Suddenly, the topic of so-called "ceded lands" is back on the political front burner.

Gov. Linda Lingle and the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs have announced a land-and-cash settlement involving past-due claims from OHA for its share of ceded lands revenue.

And the state Supreme Court made headlines when it ruled that ceded lands cannot be sold or otherwise conveyed until a global settlement is reached with Hawaiians over losses incurred as a result of the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893. That ruling was based on the congressional apology resolution of 1993, which the court says has the force of law.

The resolution concluded the overthrow was illegal and that some kind of "reconciliation" is required. Such reconciliation might involve the use of ceded lands and/or revenue derived from them.

So far, so good. But University of Hawai'i law professor Jon Van Dyke has just come out with a new book that raises fundamental and difficult questions about what those ceded lands really are and who owns them.

The book "Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawai'i?" (University of Hawai'i Press) challenges the very idea that ceded lands (1.4 million to 1.8 million acres, depending on how you count them) are a single entity that can be dealt with in a single way.

Rather, Van Dyke argues, that included in the overall category of ceded lands (ceded from the Republic of Hawai'i, to be held in trust by the United States, then ceded back to the state of Hawai'i to be held in trust upon statehood) were close to a million acres of "crown" lands, reserved originally for the Hawaiian monarchy and now to be used for the benefit of Hawaiians.

"The Crown Lands — originally 984,000 acres — are now seen by many as the core of the land base for the forthcoming Native Hawaiian Nation," Van Dyke writes.

His argument will make any future political decisions about ceded lands and a future Hawaiian government — should one be created — much more complex and at the same time quite a bit simpler if you go with his thesis.

There are big threshold questions facing Van Dyke's argument. The first is that many, including even some Hawaiians, believe the crown lands, those owned or controlled by the monarchy, ceased to exist as a separate entity when the monarchy ended.

The second is that many argue the federal law ceding the lands back to Hawai'i envisioned them being used to benefit Hawaiians, but only as one of several options — including education — that the state might choose. Thus, there is no mandate in federal law.

A third argument, which Van Dyke generally dismisses, is that the crown lands remain private property and belong to one of several claiming descendants of Hawaiian royalty.

Van Dyke's responses, at the risk of oversimplification, are these: Since the overthrow was illegal, per the apology resolution, the monarchy and its purposes never ceased to exist in any legal sense. And while there are five purposes for the ceded lands, many subsequent federal laws and, critically, the 1978 state Constitutional Convention, recognized a special trust obligation to Hawaiians, he says.

THE MAHELE OF 1848

The crown lands took on a life of their own in the Mahele of 1848, in which Kamehameha III divided the lands of Hawai'i roughly in thirds: One third to the government (think roads, harbors, school sites and the like); one third to the commoners to own and use in fee simple; and one third to the ali'i, the bulk of which was kept by Kauikeaouli for his own use as monarch.

Legal thinking about those lands rapidly shifted, moving from the idea of private personal ownership to that of lands belonging to the crown and whoever was monarch at the time. Van Dyke's account of how this shift occurred makes for fascinating reading.

A QUESTION OF MOTIVE

Was the division a plot by foreigners to set up a system in which they could own or control land? Or was it, as Van Dyke argues, an effort to shift property into private hands so that a foreign takeover of the Islands would not result in total loss of lands by the Hawaiians?

And finally, if the crown lands were to be controlled by the monarch, to what use were they to be put? Van Dyke argues that history, tradition and law say the lands were to be used to benefit the Hawaiian people, as a distinct entity — a form of noblesse oblige.

That explains why the Hawaiian ali'i, when they had no heirs, tended to form royal trusts to benefit Hawaiians, he notes. The most notable, of course, is the Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate) trust.

In short, the crown lands remain a resource and base for a revitalized Hawaiian people, he says. Other ceded lands can arguably be used for more general public purposes.

A NEW DIMENSION

Van Dyke's deeply researched argument won't go down easily. Some will say that whatever the history, the facts today are that all ceded lands (government or crown) are now held in trust for the general public good, not for any particular group.

And if the maps included in his book are any indication, transfer of ownership or productive use of the crown lands would generate huge controversy on every island because they encompass vast tracts of now well-used and well-developed property.

So this book hardly will settle the matter. But it adds a new and thought-provoking dimension on a debate that has too often boiled down into simplistic arguments.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.