Native Alaskan’s Proclamation of an Independent State
           From the Office of Francis Boyle

    Human experience has shown throughout the ages, that utterly erroneous ideas outlive the plain truth. Last year, the United States
    government, after 100 years, signed into effect House Bill 976[1] officially conceding as a matter of United States law, that Native
    Hawaiian people had the right to restore the Independent Nation State the native groups had in 1893 when the United States
    government came and destroyed it. As a result of the apology for the manner of acquisition and forced statehood of Hawaii, the
    United States government essentially conceded that “sovereignty resides in the people of Hawaii, and not in Hawaiian or federal
    governments.”[2] The erroneous idea that under international law the United States had acted righteously in their treatment of the
    Hawaiian people had been corrected and the truth was admitted. The United States government wrongfully treated the Alaskan
    Natives in the manner of acquisition as territory, and also egregiously violated United Nations provisions when removing them from
    the status of self-governing territories without Alaska ever attaining self-governing status or correct United Nations procedures
    being followed if they had. The bitter truth of violations of law needs to be rectified and the erroneous ideas of legality on behalf of
    the United States towards Alaska need to be recognized.
    I. Introduction

    At an 1860 Republican Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, William H. Seward made a prophetic remark on the subject of Alaska’s
    destiny. He said:

    Standing here and looking far off into the Northwest, I see the Russian as he busily occupies himself in establishing seaports and
    towns and fortifications on the verge of the continent…and I can say, Go on, and build up your outposts all along the coast, ever up
    to the Arctic Ocean…they will yet become the outposts of my own country.[3]

    Manifest Destiny, which originated with the early Republicans, has resulted in the largest expropriation of private property in North
    America. Initially, there was the exchange involved in the 1867 Treaty of Cession, which resulted in the United States taking over
    Alaska, but the extent of the rights taken over for the Russians is debatable. Next, the territory was mostly neglected aside from
    taking natural resources until the First Organic Act in 1884[4] and the Second Organic Act in 1912.[5] Then slowly the United States
    decided to move towards statehood proposal in 1958, independent of Native approval.

    The United States violated international law and the United Nations treaty in achieving Seward’s goal. In accordance with
    obligations under Article II of the UN charter[6] the General Assembly announced a list of seventy-four non-self-governing territories
    in 1946, including Alaska.[7] In a further resolution, the United Nations listed factors which should be taken into account when
    deciding whether a territory is or is not one whose people have not yet attained a full measure of government and whether
    information concerning them should still be reported.[8] Article 11, part II, section A states that “the opinion of the population of their
    Territory, freely expressed by informed and democratic processes, as to the status or change in status which they desire” and
    “freedom of choosing on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples between several possibilities, including
    independence” are primary factors indicative of the attainment of other separate systems of self-government, whether by
    independence or another form of government such as statehood.

    Member states with dependent territories are to take all necessary steps to enable non-self-governing peoples to exercise their
    right to self-determination and independence. Alaska was listed under Article 73(e) of the Charter until the General Assembly was
    satisfied they had exercised their right to self-determination by voting for U.S. statehood.[9] Indigenous Alaskan people contend now
    that they were never informed of their rights and very few of them participated in the referenda allowed by the United States before
    statehood was forced upon them.[10] If this is true, it is a direct violation of the United Nations provisions and Alaska was removed

    Finally, with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), the United States again violated international law by
    extinguishing Native Alaskan aboriginal title. Recently, America elected to become more civilized by the November 4, 1988 adoption
    of the Genocide Treaty. Under the Genocide Treaty, the Native people of Alaska can examine the Treaty of Cession and the net
    effect of the legislative designs set forth under Section 4 of ANCSA and reveals violations of international law. The legitimate
    sovereign governments of the Alaskans cannot be displaced by the mere acts of symbolic discovery and cession. Neither the
    purchase of the Russian American Trading Company in 1867, nor ANCSA in 1971, can displace original sovereignty.

    Part I of this paper will first discuss the background of the U.S. acquisition of Alaska, including the surrounding circumstances and
    the reasoning for America’s desire to buy the land from Russia.

    Part II, the rights acquired by the U.S. from the Russians will be debated and the ramifications of these rights, or lack thereof, have
    on the current status of ownership of the Alaskan native lands.

    Part III will analyze the events leading up to statehood in the context of United Nations provisions showing the illegality of the steps
    taken to make Alaska the forty-ninth state.

    Part IV will address ANCSA generally and in the context of the Genocide Treaty signed by the United States showing how its
    implementation is a violation of international law.

    This discussion will reveal that there have been many illegal acts by the United States regarding the self-determination of the Native
    Alaskan people. The primary recommendation of this paper is for the Native Alaskans to proclaim themselves as an Independent
    State pursuant to their right of self-determination under international law. This strategy has previously been suggested to the
    Hawaiians.[11] The violations of international law continue today against the Alaskan people and the self-determination process
    should begin immediately.

    II. The Purchase of Alaska from the Russians

    The first Russian permanent settlement in Alaskan territory was in 1783, as a result of the quest for fur trading commodities to sell
    in the East.[12] The Russian American Trading Company became the sole organization representing Russian control of the area in
    1799 and exercised governmental authority.[13] From 1800 to 1867, the major European influence in Alaska was the contact with
    this company. The first governor of the Company, Alexander Adreevich Baranof expanded the activities of the company into the Amur
    basin and Hawaii.[14] Baranoff administered the Russian colonies in America in the name of the Company from 1799 until 1818.
    The Company, under various governors after the death of Baranof, administered the colony under three successive charters until

    Russia’s occupation lasted 126 years, but began just in time to forestall Britain’s expansion quests in the 1700’s that were making
    its advances towards the territory.[15] But for Russia, Alaska might today be the province of Canada. The true significance of the
    occupation, however, is that the rights possessed during Russia’s occupation in Alaska were transferred to the United States. In
    1867, the Treaty of Cession halted the British-Canadian westward advance.[16]

    On March 30, 1867, Secretary of State William H. Seward and Minister for the Russian Czar, Edward de Stoeckl, executed the seven
    article treaty whereby the United States purchased what was then referred to as Russian America for a purchase price of
    $7,200,000.[17] Although the reasons for the sale have been disputed, several principal reasons shine through the record of the
    purchase. First, in the event of a war, Russia would be hard put to defend Alaska, and there was a distinct feeling among the high
    government officials that an enemy would have no great difficulty in seizing the territory. Second, the Russian American Company
    was no longer self-sustaining and if they were allowed to continue it would be necessary to pay them a large subsidy, and this
    Russia could not afford to do at that time. Also because the Russian American Company had been doing very poorly throughout the
    1860’s, it was considered best to sell providing a fair price could be obtained.[18]

    Historians disagree on the various speculations on why the United States decided to make the deal. The Committee on Foreign
    Affairs produced a list of five official motives behind the purchase.[19] There was the “desire of the citizens” of the Pacific Coast to
    share in the prolific fisheries of the ocean seas, bays, and rivers of the Western World. Also, the friendship of Russia for the United
    States was desired. The necessity of preventing the transfer by any possible chance of the Northwest Coast of America to an
    unfriendly power was also given as a rationale for acquisition. The creation of new industrial interests on the Pacific necessary to
    the supremacy of our empire on the sea and on land was another reason, as well as to facilitate and secure the advantages of an
    unlimited American commerce with the friendly powers of China and Japan.[20] Many maintain that the primary motivation for the
    acquisition was the interests of Seward and Congress concerning commercial interests in the resources of the territory and a
    quest for expansion.[21]

    A. The United States Acquired Only the Interest Held by Russia

    The 1867 Treaty is often referred to as a “quitclaim” whereby the United States received any interest held by the Russians
    immediately prior to the cession.[22] The Russians could not transfer more rights than they possessed. Russia was probably
    selling purely their trading rights and not an interest over the sovereignty of the people. If this can be proved, the United States never
    did have possession of Alaska, the rights of the people were not taken over and it became a territory and state illegally.

            Looking at the writing in 1867 from Russian Czar A.S. Kostlivtzov to Seward, in regard to Alaska Native Peoples the type of
    interest is debatable. He blatantly disclaimed Russian sovereignty over the Native Alaskans when he wrote:

    However, although they do not recognize Russian Sovereignty and consider the land on which they live their property, these tribes
    are, in general, peaceful, and do not disturb our settlements. It would not take too much effort to have closer contact with them and
    to train them gradually to consider themselves Russian subjects.(emphasis added).[23]

    This may be read as significant proof that Russia did not have recognized sovereignty over the people living in the territory to which
    they sold trading rights, and if so they could not have transferred the rights to the United States. The Alaskans did not recognize any
    other sovereignty besides their own self-government while Russia possessed the territory. Article XI of the Treaty of Cession closed
    with the words “and the cession hereby made, conveys all the rights, franchises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the
    said territory or dominion, and appurtenances thereto.”[24] Therefore, the treaty with the United States possibly conveyed no title to
    the land but the rights to the resources the Russian American Trading Company owned.

    There was no other manner the United States could have acquired the land in 1867 other than from the treaty and no more rights
    could have been received than the Russians owned. In 1928, the prizes of war and cession were reversed in a case between the
    United States and the Netherlands[25] in a ruling respecting sovereignty in 1928. The World Court held in that case that it was self-
    evident that a country could not transfer more rights than she herself possessed. It was stated that the United States based its
    claim of right to the land upon discovery, recognition of treaty, and continuity. The Court found that the United States could not gain
    sovereignty by simple desire or acquisition. The Netherlands claim to their sovereignty over the land in question instead upon a
    peaceful and continuous display of state authority over the island of Palmas. The United States complied with the award of the
    lands to the Netherlands, essentially conceding sovereignty could not be achieved by acquisition or desire of their government.[26]
    Therefore, without sovereignty explicitly being conveyed through the treaty, the United States did not obtain the rights merely
    because they desired to do so.

    B. Native Alaskans Retained Aboriginal Title Upon the Treaty of Cession

    If Alaskan Natives held their land by aboriginal title under the Russians, their aboriginal possession continued under United States
    rule unless extinguished in a treaty or subsequent federal legislation. It was not. The Treaty of Cession recognized the existence of
    the Alaskan Natives aboriginal title to their land, and by entering the Treaty the United States government was effectively recognizing
    the existence of their aboriginal title. If the Treaty contained protections for the rights of the Aboriginal People, then one of those
    rights was certainly title to their land.

    The principles of sovereignty originate from the fact that the “aboriginal” people were here first, literally “from the beginning.”[27]
    Viewing an actual provision of the Treaty that is relevant to the issue of title, Article III addresses the status of the Natives living in
    Alaska at the time of the treaty by classifying them into two groups: “uncivilized” tribes and all other inhabitants.

    The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russian within three
    years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they with the exception of uncivilized natural tribes, shall be admitted
    to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and
    protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws And
    regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country. (emphasis added).[28]

    There has been a lot of debate concerning the distinction between civilized and uncivilized, and the meaning of aboriginal title.
    Article III has been interpreted by courts to both grant and deny Native American rights in Alaska. The characterization of certain
    tribes in Alaska as “uncivilized” that would not be considered US Citizens, seems to imply that there were other tribes who were
    ‘Civilized” who would enjoy all the right and advantages of U.S citizens. Because until the Citizenship Act of 1924 “civilization” for
    Native Americans generally included abandonment of tribal relations and by definition aboriginal title is a “tribal” title, a possible
    implication drawn from the Treaty of Cession was that whole groups of Alaska Natives, the “civilized” ones did not possess this
    aboriginal title.[29]

    Probably this is an erroneous conclusion because perusing U. S. naturalization statutes of the period reveals that they often
    demanded “civilization, abandonment of tribal relations and citizenship.”[30] It seems unlikely, consistent with the requirements of
    these statutes, that the U.S. meant to create a new category of “civilized tribes” that would be treated differently than the rights given
    to other Native Americans such as aboriginal title.[31] It merely drew the line between the Natives that were “uncivilized” and other
    inhabitants that would become citizens, not delineating and creating a third group of native to be denied the unique rights of the

    This theory of aboriginal title was developed by Justice Marshall in the case of Johnson v. M’Intosh[32] where white settlers who
    had received title to their land via grants from the Indian tribes, and wanted the court to recognize their claims. Marshall established
    that under the doctrine of discovery, the European nation received the right of acquisition against all others who came later.[33] The
    original inhabitants possessed the exclusive right to extinguish Indian title and these could not be extinguished by purchase or

    M’Intosh and another Marshall opinion, Worchester v. Georgia[35], relied on Article III of the United States Constitution to protect
    aboriginal title of Native Alaskans from non-native incursions. In Worchester, however, Marshall held that the Cherokee Nation in
    Georgia did maintain their right to be self-governing and the laws of the state had no force to dictate their actions. In it, regarding the
    rights of discovery Marshall stated:

    The rights of discovery regulated the European discoverers, but could not affect the rights of those already in possession, either as
    aboriginal occupants or as occupants by virtue of a discovery made before the memory of man.[36]

    Viewing this language together with the Kostlivtzov memorandum logically points to the conclusion that the Russians as well as the
    Natives realized who exactly was already in possession of the land before the time of the Treaty. A 1968 census of the territory
    shows that there were 1,944 people that were either Russians, Creoles, and Americans in the area, while 26,843 Natives were
    present and in possession of the land.[37] No information was given to the natives concerning the cession,[38] but rather Anglo-
    European colonial mentality and the accompanying philosophy of Manifest Destiny allowed for the exchange of land originally not
    truly belonging to the Russian Trading Company. The land was instead stolen from the majority of the people that had been in
    possession before the Russians even arrived to glean resources from the country.[39] Whatever rights the Russian Trading
    Company sold them, it was not the rights to something they could not possess. They did not possess the sovereignty over the
    Alaskan Natives.

    Nevertheless, a noteworthy opinion written by Justice Jackson Reed, Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v, United States,[40] seems to drive
    against this thinking. Tee-Hit-Ton has been said to represent that the Court has held Alaskan Natives do not have Fifth Amendment
    Rights.[41] In that case, the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, an identifiable group of American Indians belonging to the Tlingit Tribe of Alaskan
    Indians, were held unentitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the taking by the United States of certain timber from
    Alaskan lands in and near the Tongass National Forest allegedly belonging to the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians.[42] Justice Reed wrote that:

    No case in this Court has ever held that taking of Indian title or use by Congress requires compensation. The American people
    have compassion for the descendants of those Indians who were deprived of their homes and hunting grounds by the drive of
    civilization. They seek to have the Indians share the benefits of our society as citizens of this Nation. Generous provision has been
    willingly made to allow tribes to recover for wrongs, as a matter of grace, not because of legal liability. (emphasis added).

    The Native Americans are conceded to have original inherent self-governing powers, not granted by the federal government,
    although subject to limitations established under federal law such as in the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians.[43] The problem exists that while
    original self-governing powers are acknowledged, the definition of sovereignty no longer has an absolute meaning as to imply
    political independence.

            Under the United States Constitution, Congress has been held under Tee-Hit-Ton Indians to have broad power to alter or even
    extinguish the federal-tribunal relationship. Extinguishment of this previously established recognition of self-government should not
    be lightly taken. Commentators have deemed Tee-Hit-Ton Indians as one of the darkest hours of American jurisprudence for the
    Native Alaskans due its drastic holding.[44]

    Because the original grant of inherent sovereignty was established from the time the 1867 Treaty was formed, subsequent actions
    extinguishing this basic right runs afoul of the Genocide Treaty that the United States today recognized.[45] The land and the right to
    self-determination initially belonged to the native people in Alaska, and the extinguishment of this power should not have been
    tolerated. Today is when this is recognized, but the ramifications of the past toleration should be recognized and compensation
    should be made.[46]

    C. The Trust Doctrine is Applicable to Alaskan Interests Obtained Pursuant the 1867 Treaty

    Even if aboriginal title is concluded from the transfer from Russia, the right derived from the Russian American Trading Company
    was not the right to abolish self-government on behalf of the Native Alaskans. Scholars have opined[47] that Alaska is on different
    grounds than the Native Americans in the continental forty-eight states where formal and informal conquest occurred by colonial
    powers and the United States because it was obtained by treaty. Therefore, the policies of asserting aboriginal rights could be
    regarded  in a different manner. Although such acquisition occurred differently than in continental states, some of the same
    arguments may be made on behalf of the Natives that may be made for many of the tribes of continental America concerning the
    obligation of guardianship the United States government has had over the Native Alaskans.

    From an opinion directly preceding Worchester v. Georgia,[48] Chief Justice Marshall established the cornerstone of the United
    States governmental policy toward Native Americans in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia called the Trust Doctrine, which took root and
    has remained as an underlying theme of the federal government Indian policy for over 150 years.[49] The court held there that the
    “relation [of an Indian tribe] to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian”[50] years after Cherokee Nation, absent
    explicit instructions as to what extent the moral obligation was to the Natives, Congress has frequently acted exactly contrary to the
    interests of Indian Tribes.[51]

    Besides the United Nations instruments,[52] there have been other international instruments that should help protect the Alaskans
    in their self-determination after being over-powered by the United States. As was the case with the Genocide Treaty,[53] however,
    the United States frequently does not ratify them and therefore they are of little use to Natives over which they exalt their power.[54]
    Arguments have been made that even if the United States indeed had received title from the Russians, the Trust Doctrine may
    further Native Alaskan self-determination, and they owe a federal fiduciary obligation to the Natives under the Trust Doctrine to allow
    them to do so.[55] As a “guardian” imposed by its own judiciary, the United States did not have the power to determine the fate of
    the Natives by including them in the statehood action without educating them concerning their choices and a legitimate vote for or
    against their land being ceded into the country.

    Years later, the Alaska Statehood Act (“Act”) authorized the selection of 108 million acres of land by the state.[56] Under the Act the
    state was not supposed to take the land of the Natives or violate their ownership in any manner. There were, however, no
    implementation mechanisms to ensure this did not occur. Many times trouble occurred because some of the land to be developed
    for villages was to be a major income source for the state and included lands possessed by the Natives. The United States, even if
    they did incur rights to this land from the Russians, from that point, owed a fiduciary duty to the Natives to protect them pursuant to
    their own judiciary opinions to not impair their rights. Through later actions leading up to the ultimate violation of a duty with ANCSA,
    [57] these were not followed. Throughout the years after the 1867 Treaty, court decisions have spoken of a duty of ongoing
    responsibility to protect those of aboriginal title as a guardian.[58] This obligation was violated with illegal takings of land and
    eventually led to the imposition of statehood. Pursuant to United States decisions, the Natives should have been protected.

    D. Conclusion Concerning Rights Derived from Russians

    Theories have been debated for several years concerning the extent of title received from the Russians to the United States in the
    Treaty. Although the Czar’s language at the time of the Treaty seems to indicate that Russia recognized the existence of Native
    Alaskan Aboriginal Title and this was conveyed to the United States, the Treaty did not specifically contain language pertaining to
    the sovereignty of the Natives. If the extinction of the Native Alaskans’ Aboriginal Title by the United States Government violated the
    terms of the treaty with Russia, then it was invalid at that time under contemporary standards of international law. Indeed, the
    Natives possessed “inherent powers of a limited sovereignty” from the time before the take-over by Russia. The struggle of the
    Alaskans to overcome the Manifest Destiny pursuit of a greedy United States is not easily won because although blatantly morally
    wrong, this was the usual manner of acquisition of land in the era the land was derived from the Russians. The United States
    proceeded with the blatant extinguishment of sovereignty and placing limits upon this right by the federal government as was being
    done in the continental states. Some argue that the Monroe Doctrine was violated, as well as the U.S. Constitutional framework,
    when interfering with the territory of Alaska.[59]

    It appears the United States, while self-creating sovereignty over Alaska without any fixed basis in law, possibly stole the land from
    the Natives in possession. It has been suggested that an international arbitration proceeding over the sovereignty dispute should
    be initiated and submitted for an advisory opinion under the compulsory jurisdictional section of the International Court of Justice,
    Article 36, for a final determination on the manner.[60] Even if the United States did indeed receive some type of ownership in the
    land and impose aboriginal title on the Natives, they owed an obligation under the Trust Doctrine to provide for guardianship. This
    was certainly not carried out. Instead, extinguishment ensued.

    A stronger argument may be made, however, pertaining to the illegal manner in which Alaska was admitted to the United States.
    The Native Alaskans were not aware of their rights. There were many delays along the way to statehood, some of which originated
    in Congress, while some were with the public. One of the disruptions in Alaska was the persistent regionalism intensified by a
    massive population shift.[61] Massive spending for military bases caused population increase, and in time many Alaskan thought
    that people from the areas, not Congress, should decide policies affecting the areas.[62] The House Subcommittee on Territorial
    and Insular Possessions of the Public Lands Committee dealt with Hawaii first, and then in April, 1947, held hearing on Alaska
    statehood.[63] The following actions by Congress over the next years led eventually to removal of Alaska from the Article 73(e) list
    from the United Nations monitoring non-self-governing territories. The manner in which this was accomplished was in direct
    violation of international law.

    III. United Nations Charter Non-Self-Governing Territories, Art. 73 and Art. 74

    The United Nations’ General Assembly quite appropriately assumed supervisory jurisdiction over non-self-governing territories
    such as Alaska under the terms of the United Nations Charter itself. Indeed, the nations creating the United Nations in 1946 found
    the principle of self-determination so compelling that they included it in the first article of the first chapter of Charter.[64] Article 1
    states the purposes of the United Nations. Included as a purpose is “to develop friendly relations among nations should be based
    on open respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination…”[65] Article 55 repeats this principle. The organizing
    nations also agreed to include a “Declaration Regarding Non-self-governing Territories.” Article 73 and 74 make up this Declaration
    and Article 73(b) specifically requires member nations to develop the self-government of included territories. The United Nations
    has therefore made it abundantly clear that self-determination is a principle of international law.[66]

    In order to effectuate this right to self-determination and complete decolonization, Chapter XI of the U.N. Charter was enacted. In
    this, the General Assembly announced a list of seventy-four non-self-governing[67] territories and eight U. N. members states[68] to
    supervise these territories and assist them in developing self-government.[69] To allow the U.N. to effectively monitor the progress
    of the non-self-governing territories, Article 73(e) established reporting requirements[70] for the supervising States. These
    requirements are:

    To transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitations as security and constitutional
    considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational
    conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapter XII and XIII apply.

    These must be fulfilled by the administering State until such time as the status of the non-self-governing territory changes.[71] In
    effect, the non-self-governing must become self-governing. The Charter does not, however, define self-governing or give any
    specific indication concerning those nations and territories to which the article was meant to apply.

    A. United States Illegally Usurped Supervisory Jurisdiction Over Non-Self-Governing Territories.

    When the General Assembly assumed supervisory jurisdiction over the non-self-governing territories, the situation was somewhat
    similar to the procedure whereby the General Assembly had assumed supervisory jurisdiction over mandates left over from the
    League of Nations. When the United Nations Organization with its international trusteeship system was established by Charter XII
    of the U.N. Charter, Article 77(1)(a) provided that the League Mandated Territories (“Mandates”) could be placed under the U.N.
    trusteeship system by means of a trusteeship agreement.[72] This agreement would be concluded between the mandatory power
    and the U.N. General Assembly operating with the assistance of the U.N. Charter Article 80(1) made it clear that the terms of these
    Mandates remained in effect pending their placement under the U.N. trusteeship system.[73]

    Pertaining to the Mandates of South West Africa and also Palestine, legal scholars have argued that Article 80(1) of the U.N. Charter
    applied regardless of subsequent international agreements by the Mandates because neither Mandate was ever converted into a U.
    N. trusteeship. The pertinent clause of Charter Article 80(1) with respect to guaranteeing the continued validity of League Mandates
    pending their conversion into U.N. trusteeships takes precedence over any other subsequent international agreement that could be
    concluded with respect to League-mandated territories in the event of a conflict between their respective terms. Therefore, any
    agreement interfering with the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people should be invalid according to the United
    Nations provisions.[74] Because neither became trusteeships, the terms of these Mandates survived as matters of positive
    international law and applied to these Mandates despite the dissolution of the League of Nations and its replacement by the United
    Nations. By virtue of U.N. Charter Article 80(1), League Covenant Article 22 likewise still survived as matter of positive international
    law. Similar arguments may be made concerning the effect of Article 73 pertaining to the status of non-self-governing territories.
    Subsequent actions taken by the United States that attempted to override pertinent provisions disallowing exclusion of listed
    territories without approval by the territories’ people should not have been permitted.

    The United States, pursuant to Article 73(e), submitted annual reports to the Secretary General from 1946 until 1959 for the Territory
    of Alaska.[75] On January 3, 1959 the President proclaimed Alaska admitted to the Union as the forty-ninth State. Upon this
    condition, the United States determined that Alaska was not a non-self-governing territory, and no longer found it necessary to
    submit the reports in accordance with Resolution 222 (III).[76] The United States Government had no right to unilaterally remove
    Alaska from the Article 73 list by their declaration. Like the United Nations’ provisions for continued protection of Mandates such as
    Palestine, there was to be continued protection of the non-self-governing territories under the Charter. The United States usurped
    the powers of the General Assembly under the terms of the United Nations Charter with respect to non-self-governing territories.
    Therefore, the United States Government violated Article 73 of the United Nations Charter by illegally removing Alaska from the list;
    the same as was done to Hawaii.[77]

    B. Alaskan Natives Had the Right to Self-Governance

    In enacting Article 73, the United Nations had hoped to guide territories to orderly develop a system of self-government. Who was to
    decide when a territory became self-governing, no longer falling under Article 73, was another question. Some members
    expressed concern that the administering States would simply provide self serving statements to the effect that the territory was self-
    governing and thus cease to follow the U.N. reporting requirements. This prompted the General Assembly, over the objections of
    administering States, to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Information[78] which developed a series of recommendations and a
    list of factors to be considered in connection with the requirement of self-government.

    The factors to be considered were those indicative of the attainment of independence and those showing a free association of a
    territory with all or any part of its metropole or other country. The third category included (a) general factors (political advancement,
    opinion of the population, geographic considerations, ethnic and cultural considerations), (b) the legal or constitutional nature of the
    association, (c) considerations with respect to the status of the territory (legislative representation, citizenship of the territory’s
    inhabitants, and the eligibility of officials from the territory to enter public offices of the central authority), and (d) internal
    constitutional conditions (universal suffrage; free, periodic elections characterized by an absence of undue influence; scope of
    territorial legislative rights of the inhabitants; and method of choosing local officials).[79] No suggestion or guidance was given as
    to the weight to be accorded the inclusion or omission of these factors.

    Even with a list of factors to guide them, the membership of the United Nations was still divided over who was to be the final judge.
    The United States, other administering States, and a very small group of non-administering States asserted that only the
    administering nations were competent to determine when a non-self-governing territory had acquired a full measure of self-
    government. The non-administering states argued that the General Assembly should judge because if they were competent to
    determine who should be placed on the list, they were also competent to determine when the condition of non-self-governance
    ceased.[80] The two sides were at an impasse, but the General Assembly recognized if that the interpretation of the United States
    and other administering states were allowed to stand, it would threaten to make the Charter obligations meaningless. In response,
    the General Assembly assumed the responsibility of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the regulations provided in Articles 73 and
    74, and rejected the powers of the administering States to determine self-government.[81]

    C. The Territory of Alaska Was Not Allowed to Choose Self-Governance

    The United States announced in a Memorandum to the General Assembly[82] that Alaska, upon being admitted into the Union, “had
    attained a full measure of self-government—the same as that enjoyed by the people of all the other forty-eight States of the United
    States. Accordingly, the Government of the United States has determined under General Assembly resolution 222 (III) that it is no
    longer necessary for it to submit information on Alaska pursuant to Article 73(e) of the Charter.”[83] (emphasis added). The records
    of the General Assembly meeting of November 25, 1959 indicate no vote was taken.[84] The United Nations, with no discussions
    on the issue,[85] did not act to prevent the United States from removing Alaska from the list. The United States determined that
    Alaska was self-governing and took the territory off the Article 73(e) list without notable United Nations objections. Four possible
    reasons exist why the General Assembly made no effort to delve into the determination of Alaska’s self-governance.

    First, the General Assembly may have decided that the administering State had the authority to decide when a territory becomes
    self-governing. It is unlikely that the General Assembly, in allowing the United States to determine the Territory of Alaska’s status,
    was yielding to the authority of the administering States in making this decision. Strong evidence suggests this was not the case.
    The General Assembly had already stated that the scope of the Application of Chapter XI falls “within the responsibility of the
    General Assembly.”[86] The same day the United States announced it would cease the 73(e) reports with regards to Alaska and
    Hawaii, France claimed the same with regard to French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa, Madagascar, French Somaililand,
    and the Comoro Archipelago.[87] What followed was a detailed discussion of the French territories and the effect their association
    had on the European Economic Community. France did not bypass the gaze of the committee nearly so easily as the United States
    had done.

    Further evidence exists in regard to the United States and Puerto Rico. The United States government memorandum advising
    Secretary-General Trygve Lie of the cessation of information under Article 73(e) for Puerto Rico was followed by an extensive debate
    in the General Assembly on the issue. Because the criteria for determining self-governance were so unclear, the delegates were
    able to support a number of different conclusions. The United States won the vote with 26 in favor, 16 opposed and 8 abstentions.
    [88] Puerto Rico, unlike annexed Alaska, obtained Commonwealth status. Even after the vote, however, the United Nations
    continued to supervise the territory over the objections of the United States. Undoubtedly, if the General Assembly debated the
    issue and obtained a vote and did not get a vote for Alaska, what happened to Alaska was illegal. The United Nations clearly still
    considered itself to be the final judge of whether a territory is self-governing or not. Arguably, since the U.N. continues to inquire into
    Puerto Rico by means of the Decolonization Committee, it should do the same with Alaska when there was never any vote to
    remove it from the list.

    Second, the General Assembly may have believed the idea of statehood in the United States to be so appealing that Alaska would
    not want any other option. This may have been the case, but the inhabitants of Alaska should have decided this issue. Several
    reasons also exist why the Territory may have been opposed to Statehood. In 1958, the federal government owned 99.8% of Alaska’
    s land mass,[89] a land rich with natural resources. These resources, when tapped, and spread out over a population of 210,000,
    in 1958, would have been ample to support the states inhabitants. At the time, and still today, federal land-management policies
    prevent the state from deciding on the best way to use these resources.[90] Some cite defense as the primary reason Alaska may
    have wanted to become a State. The Cold War with the Soviet Union was at its height in 1958. With the Soviet presence so close,
    the military power of the United States was quite appealing. Points can be argued both ways, but in the end the people had the right
    to choose, a right the General Assembly did not uphold by bending to the wishes of the United States without any debate as with
    Puerto Rico’s determination.

    Third, the facts cited in the United States memorandum to the United Nations may have been so convincing as to make moot any
    further discussion on the issue. These facts were not compelling enough, by themselves, to determine that the Territory of Alaska
    was self-governing. The U.S. memorandum stated three facts: that the people of Alaska have been citizens of the United States,
    that they have had an elected Territorial Legislature and that they have been admitted as a State of the Union as convincing
    evidence of self-governance.[91] While all three are factors to consider, they alone cannot determine self-governance. A debate
    should have been held by the General Assembly, using their own factors,[92] to determine the advancement the Territory of Alaska
    had made towards self-government. Clearly, a vote, similar to the one held on Puerto Rico, should have been taken. With a vote in
    favor of the United States ceasing reporting requirements for Alaska, at least the General Assembly would have had some say in
    the determination issue. As it stood, they simply took the United States’ word concerning the issue. This was something many
    members of the U.N. had feared in the creation of Article 73 non-self-governing protection.

    Only one real reason can account for the lack of discussion and a vote on the Territory of Alaska issue. The United States used its
    power and influence in the United Nations to basically annex Alaska contrary to the principles espoused in Article 73 of the Charter.
    The Article states:

    Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not
    yet attained a full measure of self-government, recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are
    paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligations to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and
    security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end… to develop self-
    government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of
    their free political institutions…[93]

    By allowing the United States to unilaterally decide the issue of Alaskan self-governance, the United Nations failed to uphold the
    principles of the Charter and the language of Article 73. Citizenship was imposed upon the Alaskan citizens by the Treaty of
    Cession and the United States Government. The same thing was done to the Puerto Ricans. Clearly a violation of international law,
    this type of action should not have been permitted and should be remedied.

    D. The Territory of Alaska Was Not Self-Governing When the United States Ceased Reporting Under Article 73(e)

    1. The United States exercised colonial powers over Alaska up until the time of statehood.

    No evidence exists that any analysis was done by the General Assembly, pursuant to U.N. GA Res. 334 (IV), to determine whether
    the Territory of Alaska was, in fact, self-governing.[94] Had any analysis been done, under the factors listed by the General
    Assembly,[95] the result would have been that Alaska was still a non-self-governing territory when the United States illegally
    removed them from the United Nations 73(e) list. The General Assembly has established a few positive criteria to determine the
    meaning of non-self-governing territory. The criteria encompass a theory called the “salt water theory.”[96] The theory states a
    territory is considered to be non-self-governing if it is “geographically separate from the administering, metropolitan State and if
    relations between territory and State are those of colonies with colonial governments.”[97] No part of Alaska touches the continental
    United States, the two being separated by several thousand miles of the sovereign nation of Canada, thus satisfying the
    geographically separate factor.

    As to Alaska’s relationship with the United States, it was much more on the level of a colony to its master than an independent
    territory aligned with a sovereign nation. In 1906, Alaska was given a vote-less delegate to Congress, to give, in President Teddy
    Roosevelt’s words, “Some Alaska person whose business it shall be to speak with authority on her behalf to the Congress.”[98] In
    effect, Alaska was allowed to voice its opinion but given no authority to see that it was carried out. A territorial legislature was
    elected but many restrictions existed including no power to regulate Alaska’s fish, game, and fur resources or assume bonded
    indebtedness without congressional approval.[99]

    Congress also determined, in the Second Organic Act of 1912, that the “Constitution… shall have the same force and effect within
    the Territory of Alaska as elsewhere in the United States.”[100] This gave way to an extremely important distinction. Alaska was now
    considered a district instead of a territory. A territory was thought capable of exercising at least a limited measure of autonomy while
    a district was considered incapable of exercising self-government.[101] This is indicative of the colonial relationship that existed
    between Alaska and the United States up until the time of statehood. The United States made the rules and Alaska followed them.
    Under the facts, Alaska could not be considered to be self-governing.

    2. United States violated Article 73 when not permitting Alaska self-determination.

    The main negative criterion for a non-self-governing territory is that its population has not yet exercised the right to self-
    determination.[102] The colonial peoples must be able to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
    social and cultural development”[103] in exercising this right. Self-determination is a norm of customary law agreed on in the Final
    Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.[104] This norm must be exercised in a democratic way.

    In practice, the General Assembly recognized three main forms of self-determination: emergencies as: a sovereign independent
    State; free association with an independent State; and integration within an independent State.[105] Independence with a full
    measure of sovereignty is the most common and normal mode of self-government.[106] To this end, the U.N. enacted Res. 1514
    (XV) the Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The resolution “solemnly proclaims the
    necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations” and to that end declared
    that all people have a right to self-determination.

    Alaska was never able to exercise its right to self-determination. In the two referendum’s held on Alaskan statehood, the choice of
    independence was not on the ballot.[107] The choice was to accept statehood or decline; no other alternative was available.[108] In
    a 1946 referendum, only 23 percent of the population voted. Of the 16,452 ballots, 9,630 residents voted affirmatively.[109] This was
    enough to get Congress moving, and on July 7, 1958 President Eisenhower signed the statehood bill into law.[110] Soon after, the
    first elections were held in Alaska. The voters were asked to decide on three propositions one of which was “Shall Alaska
    immediately be admitted into the Union as a state?’[111] Any Alaskan 19 years of age or older was allowed to vote. Approximately
    48,000 peoples voted with 40,421 voting for immediate statehood.[112] The United States claims that Alaska had exercised its right
    to self determination by voting for integration within an independent State.

    To be effective, any exercise of the right to self-determination must be done freely, without any undue influence or intervention by
    outside parties and also must be done by an informed electorate. The Alaskan referenda had neither of these qualities. The United
    States did intervene in the election process and the inhabitants of Alaska were hardly informed of their rights under the United
    Nations Charter.

    The United States did not leave the process to the Alaskans, instead it intervened in a determining and dispositive manner. The
    United States passed laws regarding the admission of Alaska to the Union as well as having a hand in administering the election
    itself. United States military personnel were used to set up polling places and ensure orderly elections. No United Nations
    representatives were on hand to witness the elections.

    Not only did the United States intervene, but they also failed to inform the inhabitants of Alaska of the breadth of their choices.
    Integration is the most sensitive kind of self-government.[113] This presupposes that the people of the territory act “with full
    knowledge of the change in their status… expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and
    based on universal adult suffrage.”[114] There is no indication that the voters realized that the choice was not just to become a state
    or remain a territory but other alternatives such as independence and free association existed. Today, the General assembly
    accepts independence as the only form of self-government, unless a given people has consciously chosen a status other than
    independent statehood, despite the fact that independence was truly a clear and attainable alternative. The peoples of Alaska had
    no idea that independence was an alternative, and thus never exercised their right of self-determination consistent with self-

    IV. Illegality of ANCSA: Violation of the Genocide Treaty

    Although officially a state after 1959, the federal government’s treatment of the Alaskan Natives raised grave concerns under the
    Genocide Treaty which for years was not ratified by the United States.[115] When the Genocide Treaty went into effect, it superseded
    all state laws and practices inconsistent with them, and nullified all provisions of all acts of Congress and prior treaties of the
    United States inconsistent with them.[116] At minimum, the United States has violated this treaty through their actions dealing with
    ANCSA. Just as the Hawaiian people were subjected to genocide as determined pursuant to the 1948 Genocide Convention,[117]
    and the 1987 Genocide Convention Implementation Act,[118] the Alaskans have suffered a type of extinguishment falling under the
    umbrella of protection the Genocide Treaty sought to employ.

    In response to the Alaska Statehood Act,[119] Alaska Natives formed the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) in 1966 to stop the
    land selection occurring and harming native land claims.[120] However, if the land selection was halted, the economic benefit
    would be impaired and this was a primary motivate for acquiring the territory originally. So, the oil companies began to gather
    together for settlement of the Native title to stop the interference with their income. The Natives had no protection at this point, but
    should have had protection under the self-imposed Trust Doctrine the United States failed to recognize at this juncture.[121]
    Congress responded with implementing ANCSA on December 18, 1971,[122] violating more than solely their fiduciary obligation to
    protect the Natives by extinguishing aboriginal title to the land. They were also violating international law under the Treaty.

    ANCSA cleared title so the Alaskan pipeline could be built. Instead of addressing the tribal status of Alaskan Natives, it terminated
    “the tribal sovereignty or Indian country that may have existed in Alaska.”[123] ANCSA extinguished aboriginal title to all of Alaska if it
    truly existed from the time of the 1867 Treaty, as well as all the fishing and hunting rights of the Native Alaskans.[124] The Natives
    battled to save their grounds because for a majority of them it was their source of subsistence.[125] For many Natives it destroyed
    their way of life.[126] It could be argued that pursuant to Title 18 U.S. Code 1091 of the Genocide Treaty that defines genocide that
    deliberately subjecting “the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in
    part” has occurred for the Alaskan people. The effects of ANCSA are not quite as blatant as past atrocities considered under the
    Genocide Treaty,[127] but nonetheless the results are similar for the Native Alaskan population.

    V. Conclusion/Recommendation

    The United States has committed numerous illegal acts against the Native Alaskans. From the inception of the 1867 Treaty, the
    government has not regarded the inherent sovereignty vested in the Native Alaskans. If any powers at all were granted to the United
    States from Russia, the Natives nevertheless maintained aboriginal title and the U.S. should have regarded the relationship as one
    of a guardianship rather than to further its own self interests. The people of Alaska had, and still do have a right to self-
    determination without the strong-armed oppression of the United States wielding their power over them.

    Last year, Francis A. Boyle spoke to the Native Hawaiian people after President Clinton signed Public Law 103-150.[128] This law,
    as interpreted by many, officially conceded as a matter of United States law that Native Hawaiian people have the right to restore the
    independent state that they had in 1893 when the United States government came and destroyed it. This declaration would be as
    an independent state not part of the fifty United States, officially recognized as independent under international law. Like Alaska,
    Native Hawaiians have suffered long enough under the United States’ illegal behavior.

    The United States should not be allowed to continue dictating their own policy when it merely serves their own interest. Rather, they
    should be required to follow guideline to better protect people such as the Native Alaskans, whether it is United Nations policy,
    Treaties, or the policies such as the Trust Doctrine imposed by its own judiciary. The illegal acts should not continue. As in Hawaii,
    the sovereignty of Alaska belongs to the people and not the government of Alaska or the United States. The choice for self-
    government belongs to them, and not the federal government. The people of Alaska have the right to proclaim themselves as an
    independent Nation-State. For the people and for adherence to international law, it is the best solution.

    [1] Overthrow of Hawaii Resolution, Pub.L.No. 103-150, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512 (“Whereas it is proper and timely for the Congress…to
    acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow”).

    [2] Professor Believes U.S. Apology Gives Hawaiins Right to Nationhood, Maui Press, January 14-20, 1994 at 1.

    [3] Etok and Nevelo, The Russian-American Occupation of a Sovereign People, 1991.

    [4] Claus-M.Naske and Herman E. Slotnick, Alaska: A History of the 49th State, (1979) The First Organic Act in1884 provided Alaska only with the
    rudimentary civil government, but did not even give Alaska a voteless delegate to Congress until 1906.

    [5] Id. The Second Organic Act in 1912 provided for an elected legislature for Alaska.

    [6] UN Charter art. 73 (“Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not
    yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount.”)

    [7] UN General Assembly Res. 66/I of Dec. 14, 1946.

    [8] UN General Assembly Res. 742/VIII of Dec. 27, 1953.

    [9] G.A. Res. 1469, UN GAOR 4th Comm., 14th Sess., UN Doc. A/4343 (1959).

    [10] Russel Lawrence Barch, Indignous Peoples in the 1990s: From Object to Subject of International Law, 7 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 33, 86 n. 15 (1944).

    [11] See Francis A. Boyle, Independent Nation State of Hawaii, 7 St. Thomas L.Rev. 723 (1995).

    [12] Irene Mildred Bear, The Purchase of Alaska by the United States of America (1938) (unpublished Masters’ dissertation. University of Illinois).

    [13] Id.

    [14] Robert E. Price, The Great Father in Alaska (1990)

    [15] Id.

    [16] Ernest Gruening, The State of Alaska (1954).

    [17] David S. Case, Alaska Natives and American Laws (1984).

    [18] Gruening, supra note 13 at 3.

    [19] Archie W. Shiels, The Purchase of Alaska (1967) citing Committee on Foreign Affairs Report, Motives for Purchase of Alaska (1968).

    [20] Id.

    [21] Price, supra note 11 at 18.

    [22] Case, supra note 14 at 56.

    [23] Etok and Nevelo. Supra note 3 at 2.

    [24] Victor J. Farrar, The Purchase of Alaska, 1935.

    [25] Island of Palmas, World Court.

    [26] Id.

    [27] Case, supra note 11 at 427.

    [28] Case, supra note 11 at 58.

    [29] Id. This distinction, however, appeared to be more effective in the area of civil rights and entitlement to education than to Federal law because
    prior to the Citizenship Act of 1924, whether a native was independent or dependent on Russian rule became relevant to determine if a person was a U.
    S. Citizen by operation of the Treaty.

    [30] See Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 at 103-104 (1884), discussing various citizenship provisions of treaties with Indian tribes contemporary with the 1867
    Treaty of Cession. The case held that “mere abandonment of tribal relations was not sufficient for U.S citizenship unless a specific congressional act
    permitted it. Id. At 106-107. Therefore, even those natives that had abandoned relations with their tribe were entitled to aboriginal title.

    [31] Case, supra note 11 at 59.

    [32] 21. U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823).

    [33] Robert N. Clinton et al. American Indian Law 147 (1991).

    [34] Id. “The rights of the original inhabitants were, necessarily…impaired. Their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were
    necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whom they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle,
    that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.”

    [35] 31 I/S/ (6 {et/) 515 (1832).

    [36] See Charles Edwardson, Jr. Inuit Self-Determination is External Jurisdiction (1993).

    [37] Case, supra note 11 at 59.

    [38] Id.

    [39] Etok and Nevelo, supra note 3 at 2.

    [40] 349 U.S. 272 (1955).

    [41] Id. At 274.

    [42] Id, at 280.

    [43] Case, supra note 11 at 435.

    [44] Etok and Nevelo, supra note 3 at 7.

    [45] Francis A. Boyle, Independent Nation State of Hawaii, 7 St. Thomas L.Rev. 723 (195) (citing convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
    Crime of Genocide, Jan. 12, 1951, 78 U.N.T.S. 277).

    [46] Although Tee-Hit-Ton Indians held that no compensation from the United States government was required for Natives’ lost timber, nothing was
    decided regarding compensation for atrocities committed against Natives’ right of self-determination.

    [47] Id.

    [48] 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).

    [49] Elizabeth A. Pearce, Self-Determination for Native Americans:: Land Rights and the Utility of Domestic and International Law, Colum. Hum.Rts.L.
    Rev. (1991).

    [50] Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet,) 1, 17 (1831).

    [51] Pearce, Supra note 35 at 368.

    [52] The United Nation Article 73(e) violation will be discussed infra.

    [53] Genocide Implementation Act of 1987, Pub.L.No. 100-106, 102 Stat. 3045 (1987).

    [54] Pearce, supra note 35 at 386-87. Pearce discusses the new LIO Convention and Working Group Declaration as steps in the direction of increased
    recognition of group rights, particularly the unique group rights of indigenous peoples. However, even if they would help the self-determination of the
    Native Alaskans, Pearce doubts if the United States would ratify them because of their past record in ratification of other such instruments including the
    Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Right or the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
    Punishment, even though both have achieved nearly universal approval.

    [55] Id.

    [56] Victoria Hykes Steere, God, Do You Hear the Thunder Echoing Silence? Now We Are Slaves: Statutory Warfare 13 (1994).

    [57] Discussed in the context of illegality in violation of the Genocide Treaty infra.

    [58] See United States v. Carolene Prods., 304 U.S. 144, 153 (1938).

    [59] Etok and Nevelo, supra note 3 at 3. “The Monroe Doctrine was written to protect the U.S. from European interference. However, in our own political
    history, the Monroe Doctrine was violated during the …acquisition of the territory of Alaska.”

    [60] Charles Edwardson Jr., Inuit Self-Determination is External Jurisdiction (1993). He suggests that the United States and Russia have created an
    “incident of world class folly” and are in violation of international law due to the lack of sovereignty possessed by either country, disabling them from
    transferring this right.

    [61] Claus-M. Naske and Herman E. Slotnick, Alaska:  A History of the 49th State  149 (1987) From 1939 to 1950 the population of the Juneau area
    increased by only 2% and that of Ketchikan by 16%, while under the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas increased by 241% and 658%, respectfully.

    [62] Id at 148.

    [63] Id.

    [64] Jesus G. Roman, Does International Law Govern Puerto Rico’s November 1993 Plebiscite? 8 La Raza L.JRL.98, 1995

    [65] Id. At 117.

    [66] Id.

    [67] UN General Assembly Res. 66/I of Dec. 14. 1946.

    [68] Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, The Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States.

    [69] Under Article 73 of Chapter XI, such members commit themselves, in part:

    a.  to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just
    treatment, and their protection against abuses;

    b.  to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their
    free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement…;

    [70] UN Charter Art. 73(e) provides for the supervising members “to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such
    limitations as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social,
    and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories for which they are respectfully
    responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.”

    [71] Resolution 222 (III) adopted by the General Assemble on November 3, 1948 states that, having regard to the provisions of Chapter XI of the Charter,
    it is essential that the United Nations be informed of any change in the constitutional position and status of any Non-Self-Governing Territory as a result
    of which the responsible Government concerned thinks it unnecessary to transmit information in respect of that territory under Article 73(e) of the Charter.

    [72] Francis Anthony Boyle, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Transnational Publishers, Inc. 1989. U.N. Charter Art. 77,
    para. 1 (a) provides, in part, “The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of
    trusteeship agreements: a. territories now held under mandate…”

    [73] Id. At 140. U.N. Charter Article 80(1) reads:

    Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77,. 79, and 81, placing each territory under the Trusteeship
    system, and until such agreements have been concluded, Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any Manner the rights
    whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be

    [74] Id. At 150. Boyle argues, in example, that to the extent that the Framework for Peace in the Middle East of the 1978 Camp David Accords conflicts
    with the terms of the Mandate for Palestine and League Covenant Article 22 by directly interfering with the right of the Palestinian people to self-
    determination, the former is invalid and entitled to absolutely no respect under international law.

    [75] Official Records of the General Assembly, Session Fourteen annexes 68 (1959)

    [76] See supra note 4 at 149.

    [77] Boyle, supra. Note 47 at 725.

    [78] G.A. Res. 66(I) (Dec. 14, 1946), reprinted in [1946] U.N. Y.B. 208-11.

    [79] G.A. Res. 648 (VII) (Annex), 7 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 20A) 34, U.N. Doc. A/2361 (1952).

    [80] Upon joining the United Nations in 1955, Portugal and Spain declared their territories an integral part of the State and, therefore not subject to the
    reporting requirement. The United Nations, on its own authority, put both nations’ territories on the list requiring reports, and acted similarly in the case
    of Southern Rhodesia in 1962.

    [81] U.N. GA res 334 (VI); Res 748 (XIII) preambular para. 6; declaring the task of determining the scope of application of chapter XI falls “within the
    responsibility of the General Assembly.”

    [82] See U.N. Charter Art. 73 supra note 5.

    [83] Id.

    [84] Official Records of the General Assembly Sess. 14, 3rd-4th committee, 1959 p. 512

    [85] Id.

    [86] U.N. GA Res. 334 (IV); Res. 748 (XIII) Preamble par.6.

    [87] Id.

    [88] 8 U.N. GAOR (459th plen.Mtg.) 320, U.N. Doc. A/PV. 459 (1953).

    [89] See Naske and Slotnick supra note 4 at 158.

    [90] Id.

    [91] See supra note 5

    [92] G.A.Res. 648 (VII) (Annex), 7 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No.20A) 34, U.N. Doc. A/2361 (1952).

    [93] U.N. Charter, Art.73.

    [94] Price, supra note 13 at 15.

    [95] G.A. Res. 648 (VII) (Annex), 7 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 20A) 34, U.N. Doc. A/2361 (1952).

    [96] Encyclopedia of Public International Law (p318).

    [97] Id.

    [98] Naske and Slotnick, supra note 4 at 158.

    [99] Id.

    [100] Id.

    [101] Naske and Slotnick, supra note 4 at 160.

    [102] Encyclopedia of Public International Law (p318).

    [103] Res. 1514 (XV) and Res. 2625 (XXV).

    [104] Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations Between Participating States, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Final Act, Art. VIII,
    14 I.L.M. 1292 (1975).

    [105] Res. 1514 (XV) and Res. 1541 (XV).

    [106] Encyclopedia of Public International Law (p318).

    [107] Naske and Slotnick, supra note 4 at 147, 161.

    [108] Id.

    [109] Id.

    [110] Id.

    [111] Id.

    [112] Id.

    [113] Encyclopedia of Public International Law (p318).

    [114] Res. 1541 (XV), Principle IX.

    [115] Francis A. Boyle, Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law 311 (1987). (“If the U.S. government’s ratification of the Genocide
    Convention, and the rest of these international human rights treaties can somehow be used to improve the deplorable and lamentable condition of
    American Indians and Inuits, all U.S. citizens would be better off for the success of such an endeavor.”).

    [116] Edwardson, supra note 45 at 108. (Quoting Sam Ervin from May 22, 1970, “If the Senate should ratify the Genocide Convention, these
    constitutional provisions would automatically make the convention the law of the land, put all of its self-executing provisions into immediate effect as
    such, and impose upon the United States the obligation to take whatever steps are necessary to make its non-self-executing provisions effective.”)

    [117] Francis A. Boyle, Independent Nation State of Hawaii, St. Thomas L.Rev. (1995) (citing convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
    Crime of Genocide, Jan. 12, 1951, 78 U.N.T.S. 277).

    [118] Id. (citing Genocide Implementation Act Of 1987, Pub.L.No. 100-106, 102 Stat. 3045 (1987).

    [119] The Alaska Statehood Act authorized the selection of 108 million acres of land by the state, and although was not intended to take Native lands,
    it caused mobilization of the Natives due to land selections occurring all around them.

    [120] Id.

    [121] This assumes the United States did indeed obtain rights to the land from Russia at the time of the 1867 Treaty.

    [122] Id.

    [123] Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987, Pub.L.No. 100-241, 101 Stat. 1788 (1987), and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
    Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. SECS. 3101-3233 (1982 and Supp.V. 1987).

    [124] ANCSA section 1603, 1603 (b).

    [125] Steere, supra note 42 at 19. (Thomas Berger wrote, “In 1971 Alaska Natives believed that if they owned their own land, they could protect the
    traditional economy and village way of life. Subsistence is at the core of village life, and land is at the core of subsistence. You cannot protect the one
    unless you protect the other. The law has protected neither. One of the ironies of ANCSA is that, in Alaska, where the Native people live closer to the
    land and sea, with greater opportunities for self-sufficiency than Natives in any other state, they have no clearly defined tribal rights, no rights as Native
    peoples to fish and wildlife”).

    [126] Steere, supra note 42 at 21. (“Whether ANCSA meant to terminate all tribal people in Alaska or not, it ripped at the soul of Native people and has
    left a wound that has resulted in massive self-destruction”).

    [127] Boyle, supra note 50 at 309 (“The Genocide Convention was originally formulated to prevent a repetition of Adolph Hitler’s attempt to exterminate
    the Jews…”).

    [127] Boyle, supra note 723.