The Charter of the Kanak People: in pursuit of “cooperative and balanced legal pluralism” in New Caledonia

ABSTRACT

In April 2014, a significant number of New Caledonia's Kanak customary authorities adopted the “Charter of the Kanak People on the Common Foundation of Fundamental Values and Principles of the Kanak Civilisation”. The product of a year-long consultation process led by the Customary Senate, the Charter's overall objective is to institute “cooperative and balanced legal pluralism” (Preamble, 11) in an internally decolonised New Caledonia. The Charter asserts the indigenous rights of the Kanak people and aims to transform the plural legal order(s) currently existing in this French Pacific archipelago, in which Kanak “customary law” is notably applied by the state to civil matters between individuals of “customary civil status” and to “customary lands”. Adopting a plurality of perspectives on “legal pluralism”, this paper analyses the objectives and implications of the Charter in terms of the ways in which it aims to redraw the contours of “legal pluralism” in the country at a foundational and a mechanical level, while allowing for a range of interpretations so as to maximise its potential impact in the context of the upcoming decisions regarding New Caledonia's future political and legal landscape following the conclusion of the Noumea Accord “decolonisation” process.

KEYWORDS:

• New Caledonia
• Kanak
• Indigenous Peoples
• customary law
• legal pluralism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The Charter is available in French and English on the website of the Customary Senate at http://www.senat-coutumier.nc/le-senat-coutumier/les-politiques-publiques-kanak. All quotations from the Charter in this paper are my own translations from the original French version. All other translations from original French texts are similarly my own.

2. Accord sur la Nouvelle-Calédonie signé à Nouméa le 5 mai 1998.

3. See, for example, Sénat coutumier (2014a, 33, 2014b, 30, 2015e, 81), Féral (2014), Féral quoted in USTKE (2014), Bouquet-Elkaïm and Féral (2015, 32, 34), and Raphaël Mapou quoted in Maison de la Nouvelle-Calédonie (2015, 57). The term “decolonisation” is used in the NA itself (Preamble, point 4).

4. The NA created this new category of local citizenship, which now exists alongside the French (and, indeed, European) citizenship of the individuals concerned. Following a referendum result favourable to independence, local citizenship would become local nationality (NA Orientation Document, points 2 and 5). For details on the self-determination referendums and the restricted electorate, see Loi organique n° 99-209 du 19 mars 1999, Title IX.

5. Loi organique n° 99-209 du 19 mars 1999.

6. NA Orientation Document, point 5, OA article 217.

7. According to the 2014 state census (ISEE 2015), of New Caledonia's total population (268767 inhabitants): 39% self-identify as belonging exclusively to the “Kanak community”; 27% exclusively to the “European community”; 8% exclusively to the “Wallis and Futuna community”; 2% exclusively to the “Tahitian community”; 1% exclusively to the “Indonesian community”; 1% exclusively to the “Vietnamese community”; 1% exclusively to the “Ni-Vanuatu community”; and 20% self-identify as belonging to “other” communities (including 9% to several communities) or chose not to respond to this question.

8. Some useful texts dealing with legal pluralism as an analytical concept and approach to academic research are J. Griffiths (1986), Vanderlinden (1971, 1989, 1993, 2009), Macdonald (1986, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011), de Sousa Santos (1987), Merry (1988), Benda-Beckmann (1988, 2002), Teubner (1992), Greenhouse and Strijbosch (1993), Tamanaha (1993, 2000, 2008), Kleinhans and Macdonald (1997), Woodman (1998), Greenhouse (1998), A. Griffiths (2002, 2011), Melissaris (2004, 2006), and Macdonald and Sandomierski (2006).

9. Different authors have distinguished legal plurality from legal pluralism in different ways. To take one example, Benda-Beckmann's analytical framework distinguishes situations of legal pluralism from more general situations of legal complexity or multiplicity by confining “legal pluralism” to the “duplicatory, parallel character of legal norms or mechanisms” (2002, 60).

10. While this example focuses on legal pluralism associated with “customary law” and “state law”, other forms of weaker and stronger legal pluralism may also be seen to exist in colonial and postcolonial contexts arising from legal phenomena beyond those associated with the customary sphere. “Customary law” may itself also demonstrate internal legal pluralism, or may in some cases constitute multiple legal spheres which themselves give rise to deeper forms of legal pluralism.

11. Roberts (1998) provides an example.

12. However, Macdonald ultimately seeks to go beyond these approaches. See, for example, his argument in favour of a “non-chirographic critical legal pluralism” (2011).

13. The emphasis placed by A. Griffiths on spatialisation resonates with the postmodern approach elaborated by de Sousa Santos (1987, 297–298).

14. While its official name remains New Caledonia, the country was rebaptised “Kanaky” in the 1980s by the pro-independence political movement. A special majority of the New Caledonian Congress can vote to change the country's name as part of the NA process (NA Orientation Document, point 1.5, OA article 5).

15. Note that article 55 of the French Constitution (Constitution du 4 octobre 1958) automatically incorporates international treaties or agreements ratified or approved by France into French domestic law, and stipulates that these norms have superior legal authority within the French system to ordinary laws passed by the Parliament. On the issues associated with state-recognised Kanak customary law and the legal implications of its potential incompatibilities with French and international human rights norms (particularly those enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights) see the analysis of Cornut (2010b), who maintains that such inconsistencies will, in most cases, not invalidate that customary law, either under international or domestic French law.

16. Resolution A/RES/61/295, 13 September 2007.

17. See Merle (1995), Wamytan (2013, Annexe 5, 401–403) and NA Preamble. For a critique of the NA Preamble's construction of New Caledonia's colonial history, see Muckle (2007).

18. See Trépied (2010, 25–37), Wamytan (2013, 27–186), Merle (2004).

19. See Wamytan (2013, 296–297), Lafargue (2014, 174–177), Agniel (2008, 82–84).

20. As outlined in the chronology of Leblic (2003).

21. See the discussion in Muckle (2009).

22. NA Preamble, point 4.

23. NA Preamble, point 3.

24. NA Preamble, point 5, Orientation Document, point 5.

25. NA Preamble, points 3 and 4.

26. Conseil Constitutionnel, décision n° 99-410 DC du 15 mars 1999.

27. NA Orientation Document, point 1.1, OA articles 7 and 18, Cour de cassation, avis n° 005 0011 du 16 décembre 2005, Cour de cassation, avis n° 0070001P du 15 janvier 2007. See also the analysis of these two advisory decisions in Cornut (2010a) and Lafargue (2010, 136–142).

28. Note that while I am translating statut civil de droit commun into “common civil status” and droit commun into “common law”, it should be recalled that the French legal system is based on a civil, rather than a common law tradition.

29. NA Orientation Document, point 1.1, OA articles 11–17.

30. As per article 75 of the Constitution, which still notably applies to French citizens from Wallis and Futuna. Immigrants from Wallis and Futuna now represent the third largest ethnic group in New Caledonia, behind the Kanak people and the “European” community (ISEE 2015). While French law formally recognises that individuals of particular civil status from Wallis and Futuna are subject to their own “customs” in civil matters, this recognition is rarely given effect by the state courts either in New Caledonia or in Wallis and Futuna, although customary norms and institutions are identified by Lafargue (2014, 178) as largely occupying the legal space this creates.

31. OA article 19, Code de l'organisation judiciaire (COJ) articles L562-19–L562-24, L562-28. An amendment to the OA passed in 2013 also allows penal courts (without customary assessors) to hear the civil action relating to damages associated with a criminal conviction in matters where both the perpetrator and the victim are of customary civil status. In such instances, the law to be applied remains (state-recognised) Kanak customary law.

32. OA article 150.

33. See particularly the explanatory memorandum of Ordonnance n° 82-877 du 15 octobre 1982 (which first introduced customary assessors), OA articles 7, 18, 19 and 150, Conseil constitutionnel, décision n° 2013-678 DC du 14 novembre 2013, Cour de cassation, avis n° 005 0011 du 16 décembre 2005, Cour de cassation, avis n° 0070001P du 15 janvier 2007, Cour d'appel de Nouméa, 22 mai 2014, RG n° 12/00101.

34. As discussed by Cornut (2010a).

35. For further details, see NA Orientation Document, point 2.1.3, and OA Title III, Chapter II. OA article 107 provides that country acts have the same legal force in New Caledonia as acts passed by the French Parliament. OA article 99, point 5, gives legislative power over matters relating to customary civil status and customary lands to the Congress. Such country acts must be consistent with the provisions of the OA and the core provisions of the NA: Conseil Constitutionnel, décision n° 99-410 DC du 15 mars 1999.

36. For the details of this procedure, see OA Title III, Chapter II, and OA article 142. Note that the democratically elected members of the Congress are not exclusively Kanak, reflecting the ethnic diversity of New Caledonia's citizens and voters today. Furthermore, the self-identification as Kanak of an elected member of the Congress does not necessarily mean that the individual in question has any particular (especially representative) relationship to Kanak custom and to the country's customary institutions and authorities, nor uses Kanak custom as their primary point of reference in determining their actions as an elected representative, even in matters directly concerning custom.

37. OA article 2.

38. NA Orientation Document, point 1.2.5, OA Title III, Chapter IV, section 1.

39. OA articles 140–145. See also Chabrot (2009).

40. OA Title III, Chapter IV, section 2.

41. These articles provide for the possibility of changing to elections as the mode of designating each region's Customary Council and Customary Senate members, but this change has not been instituted (through the enactment of a country act, as required by the OA) because it is opposed by the majority of the country's officially recognised customary authorities and institutions.

42. This dilution has been strongly criticised by the Customary Senate. Citing the terms of the Charter of the Kanak People, the Senate has argued for its own role in the legislative process relating to customary matters to be rendered preponderant and determinant, both in state law and in institutional practice: Sénat coutumier (2015d).

43. Civil matters: Ordonnance n° 82-877 du 15 octobre 1982, article 1, Loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007 relative aux actes coutumiers, and see Lafargue (2010, 313–324) on related developments in state court civil procedures. Penal matters: NA Orientation Document, point 1.2.4, Délibération n° 17/2011/SC du 15 novembre 2011 portant sur un cadre de résolution des conflits en milieu coutumier, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 24 janvier 2012, 498–499, and see Lafargue (2010, 175–188), Wamytan (2013, 274, 305, 324–327), Leconte (2014, 10–11), Macia-Buso (2013), Frezet (2006, 2007, para 3).

44. See Poigoune (2013), Merle (2013), Sermet (2013, 23–25), Godin and Passa (2014).

45. See, for example, the report of then Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, to the eighteenth session of the Human Rights Council in 2011, “The situation of Kanak people in New Caledonia, France” (A/HRC/18/35/Add.6), and Lafargue (2010). Lafargue was himself formerly a judge of the Noumean Court of Appeal.

46. See particularly Cour de Cassation, crim., 10 octobre 2000, arrêt n° 5871, and the discussion in Cornut (2009, 2010a, paras 23–25), Lafargue (2010, 144–188), Leconte (2014), Deumier (2006) and Frezet (2006, 2007).

47. See also Mandaoué (2003, 30–32) and Kurtovitch (2003, 36).

48. See the succinct discussion in Douglas (1998, 76–79), Trépied (2010, 31–37, 359–361) and Muckle (2012, 10–14). For examples highlighting in more depth some of the complexities associated with specific local contexts, see Naepels (2010), Demmer (2009), and Bensa (2000).

49. Leca (2014, 57–60) also stresses the unity of Kanak custom(s)/customary law.

50. As discussed in Coquelet (2008, 243–248).

51. For a brief overview of some of these historical and contemporary transformations and their discussion in relation to the contemporary French legal system in New Caledonia, see Bensa and Salomon (2007), Demmer and Salomon (2013) and Trépied (2016). Specifically in relation to the role of state-recognised Kanak customary authorities in the maintenance of “public order” during and subsequent to the colonial period and its continuing legacy, see Trolue (2003, 17–18) and Lafargue (2010, 155–158). On contemporary transformations of Kanak perceptions, norms and actions associated with custom and criminal law in the context of violence against women, see Salomon (2002, 2003), Salomon and Hamelin (2010) and Lafargue (2010, 174).

52. This approach is arguably also suggested by the prominence of the concept of “semi-autonomy” in the work of Moore (1973) and J. Griffiths (1986).

53. See Délibération cadre n° 02/2013/SC du 30 avril 2013 relatif au socle commun des valeurs kanak et les principes fondamentaux des droits autochtones coutumiers, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 1 août 2013, 6119–6120, and Sénat coutumier (2013a).

54. For further details and a critical self-evaluation of the challenges encountered in relation to the desired participative process, see Sénat coutumier (2013b, 8–13, 62-63, 2014a, 62–65).

55. A list of the members of this Comité d'animation technique – coordination appears in Sénat coutumier (2014a, 64).

56. Particularly including François Féral and Jerôme Bouquet-Elkaïm: interview with François Féral, 27 April 2014, Noumea.

57. The Charter (30) also refers to these customary authorities in short hand as “all of the chiefdoms and districts of the eight Customary Countries” (l'ensemble des chefferies et les districts des huit Pays coutumiers). “Clan Chief Councils” are identified as having formerly been known as “Councils of Elders” (conseils des anciens; CPK article 54).

58. In February 2015, the Customary Senate affirmed that the Charter had been adopted “by 262 chiefdoms (78%) and 56 districts (95%)”: Sénat coutumier (2015a, 13). In November 2014, the Senate similarly affirmed that the Charter had been signed by 78% of the country's “registered chiefdoms”: Sénat coutumier (2015c, 5).

59. Délibération n° 06-2014/SC du 15 juillet 2014, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 5 août 2014, 6815–6830.

60. These objectives are drawn from an analysis of the expressed and implied objectives articulated in the Charter itself and in the following associated documents: Délibération cadre n° 02/2013/SC du 30 avril 2013, article 1 and explanatory memorandum, Sénat coutumier (2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d, 2014e, 2016c), Sénat coutumier website, “Les politiques publiques kanak”. http://www.senat-coutumier.nc/le-senat-coutumier/les-politiques-publiques-kanak

61. Féral (2012, 5–8), interview with François Féral, 27 April 2014, Noumea. It appears that a formal a partnership agreement was made between the Senate and the research project led by Otis at the University of Ottawa, “Indigenous States and Cultures: Law in Pursuit of Legitimacy” (Etats et cultures autochtones : un droit en quête de légitimité).

62. Délibération cadre n° 02/2013/SC du 30 avril 2013, exposé des motifs, Sénat coutumier (2014a, 8).

63. For an analysis of the “shared sovereignty” concept in the NA, see Dickins Morrison (2014, 36–38). Note further the affirmation in article 2 of the Customary Senate's Délibération n° 09-2014/SC du 4 septembre 2014 relative à l'approfondissement du pluralisme juridique coopératif applicable en Nouvelle-Calédonie, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 9 octobre 2014, 9572, that legal pluralism originates in and is the finality of the “common destiny” concept as evoked by the NA.

64. See particularly the paragraphs in bold at the end of the Charter's Preamble (10–11), the Charter's third and final chapter (articles 107–115), entitled “Exercise of the Kanak People's right to self-determination”, and the subsequent proclamation paragraphs preceding the customary authorities’ signatures (30–32). Note that article 110 of the Charter affirms the complementarity of the Kanak people's rights to internal and external self-determination, so that while the Charter is primarily concerned with internal sovereignty and stresses that it poses no threat to the territorial integrity of the state, “whatever its form” (within or independent from France; CPK article 111), it seeks to remain compatible with (rather than positioning itself in direct opposition to) the Kanak independence movement.

65. On this history see Trépied (2010, 2012) and Soriano (2014). On its more recent manifestations associated with the emergence of political claims based on the Kanak people's indigeneity and drawing on the movement for and recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the international arena, see Demmer (2007), Trépied (2012) and Salaün (2010, 94–98).

66. The strategic plurality of the Charter's claim to political legitimacy is also clearly apparent in the Preamble's invocation of the open and inclusive consultation process that the Customary Senate attempted to engage in relation to the Charter project – a process which broadly appeals to democratic sensibilities – alongside the affirmed inherent customary (rather than democratic) political legitimacy of the adoption of the Charter by the Kanak people's “traditional representatives” (10).

67. For the fully elaborated arguments, see Sénat coutumier 2015d, Bouquet-Elkaïm and Féral 2015.

68. Sénat coutumier (2014c, 38, 2014d, 42, 2014e), Sénat coutumier website. http://www.senat-coutumier.nc/le-senat-coutumier/les-politiques-publiques-kanak

69. See Lafargue (2010, 313–324) and Leca (2014, 51).

70. The report produced by the Customary Senate following the conclusion of the four États Généraux meetings in 2013 on the Charter project (Sénat coutumier 2014a, 53) states that “propositions will be made to develop a horizontal, cross-cutting vision of the judicial institution, so as to ensure the development of a jurisprudential [case law-based] justice, like the Customary Court and the Noumean Court of Appeal tend to demonstrate today”. The report also affirms that a study will be conducted on the functioning of the customary tribunals in English-speaking Melanesian countries, which have common law formal justice systems (53).

71. This fluidity is facilitated by the Charter's almost exclusive expression in the French language (rather than in one, let alone in all of the 28 Kanak languages still spoken today) in its original, authoritative version.

72. See, for example, the discussion in Cornut (2010a).

73. Such as “work” (travail), “clan” (clan), “chiefdom” (chefferie), “rights” (droits), “sovereignty” (souveraineté), “heritage” (patrimoine), “customary lands” (terres coutumières), “customary civil status” (statut civil coutumier), “sacred” (sacré), and so on.

74. Cour d'appel de Nouméa, chambre coutumière, arrêt du 22 mai 2014, n° de RG 12/00101.

75. Cour de cassation, avis n° 005 0011 du 16 décembre 2005, Cour de cassation, avis n° 0070001P du 15 janvier 2007. See also Cour de Cassation, civ. 1ère, 13 octobre 1992, n° 90-20454, Deumier (2006), Cornut (2010a, paras 18–20), Lafargue (2010, 141–142).

76. OA article 19, COJ article L562-22.

77. In the original French: Le régime des sanctions coutumières est gradué par la nature des infractions, délits et crimes. On distingue les fautes relevant de l’éducation, du respect de l'ordre public coutumier et de la morale coutumière.

78. Customary acts (actes coutumiers) were introduced in 2007 by local legislation (pursuant to NA Orientation Document, point 1.2.1) and provide a mechanism for notarising and giving a limited but binding contractual legal status to decisions and judgements made by local customary authorities on matters relating to customary civil status and customary lands (Loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007, articles 3–4). Where conflict arises over the interpretation of a customary act, the parties must have recourse first to their regional Customary Council, which can either propose conciliation between the parties or which can provide a ruling on the matter in a reasoned written decision (articles 21–28). Only after this recourse to the Customary Council has been exhausted can a legal action in relation to the matter be brought before the state courts (article 29).

79. See both the Customary Senate's arguments and the responses of various New Caledonian and national French state representatives, reproduced in Maison de la Nouvelle-Calédonie (2015).

80. Délibération n° 14-2014/SC du 13 novembre 2014 adoptant le projet de loi du pays relative à la sauvegarde des savoirs traditionnels liés aux expressions de la culture kanak et associés à la biodiversité ainsi qu'au régime d'accès et de partage des avantages, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 3 février 2015, 1042–1082, Délibération n° 07-2015/SC du 30 juin 2015 portant proposition de loi du pays modifiant la loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 4 août 2015, 6831–6850, Délibération n° 08-2015/SC du 2 juillet 2015 portant proposition de loi du pays relative aux successions coutumières Kanak, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 4 août 2015, 6851–6880.

81. See Délibération n° 07-2015/SC du 30 juin 2015 portant proposition de loi du pays modifiant la loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007, annexe.

82. See the discussion above and particularly: OA article 19, COJ articles L562-19–L562-24, L562-28, Ordonnance n° 82-877 du 15 october 1982, article 1, Loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007 relative aux actes coutumiers, articles 21–29.

83. Numerous criticisms have been levelled at the application and delimitation of state-recognised Kanak customary law by the relevant legal texts and the courts in reference to alien distinctions developed in French legal doctrine between different branches of law: see the discussion in Cornut (2010a, para 34), Frezet (2007, para 8) and Deumier (2006).

84. See Délibération n° 07-2015/SC du 30 juin 2015 portant proposition de loi du pays modifiant la loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007.

85. Any Customary Council members with a conflict of interests in relation to the matter are excluded from this body.

86. See also Délibération n° 07-2015/SC du 30 juin 2015 portant proposition de loi du pays modifiant la loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007, annexe, articles 5 and 8.

87. Délibération cadre n° 02/2013/SC du 30 avril 2013, article 1.

88. See Féral (2012, 5–8), USTKE (2014).

89. See also the analysis and recommendations in this vein of Madinier (2012, 77–82) in a report elaborated notably under the academic supervision of Féral and presented to the Customary Senate well before the drafting and adoption of the Charter of the Kanak People.

90. This analysis is also broadly supported by the Customary Senate's 2015 bill proposing amendments to the existing country act on customary acts and its explanatory memorandum, discussed above: Délibération n° 07-2015/SC du 30 juin 2015 portant proposition de loi du pays modifiant la loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007, annexe.

91. See notably: Délibération n° 09-2014/SC du 4 septembre 2014 relative à l'approfondissement du pluralisme juridique coopératif applicable en Nouvelle-Calédonie, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 9 octobre 2014, 9572, Délibération n° 11-2014/SC du 16 septembre 2014 portant objectif de réforme de l'administration des affaires coutumières et inscription des politiques publiques relatives à l'identité kanak dans les contrats de plan pour la période 2015–2019, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 16 octobre 2014, 9870–9872. See also the discussion in Sénat coutumier (2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c), Sénat coutumier website, “Plan Marshall” and “Les politiques publiques kanak”. http://www.senat-coutumier.nc/

92. See particularly: article 17, on customary reconciliation processes (le pardon coutumier); articles 18, 41, 42, 50, 51, 52 and 54, on the customary hierarchy and the exercise of the roles and functions of customary authorities, including decision-making and the resolution of disputes; articles 76 and 77, on the resolution of disputes regarding lands; article 100, on the management of conflicts between indigenous individuals or groups, or concerning customary lands, through “customary mediation tools”.

93. In this connection, see also the Customary Senate's subsequently proposed country act bill on traditional knowledge: Délibération n° 14-2014/SC du 13 novembre 2014 adoptant le projet de loi du pays relative à la sauvegarde des savoirs traditionnels liés aux expressions de la culture kanak et associés à la biodiversité ainsi qu'au régime d'accès et de partage des avantages, Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, 3 février 2015, 1042–1082.

94. See also Délibération n° 14-2014/SC du 13 novembre 2014.

95. This is broadly confirmed by article 2 of the Customary Senate's Délibération n° 09-2014/SC du 4 septembre, which states that deepening legal pluralism in New Caledonia involves “cooperation and balance between legal orders and sources through the recognition of Kanak identity, its system of values and its fundamental principles as defined by the Charter of the Kanak People”.

96. See NA Orientation Document, point 3.3, OA article 22.

97. See notably CKP Preamble, 8–10, and Chapter III.

98. See particularly UNDRIP articles 34 and 46(2).

99. See, for example, articles 34 and 58.

100. As affirmed in the case of Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, 25 April 1978.

101. Délibération n° 07-2015/SC du 30 juin 2015 portant proposition de loi du pays modifiant la loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007, annexe, article 10.

102. This situation might be contrasted to the territorially bounded nature of the political and administrative powers of New Caledonia's three Provinces as French “collectivities” (OA articles 3, 20, and Title IV) and the determination of the right to vote in provincial elections according to residence (and, as a result of the negotiated self-determination/decolonisation process enshrined in the NA, long-term residency in New Caledonia), rather than according to any ethnicity or group membership criteria, despite the fact that the creation of these three territorial collectivities was effectively designed to ensure the political control and relative autonomy of the majority Kanak populations in the North and Loyalty Islands Provinces.

103. Délibération n° 07-2015/SC du 30 juin 2015 portant proposition de loi du pays modifiant la loi du pays n° 2006-15 du 15 janvier 2007, annexe.

104. This also tends to lend force to the argument that the territorial jurisdiction of customary law/authority affirmed by the Charter is not restricted to “criminal” matters and sanctions, given the equivalent association between the reference to the “customary public order” and customary law/authority's affirmed territorial and personal jurisdictions in the phrasing of article 101.

105. According to the analysis of Jean (2015, 18, note 75), CKP article 47 enshrines the power of clans to revoke clan membership and expel individuals from the group. However, the impact this may have on “membership of the customary community” as per article 101 (and consequently on the personal jurisdiction of customary law under the Charter) is unclear.

106. The report produced by the Customary Senate after the four États Généraux meetings held in 2013 raises a number of these issues and consequently provides some insights into the potential position of the country's customary authorities and institutions on these matters (Sénat coutumier, 2014a). For example, this document affirms that the OA should be modified so that, where a child is born of a Kanak father and a non-Kanak mother, the child should automatically be of customary civil status (37). At present, the default position established by the OA (article 10) is that only legitimate, natural or adopted children whose father and mother are both of customary civil status automatically have customary civil status.

107. Cour d'appel de Nouméa, 29 septembre 2011, n° de RG 11/00046, Cour d'appel de Nouméa, 19 avril 2012, n° de RG 11/00383, Cour d'appel de Nouméa, 19 avril 2012, n° de RG 11/00384, Cour d'appel de Nouméa, 24 avril 2013, n° de RG 12/00081, Cour de Cassation, civ., 26 juin 2013, n° de pourvoi 12-30154. See also the discussion in Cornut (2012, 80–82), Sermet (2013, 23–24), Lafargue (2014, 185–187) and Leca (2014, 112–113).

108. Article 33 affirms: “All Kanak have the status of citizen and the nationality of New Caledonia but are equally by nature associated with a Family, a House and a clan. As such, they have rights and responsibilities” (emphasis added). Article 34 affirms the conditionality of the individual rights of “Kanak individuals” on respect for the “collective principles and rights held by their clans and chiefdoms, of which they know the foundations.”

109. Note in this connection the evidence presented by Naepels (2010, 934–935, 941) of potentially far-reaching practices of customary integration by “social contract”, subsequently dissimulated in Kanak public discourse affirming “real” agnatic kinship.

110. For discussion of the evolution of the idea of métissage and self-identification as métis (that is, of mixed ethnicity/cultural origins) in New Caledonia, see Muckle and Trépied (2014).

111. While, under current state law, an individual's ability to return or accede to customary civil status is more limited than their ability to renounce that status (in particular, the former transition is at least partially, and in some cases entirely, dependant on the assent of the relevant customary authorities), personal choice remains and important factor. See OA articles 11–17, Cour d'appel de Nouméa, 29 septembre 2011, n° de RG 11/00046, Cour d'appel de Nouméa, 19 avril 2012, n° de RG 11/383, Cour d'appel de Nouméa, 19 avril 2012, n° de RG 11/384, Cour de Cassation, civ., 26 juin 2013, n° de pourvoi 12-30154, and the discussion in Lafargue (2014, 185–187).

112. In contrast to Lafargue, Féral (2014) criticises the current state recognition of Kanak customary law and institutions precisely because he considers that “Kanaks are confined by the OA to a kind of communitarianism that republican secularism keeps within the limits of the private life of the family and property/inheritance”.

113. As acknowledged by Sermet (2012, 223), this option does not resolve the many deeper issues raised by such a conflict. Nor does it address the potential legal and social consequences for individuals who may subsequently be blocked from returning to customary civil status within the state legal system.

114. According to this document, changing civil statuses is not part of Kanak custom, and in cases where it occurs a customary act authorising the change should be concluded, particularly so as to ensure respect for the common foundation of Kanak values and to avoid multiple changes between statuses.

115. This view was expressed in the report by Frison-Roche (2012) on the 2013 transfer of legislative power over civil law from France to New Caledonia. While appearing to resonate with some (Demmer and Salomon [2013, 69], for example), Frison-Roche's proposal has been criticised by others (Sana-Chaillé de Néré 2012, Lafargue 2013, Leconte 2014, 11–12, Leca 2014, 19–20).

116. Kleinhans and Macdonald affirm that: “The conception of a critical legal pluralism presented here is emancipatory practice” (1997, 46, original emphasis).

Additional information

Funding

Part of this research was undertaken during my fellowship with the SOGIP Research Programme (LAIOS, EHESS), supported by the European Research Council under ERC [grant number 249236].