Case Study: The Deletion of KH4

Case Study: Midway KH4 Islands

Evolution of Early DXCC Entity Logic

I. PURPOSE

This case study examines the historical treatment of Midway Island within the ARRL DX Century Club (DXCC) program in order to illustrate how early DXCC entity determinations evolved prior to the development of formally codified qualification criteria. The case provides a particularly useful example because it involves entities whose historical treatment appears to have been influenced by a combination of geographic interpretation, administrative distinction, historical precedent, and evolving operational understanding rather than by rigid application of later-defined rules.

The analysis draws upon historical DXCC publications, early ARRL country-list philosophy, later published criteria explanations, and retrospective historical analysis by DXCC historian Bill Kennamer regarding the "The Unfortunate Deletion of KH4" from the DXCC List.

The purpose of this case study is not to advocate for inclusion or exclusion of any current or former DXCC entity, but rather to examine what the Midway example reveals about the historical development of DXCC entity qualification methodology and the relationship between criteria, precedent, and administrative interpretation over time.

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Midway Island appeared on the earliest ARRL country lists associated with the development of the DXCC program, including the 1937 and later 1947 lists. Kure Island was historically associated with the Hawaiian chain but later became linked administratively to Midway for DXCC purposes following subsequent entity interpretations and administrative treatment.

In later historical analysis, Bill Kennamer argued that Midway’s original inclusion reflected the early DXCC understanding of a “discrete geographical or political entity,” a concept derived from the October 1935 QST article by Clinton B. DeSoto entitled “How to Count Countries Worked.”

Kennamer noted that contemporary atlases and administrative references historically treated Midway separately from the Hawaiian Islands. He further observed that Midway historically remained under direct federal administration and was never incorporated into either the Territory or later State of Hawaii.

The later deletion of Midway from the DXCC List generated controversy because some observers argued that the historical basis for Midway’s original inclusion had not materially changed. Kennamer’s analysis contended that the deletion reflected reinterpretation under later administrative reasoning rather than a fundamental change in Midway’s historical administrative distinction from Hawaii.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the later deletion analysis itself, the Midway and Kure case provides important insight into how early DXCC entity determinations may have been conceptualized during periods before formalized rule structures existed.

III. CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT

To understand the historical treatment of Midway, it is necessary to examine the context in which early DXCC entity determinations were made.

Prior to the publication of more formalized DXCC criteria beginning in the mid-1950s and early 1960s, DXCC entity qualification did not operate through a rigid codified rule system. Instead, determinations evolved through a combination of geographic reasoning, political interpretation, administrative distinction, operational practicality, and historical precedent.

The October 1935 DeSoto article introduced the foundational concept that:

“Each discrete geographical or political entity is considered to be a country.”

However, the article did not establish rigid definitions or numerical thresholds. Instead, it presented a conceptual framework intended to provide practical consistency for amateur radio operators attempting to count “countries worked.”

The first formal ARRL Countries List published in January 1937 operationalized these concepts but still reflected substantial interpretive flexibility. Entities were included based on varying combinations of geography, administration, political distinction, and historical understanding.

By July 1959, the ARRL’s published “Countries List Policy” statement acknowledged that DXCC determinations relied upon:

political-administrative independence
geographic separation
intervening foreign land

while simultaneously emphasizing that “precedents in the ARRL List” remained an important consideration.

The August 1962 QST “Countries Criteria” explanation further clarified that the emerging criteria framework had been adopted:

“additional to the many precedents of past decisions…”

This statement is historically significant because it confirms that formal criteria were not intended to replace historical precedent, but rather to operate alongside it.

Within this historical context, early entity determinations involving remote islands such as Midway must be understood as products of interpretive evaluation rather than strict application of later codified standards.

IV. ANALYTICAL OBSERVATIONS

A. Geographic Interpretation Before Formal Thresholds

One of the most important aspects of the Midway case is that it illustrates how geographic distinction was interpreted before explicit numerical separation thresholds were formally introduced into published DXCC criteria.

Prior to the publication of explicit mileage thresholds in 1960, geographic separation appears to have been evaluated contextually rather than mathematically. Remote islands could be viewed as sufficiently distinct based on isolation, mapping conventions, operational perception, or administrative separation without reference to fixed offshore distances.

This suggests that early island qualification decisions cannot always be reconstructed through later quantitative standards. Attempting to retroactively impose later numerical criteria onto early DXCC entity decisions risks creating an artificial appearance of inconsistency where the original system itself operated under more flexible interpretive principles.

The Midway case therefore demonstrates that early geographic qualification was conceptual rather than deterministic.

B. Administrative Distinction vs. Sovereignty

The Midway analysis also illustrates the importance of administrative distinction in early DXCC thinking.

Kennamer argued that Midway’s historical separation from the Territory and later State of Hawaii may have contributed to its treatment as a distinct entity.

This distinction is analytically important because it demonstrates that early DXCC qualification may have considered forms of administrative separation that did not necessarily correspond to full political sovereignty.

This same conceptual pattern later appeared throughout DXCC history in the treatment of colonies, protectorates, dependencies, and geographically separated territories.

The case therefore reinforces the conclusion that early DXCC qualification involved layered interpretation rather than a singular political definition of “country.”

C. Precedent as a Stabilizing Force

The Midway case also demonstrates the importance of historical continuity within the DXCC system.

Once an entity became recognized on the DXCC List, continued recognition itself contributed to its institutional legitimacy. This concept later became more formally acknowledged through grandfathering provisions, but the functional role of precedent existed much earlier.

The August 1962 QST explanation explicitly acknowledged that portions of the earlier countries list were retained because they were considered “generally approved and acceptable,” even where disagreement existed regarding strict theoretical justification.

This suggests that continuity and established acceptance played a stabilizing role within the DXCC program long before explicit grandfathering language appeared in later rule structures.

D. Problems of Retrospective Rule Application

The Midway case illustrates a broader methodological problem within historical DXCC analysis: the danger of retrospective determinism.

Later codified rules often create the appearance that DXCC qualification decisions should always produce predictable outcomes when applied mechanically. However, historical evidence suggests that earlier entity determinations frequently emerged from contextual interpretation rather than rigid rule application.

As a result, some historically recognized entities may not map cleanly onto later formalized criteria systems.

This does not necessarily imply that the original decisions lacked internal logic. Rather, it reflects the reality that the conceptual foundations of DXCC evolved gradually over time before eventually becoming more formally structured.

E. Evolution of Island Treatment

The treatment of Midway also illustrates the broader evolution of island qualification within DXCC history.

Period	Characteristics
1935–1955	Interpretive geographic distinction
1959–1962	Emerging structured criteria concepts
1960 onward	Numerical geographic thresholds introduced
1963 onward	More formalized qualification structure
1988 onward	Hybrid criteria-precedent framework explicitly acknowledged
2000 review era	Increased effort toward objective qualification systems

This progression demonstrates that island qualification standards evolved incrementally rather than emerging fully formed at a single point in time.

V. DXAC-LEVEL INTERPRETATION

The Midway case demonstrates that early DXCC entity determinations frequently depended upon contextual interpretation rather than mechanically applied standards.

The case further illustrates the difficulty of applying later codified criteria retrospectively to historically recognized entities whose original inclusion may have reflected broader interpretive reasoning rooted in geography, administration, operational understanding, or historical continuity.

From a DXCC historical perspective, this case supports the broader conclusion that DXCC evolved as a hybrid system in which:

criteria provided structural guidance
precedent preserved continuity
administrative interpretation resolved ambiguity

rather than as a purely deterministic rule-based framework.

VI. CONCLUSION

The Midway case study demonstrates that the historical development of the DXCC List cannot be fully understood solely through later codified criteria systems.

Early DXCC entity determinations emerged within a developing framework that combined geography, administration, precedent, operational understanding, and evolving interpretive practice. The later formalization of qualification criteria did not erase these earlier foundations but instead developed alongside them.

Accordingly, the Midway example provides a valuable illustration of the broader historical reality that DXCC entity qualification evolved gradually through layered interpretation long before comprehensive rule structures were formally codified.

As such, the case serves as an important example of the complex interaction between written criteria, historical precedent, and administrative judgment that has characterized the DXCC program throughout much of its history.

Additional Information (Source Document)

The Unfortunate Deletion of KH4 by K5FUV, Bill Kennamer

On March 31 of this year, I awoke to find A DXCC press release announcing the deletion of Midway and Kure Island from the DXCC List. I found this hard to believe, because Midway has been on the DXCC List, both in 1937 and in 1947, since the inception of the DXCC program.

The justification given in the press release was that President Obama expanded the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument area on August 26, 2016. This he did. However, the area he expanded was water only. He simply expanded the water area out 50 miles, yet not one piece of land was included! Since DXCC allows only land-based contacts, this seems to suggest that there was no justification for deletion, especially a deletion based upon that particular date.

Perhaps DXCC became confused about their own rules. So I did a further, in depth review of the Midway situation. I had done this before, between 1996 and 1998, as part of the DXCC 2000 Committee, but thought I should do it again, since some things had changed. What I found convinces me that there should have been no deletion of Midway, thus no deletion of Kure.

One of the principles of the DXCC List criteria for additions and deletions has long been that if an entity is found to meet criteria to be placed on the list, it is not then removed if that criteria changes. I actually wrote this into the revised 1998 rules under DXCC List Criteria 3 e). Anything on the 1998 List cannot be deleted unless their status changes. Further, under Criteria, 5. Deletion Criteria, c) criteria changes will not be applied retroactively.

Then, I reviewed again why Midway Island was on the DXCC List, both in 1937 and 1947. The clues begin with a short study of the early history of the DXCC program, and the rationale behind the list of countries provided at the beginning.

The history of DXCC actually begins in 1935, with the publication of Clinton B Desoto’s landmark article in QST. (i)In this article, which was used as the basis for the creation of the first DXCC List, first mention is made of a “discrete geographical or political entity”. Later in that same article is a discussion of islands and island groups. Groups are “constituted by several islands commonly grouped under one name and under the same political control (italics mine.) The Hawaiian Islands are mentioned in this paragraph. If you check an atlas of the day, you would find the Hawaiian Islands listed under one name, and the Midway Islands listed separately. You would find this to be true in a current Rand McNally Atlas as well. The National Geographic Atlas of the World, 2015, shows the Papahanaumokuakea Marine Monument, created on June 15, 2006. It also shows Midway separately, administered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife. (ii)This shows that at the time of DXCC List creation, Hawaii and Midway were considered separate by mapmakers and by DXCC, both in 1937, 1947, and even today. In short, it was a discrete entity, listed by mapmakers as separate from Hawaii, which indeed it was politically.

To fully understand, it is best to look at the history of Midway and Kure.

A Captain Middlebrook originally claimed Midway for the U.S. on July 5, 1859. It was later formally claimed by the U.S. Navy (August 28, 1867). At that time Hawaii was an independent kingdom. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt signed Executive Order 199-A, placing Midway under jurisdiction and control of the U.S. Navy. In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8682 creating several Naval Defense Zones. Midway was included in those areas. On April 22, 1988, Midway was designated a National Wildlife Area. On October 31, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13022 transferring Midway to the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to become the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. This order remains in force. Never in any of those orders was Midway made a part of the territory or state of Hawaii, which is what would need to happen to cause a deletion.

King Kalakaua Sent Colonel J. H. Boyd to Kure as a Special Commissioner, when on September 20, 1886, he took possession of the island for the government of Hawaii. Kure has always been part of Hawaii.

Knowing this history, and knowing what the early DXCC philosophy was when there was no actual, published criteria, it becomes easy to see that the early assemblers of the list saw that Midway was separate from the territory of Hawaii because Hawaii was self-governing and Midway was not. That condition continues to this day. Hawaii becoming a state without inclusion of Midway actually strengthens this separation, and it is this separation, and not a specific administration, upon which the inclusion of Midway to the original DXCC Lists was based. Therefore, the status of Midway has not changed from the time it first appeared on the DXCC List until today.

Further evidence is provided from the web pages of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine Monument and the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge and Battle of Midway National Memorial. The Papahanaumokuakea Marine Monument has as its co-trustees NOAA (seas within the monument) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Midway National Wildlife Refuge and Battle of Midway Memorial), State of Hawaii (all of the Hawaiian Islands) and Office of Hawaiian Affairs (Native affairs within the monument). The trustees are supervisory, with management and administration by each agency of each part of the monument, as designated. Fish and Wildlife maintains a staff on Midway. The State of Hawaii maintains a small staff on Kure to look after the Kure Atoll State Wildlife Sanctuary. If you want to do anything in the waters of the monument, contact NOAA. Each individual agency or the State of Hawaii controls access to their area. None of these administrations appears to have given up administration of their respective areas within the monument.

So, the DXCC Deletion Criteria have not been met, certainly not by any action taken on August 26, 2016. Midway does meet the criteria under which it was added (separate from the Territory of Hawaii), and a change in the criteria shall not affect the status of any Entity on the list at the time of the change. Since no particular administration was named, but only that Midway was different from Hawaii at the time the list was created, then there was no reason for this deletion, and therefore, no reason for the deletion of Kure.

Here is a simple four question test that will show the error of this deletion:

1. Was Midway part of the Territory of Hawaii in 1937 or 1947? It was Not
2. Was Midway incorporated into the State of Hawaii upon statehood in 1959? No
3. Did Midway become a part of the State of Hawaii when the Papahanaumokuakea Marine Monument was created in 2006? It did not
4. Is Midway currently an unincorporated insular territory of the U.S. and not part of the State of Hawaii? It is currently listed as an unincorporated insular territory of the U.S. by the Department of the Interior, and as such is not part of the State of Hawaii.

Deleting an Entity and bringing it back to the DXCC List because a more stringent review showed the error is not new. It was done with the Cayman Islands deletion in 1960 (iii). So, Midway and Kure should be restored to the DXCC List.

(i) DeSoto, Clinton B.,”How to Count Countries Worked” QST, October, 1935, pp40-41,
(ii) National Geographic Atlas of the World, 10th Edition, 2015, “The State of Hawai’i includes all islands and reefs in the chain that extends from the island of Hawai’i to Kure, except Midway Islands, which are administered as a wildlife refuge by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service”
(iii) QST, June 1958, page 97 and QST, September 1960, page 90.