In 1971, as a young lawyer at the Native American Rights Fund, I was fortunate to represent the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin in its quest to achieve federal recognition.

Congress then passed the Menominee Restoration Act in 1973. This was none of my doing — Ada Deer, the dynamic tribal chairwoman, and other tribal leaders made their case brilliantly — but I took away many lessons from that legislative effort and they directly apply to the Akaka bill.

This is not because the Menominee and Hawaiians are the same, culturally or historically. The new Hawaiian government will not be a tribe and will not have a reservation. And the Bureau of Indian Affairs will not set foot on the Islands.

Hawaiian recognition and Menominee restoration do, however, share something important: They both rest on exactly the same constitutional footing. The arguments raised against Hawaiians, including the claim that a Hawaiian government would be "race-based," were all made against the Menominee.

Hawaiians, the Menominee and indigenous people the world over have something else in common. They yearn for their self-determination, their sovereignty. They all exercised it historically, saw it diminished or ripped away, and strive to protect or revive it now.

Native sovereignty has always been understood for what it is — a governmental, not racial, classification. The United States made treaties with the Hawaiian kingdom and Mainland tribes because that is how sovereign governments formalize agreements with each other.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832), one of Chief Justice John Marshall's greatest opinions, explained the governmental status of Native sovereigns at length.

Modern cases have followed suit. Morton v. Mancari (1974) upheld a statute granting a Native hiring preference in the BIA. The court reasoned that the statute was based on the "government-to-government" relationship with tribes, not on race.

We can see the parallel in international relations. When the United States makes treaties with Japan, Mexico, or South Africa, we accept those documents not as "race-based" but as agreements between governments.

As for the contention that the overthrow "forever extinguished" Hawaiian sovereignty and that therefore Congress cannot now enact the Akaka bill, the leading authority is United States v. Lara, decided by the Supreme Court in 2004. Lara approved a statute that expanded tribal sovereign authority to include criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians.

In the Lara opinion, the court emphasized Congress' broad constitutional authority over Native affairs and held that this power includes the right to restrict and expand tribal sovereignty. In a helpful formulation, the opinion explained that Congress can define, and redefine, "the metes and bounds of tribal sovereignty."

The Lara opinion expressly referred to the Menominee Restoration Act of 1973, which once again recognized the Menominee sovereignty that Congress had previously terminated. Menominee restoration and Hawaiian recognition are directly parallel.

In each case, Congress initially recognized the sovereignty of each, then broke off all government-to-government relations; nonetheless, Congress retained the right to resume recognition under its authority to define the "metes and bounds" of Native sovereignty.

Lara virtually assures judicial approval of the Akaka bill.

The bill holds great promise for Hawaiians. The Menominee and other tribes have made exceptional progress over the past two generations. They have used their self-determination to bring Native-controlled health and education programs, economic development efforts, justice systems, and natural-resource management to their people.

State and federal agencies have never been able to determine Native needs and deliver services effectively. Only Native governments can do that. As professor Joseph Kalt of Harvard's Kennedy School put it, "We cannot find a single case of sustained economic development where the tribe is not in the driver's seat. ... The only thing that is working is self-determination, that is, de-facto sovereignty."

My every expectation is that the new Hawaiian government will use its self-determination at least as effectively as the Mainland tribes.

The rightful recognition of sovereignty, stifled for so long, will unleash all manner of creativity and productivity. Kaho'olawe and the Hawaiian Home Lands will be returned. Officials of the new government and the trustees of the Kamehameha Schools, if they so choose, will have the chance to create a relationship that will protect the school's historic admissions preference as a governmental, not racial, policy. Social and economic problems will be addressed by those most able to do so.

Other possibilities are legion.

The Akaka bill has been politically difficult — proposals by dispossessed peoples always are — but it is legally and constitutionally easy. Once it passes, much hard work will lie ahead. Nonetheless, modern Native governments have made self-determination a reality in the U.S. Mainland, Canada and New Zealand and have been accepted as permanent and productive institutions by those nations.

Native Hawaiians and the state of Hawai'i can justifiably set their sights high and craft a system that will inspire all who love justice the world over.