State of Hawaii Agents May Soon Face War Crimes.

“Ignorance Is Not a Defense”: How Executive Inaction Can Ripen into ICC-Level Liability

By Hawaiʻi Kupuna Humanitarian Tribunal – Legal & Humanitarian Desk

Hawaiian Subjects continue reporting daily harms they experience under what they describe as a prolonged occupation. When executive officials—governors, parole authorities, and agency heads—ignore clear humanitarian obligations, they don’t just fail their constituents. Under international criminal law, “not knowing” or “not taking it seriously” is not a shield once core rights of protected persons are at stake.

When routine violations become international crimes
The Rome Statute—the treaty that created the International Criminal Court (ICC)—criminalizes war crimes and crimes against humanity when legally defined thresholds are met. Among listed war crimes are: unlawful confinement and wilfully depriving a protected person of rights to a fair and regular trial—both classic occupation-era prohibitions.

HKHT case materials document concerns that a Hawaiian Subject is being unlawfully confined and denied humanitarian access due under Geneva Convention IV as a Protected Person. The Tribunal’s Humanitarian Release Order likewise warns that obstruction of family access and humanitarian relief can constitute violations warranting referral to international bodies, including the ICC.

“I was just following policy” won’t save executives
Two pillars of ICC law make “official position” and “I didn’t know” arguments precarious:

Irrelevance of official capacity (Art. 27): Being a governor, cabinet member, or senior official never exempts a person from ICC responsibility.
Superior responsibility (Art. 28): Civilian superiors can be liable if they knew or consciously disregarded information that subordinates were committing crimes and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish them.
Put plainly: inaction in the face of credible warnings is risky. HKHT filings formally notify State actors of alleged unlawful confinement and related humanitarian breaches; ignoring such notices can move conduct closer to the knowledge and failure-to-act standards that trigger superior responsibility.

How an ICC case can start—even if a country is not a State Party
The ICC can open a situation by: a State Party referral, a UN Security Council referral, or a prosecutor’s proprio motu initiation with Pre-Trial authorization (Art. 13–15). Jurisdiction generally requires either the territory or the accused’s nationality to be tied to a State Party or an ad hoc acceptance by a non-party State (Art. 12). Admissibility rests on complementarity: if national authorities are “unwilling or unable” to genuinely investigate, the ICC can proceed (Art. 17).

What executives may face if the ICC proceeds
If the Prosecutor gathers evidence and the Pre-Trial Chamber finds reasonable grounds, it may issue arrest warrants or summonses to appear (Art. 58; Part 5 overview). States Parties are then obliged to arrest and surrender the person and to cooperate with related requests (Arts. 89–93). Practically, that means:

Travel risks multiply: Any trip into cooperating States can result in arrest on arrival following an ICC request (Art. 91–92).
Public proceedings & victims’ voices: ICC trials protect victims and witnesses while allowing their participation, including privacy and safety measures (Art. 68).
No time limit: ICC crimes have no statute of limitations (Art. 29).
The “ignorance” trap: policy, orders, and “I didn’t know”
The Statute recognizes limited “mistake” or “orders” defenses, but manifestly unlawful orders—especially involving crimes against humanity—cannot be excused. Coupled with Art. 28’s duty to prevent and repress, executives who receive credible reports of abuse yet do nothing step onto hazardous ground.

Why these warnings matter now
HKHT’s writs and orders place decision-makers on written notice of alleged unlawful confinement and interference with humanitarian access to a Protected Person. Continued disregard can elevate administrative stubbornness into international criminal exposure, especially where national processes appear unwilling to remedy violations (Art. 17).

A narrow path to compliance
Executives who want to avoid that cliff should:

Cease and correct any confinement that lacks a lawful occupation-era basis, and document corrective action. (See HKHT directives for immediate steps.)
Facilitate humanitarian access and family contact promptly where required.
Open good-faith investigations and remedies domestically—core to defeating ICC admissibility under complementarity (Art. 17).
Protect victims and witnesses in line with Art. 68—confidentiality, safety, and dignity measures.
Final word to Hawaiʻi’s decision-makers
The ICC’s system is built on a simple promise: no one is above the law. If occupation-era prohibitions are triggered and Protected Persons are being unlawfully confined or denied fair process, silence and delay are not neutral choices—they are potential elements of criminal responsibility.

Act now. Correct, document, and cooperate—or risk learning, the hard way, that “we didn’t think it was serious” is not a defense.