Search

The country of Solomon Islands, like most Pacific island nations, has a legally pluralistic regime. That is, customary law operates in parallel with the common law, a legacy of Solomon Islands' colonial past. Legal pluralism raises significant difficulties, including in the way cultural heritage is protected and managed. To date, the courts have rarely been called on to deal with such issues, but in 2010 the High Court had to examine legislation designed to regulate the recovery and export of World War II relics. This seemingly innocuous case raised a number of issues concerning the rights of different stakeholders to this material. Moreover, it raised a foundational question as to whether these relics might be considered cultural heritage, and if so, just whose heritage it was. A consideration of this case and the legislation that applies to this heritage serves to illustrate some of the difficulties that arise in protecting cultural heritage within pluralistic legal systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The death of an Aboriginal man, Mulrunji, in an Australian police cell in 2004 precipitated an extraordinary response from the community. The usual distinctions between the roles of police, coroner, prosecutors and politicians became confused and merged in the media maelstrom that followed the death. Uneasy alliances developed which qualified the binary response of right versus wrong. Could the coroner's findings be reconciled with the decision of the prosecutor not to try the police officer involved? Was the government's response of overriding the decision of the independent prosecutor justified? What does this case tell us about the adversarial and inquisitorial approaches to evidence? This paper examines the tensions at play in the response to the death of Mulrunji and explores the wide reaching implications for law and justice in death in custody cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]