in?” Great question! But let me ask you this: If you’re on a ship in the middle of the ocean and the ship’s captain and crew go missing, do you wait for a formal ceremony to appoint a new leader? Of course not—you go with the person most qualified to take charge.  

That’s essentially what’s happening here. We have the right to a recognized representative of our government. But with no functioning government, that leaves me as the natural and legal successor to the throne. As a descendant of King Kamehameha I, I was born a Princess, and I am the highest-ranking descendant, whether we call it Queen or Sovereign Princess, the bottom line is the same: I am the de jure monarch, as recognized by customary law and international principles.  

The Bottom Line

So, why am I Queen? Because Hawaiian law, customary law, and international law all say so. My genealogy, mana, and earned rank make me the highest-ranking chiefess and the rightful sovereign of the Hawaiian Kingdom.  

The real question isn’t “Why me?”—it’s “What’s next?” Together, we can work toward the restoration of the Kingdom, guided by law, history, and aloha.  

Restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom is no small task. I’m documenting every step of this journey to bring transparency and invite others to join me. Some might call it a delusional dream, but history has shown that determination and truth can overcome the odds.  Together, we can reclaim Hawai‘i’s rightful place as a sovereign nation. Let’s make history together. Subscribe and join. As we say in Hawai‘i, e holomua kākou: let’s move forward together.

With respect and aloha,  

Queen Kuʻuleialoha  

Her Majesty, De Jure Monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom  

Sources

1. S.J.Res.19 - A joint resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii (1993) a.k.a. The Apology Resolution.

2. Hague Conventions, 1907.

3. Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, 1849.

4. Hawaiian Statehood Act, 1959.

5. Dr. Alfred M. deZayas, United Nations Independent Expert, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

6. The National Lawyers Guild.

7. Hawai'i’s Story by Hawai'i’s Queen by Queen Liliʻuokalani, 1898.

8. Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1864.

9.  The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume II, 1854-1874, Twenty Critical Years by Ralph S. Kuykendall, 1953.

10. Guide to International and Foreign Law Research, University of South Carolina Law Library.  

11. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007.  

12. Geneva Convention (IV), Article 54.  

13. Law of War Manual, United States Department of Defense, 2023.  

14. Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907.