Lance Paul Larsen v. the Hawaiian Kingdom, Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal, February 5, 2001
![handle is hein.journals/hawjolp1 and id is 82 raw text is: LANCE PAUL LARSEN V. THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM.
Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal, February 5, 2001!
David J. Bederman, Ph.D.* and Kurt R. Hilbert*
In Larsen v. The Hawaiian Kingdom,' Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of
the state of Hawai'i, sought redress from the Hawaiian Kingdom for its
failure to protect him from the United States and the State of Hawai'i.
The parties, who agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration by the
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), shared similar goals and wished
the Arbitral Tribunal (Tribunal) to address the question of the
international legal status of Hawai'i.2 On February 5, 2001, however, the
Tribunal issued an award that sidestepped this sensitive question. After
determining that the UNCITRAL [UN Commission on International
Trade Law] Arbitration Rules3 (UNCITRAL Rules) may be applied to a
noncontractual dispute, the Tribunal scrutinized international doctrines of
standing and indispensable third parties within the unique context of an
international arbitration at the PCA. It decided that there was no dispute
between the parties upon which the Tribunal could issue a ruling. It also
decided that, even assuming arguendo that the legal question was
arbitrable under the UNCITRAL Rules, the Tribunal would be precluded
from addressing the merits because the United States, which was absent,
was an indispensable third party. Despite the curious-and
collusive-nature of the underlying action, the award will likely prove to
be influential in its treatment of issues of standing and indispensable
parties.
t This article is reproduced with permission from the October 2001 issue of the American
Journal of International Law©) The American Society of International Law.
* David J. Bederman is a Professor of Law at Emory Law School. He served on the
American Journal of International Law's Board of Editors, and teaches public
international law, torts and international institutions. Professor Bederman was also a legal
assistant at the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal held at The Hague.
* Kurt R. Hilbert from the firm Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint LLP.
'Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, at Łtu' . a .g (Permanent Ct. Arb. Trib. Feb.
5, 2001) [hereinafter Award]; also published in the International Law Reports 119
(February 5, 2001): 566-598. Reprinted at Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics I
(Summer 2004): 238-277. The Tribunal comprised James Crawford, Gavan Griffith, and
Christopher Greenwood. Under the parties' agreement to arbitrate, the appointing
authority for the Tribunal was Keoni Agard.
2 The merits of the arbitration were designed by both parties to the arbitration to address
the legal consequences of the Hawaiian coup of 1893, when the United States invaded
Hawaii and dethroned the Hawaiian Queen, Liliuokalani. See Award, supra note 1. The
coup was virtually forgotten until November 1993, when former President acknowledged
by joint resolution the hundredth anniversary of the January 17, 1893, overthrow of the
Kingdom of Hawaii, and offered an apology to the native Hawaiians on behalf of the
United States. See Pub. L. No. 103-150; Award, supra note 1, Annexure 2.
3 15 ILM 701 (1976), available at . tj viww, i1 raj.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/hawjolp1&div=6&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
Lance Paul Larsen v. the Hawaiian Kingdom, Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal, February 5, 2001
Lance Paul Larsen v. the Hawaiian Kingdom, Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal, February 5, 2001