Romulox Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Aloha to the US: Is Hawai'i an occupied nation? Williamson Chang, a professor of law at University of Hawai'i, is one of those Hawaiians. He argues under international law, one country can only annex another by treaty - a document which both parties sign. This is how the entire rest of the US was formed - the Louisiana Purchase, the treaties with Native American tribes, the addition of the Republic of Texas. Anything else - including what happened in Hawaii - is an occupation, Chang says... But the next year, with fighting in the Pacific during the Spanish-American war and a new president in office, Congress passed a joint resolution annexing Hawai'i. US military might and a welcoming government in the Republic of Hawaii helped complete the process. But if countries could be simply annexed by another's legislature, Chang says, "Hawai'i by its legislature could declare the United States was part of it." Maybe my dream of living in Hawaii might come true after all...
dsayers Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 In the ruler/ruled relationship, rules are for the benefit of the rulers. They're not meant to apply to the rulers. Logic never enters into it. That's the problem when people say things like, "You can't do that because that piece of paper says so." They'll just change what the piece of paper says. If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. For as long as people are focusing on HOW land acquisition by nations should take place, they're not focusing on whether nations are valid concepts.
Recommended Posts