This is fallacious thinking. In particular, it's an example of "begging the question." 

The PCA did not reach the conclusion that the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists. What happened is that some guy (who happens to be a felon) made a conditional claim. He said, essentially: if P then Q. The court (because it's a whore for money and attention) allowed the *conditional* existence of P, but did not decide if Q was or was not. They didn't need solid evidence; all they needed was a plausible argument based on a lot of assumptions, and a boatload of filing fees. 

By suggesting that the PCA's initial *conditional* acceptance of the lawsuits' filing determines anything at all (or represents a conclusion), you're begging the question.

More to the point, the PCA has zero power to enforce or interpret any law whatsoever. It facilitates arbitration. At this point, I do wonder if that's actually a "court" at all. It's not an authority; it's a bunch of people in a room grinding axes.