1. Introduction

At the most elementary level, the relationship of a Marshallese landowner to the land is typified by a condition characterized by Gray (1993: 5) as paradoxical. The landowner dignifies the land by his habitation of it on the one hand, and his utter dependence upon his physical environment for his survival on the other. The land becomes the landowner’s base for the fulfillment of his material needs. To a certain extent, this initial treatment may be sufficient to satisfy the legal definition of landownership per se. However, at the deeper level in the specific context of the Marshall Islands, this viewpoint is considered simplistic and is a “pale shadow” (ibid: 5) when examined against the much more deeply rooted and highly complex nature of land ownership in the country.

2. Divergence between Modern and Traditional Viewpoints

The gulf in the divergence between the modern /western view of landownership and the traditional viewpoint may best be explained through an examination of some of the key tenets that generally govern the latter as distinct from the more contemporary view. While the modern position generally takes land as strictly an economic and tradable commodity, the traditional system is characterized by a fusion of multifaceted identities and attachments to the land, making its sale virtually impossible. These attachments range from economic, social, political, cultural and spiritual. This characterization finds no parallel meaning with the Western viewpoint. John Dorrance (1992: 12), the State Department Liaison Officer assigned to the Office of the Micronesia Status Negotiations in the 1970s and political advisor to the High Commissioner of the Trust Territory, Compact Negotiation, provides clear and succinct insights into the complex nature of the relationship and illustrates the intimacy and the complete and oneness of the owner and the land:

Everywhere there is a spiritual attachment to the land and the surrounding seas unparalleled in Western or most other societies. Clan and kin groups identify with and are identified by clearly delineated traditional attachments. The living generation is in effect the guardian or trustee of the land for preceding and successor generations. Loss of land and its resources can be culturally and politically devastating in island societies.

Thus attachment to the land is profoundly deep, and a disruption in one part affects all other parts of the social, economic, political, cultural and spiritual milieu of the traditional system. Land tenure …is “intimately related to both the lineage and to the class structure”, both of which carry obligations and expectations, which must be sustained if the community or society is to survive as a coherent entity. The underlying rationale for their continuing observance can best be understood or appreciated if viewed through a perspective that is archetypal of traditional societies like the Marshall Islands. Acquaye and Crocombe (date unknown: 17) cited Parson’s (1957: 214) observation of such an observance:

...attachment to land is not a mere whim or prejudice; it reflects solid judgment of the requirements for survival which have matured through centuries of precarious and rugged living.

3. Land value beyond the command of money

A family in a modern society may view land strictly as a commodity that has a monetary value and hence can easily be disposed of if the market value so dictates. The outcome of such a course of action may be strictly in terms of new income. Such an action, however, will entail severe consequences in the Marshallese society, having direct and immediate implication on the family, clan and social structures. Lands are inherited and are birthrights. To dispose land is to deprive one of one’s birthrights, often incurring psychological injuries and imbalances. Maynard Neas, former District Administrator to the U. S. Trust Territory for the Pacific Islands in the 1950s during the U.S A-bomb test, and later the Lands Commissioner to the U.S. Trust Territory, wrote with familiarity on land tenure system in the Marshall Islands:

The land is (so) scarce that it has acquired more than use values. The ocean and lagoon provide most of the food.… Land is the foundation of prestige and social position. It is never bought or sold. It may become the subject of a gift even to total outsiders, but its value is completely beyond the command of money. It is something to fight and die for.

So entrenched in its entirety is the relationship between the landowner and the land that Neas added that in his experience in Micronesia, "there is no dispute in the district (Marshall Islands) without a foundation in a land dispute."

Earlier, Alexander Spoehr (1949: 161) had given similar observations in a detailed study he conducted in the village of Majuro, Marshall Islands, in the late 1940s:

Land rights are never bought or sold among the villagers. Rights to land are inherited… they cannot be purchased. Nor is it customary to divide land.

So entrenched is the relationship between the landowners and the land and so all-encompassing is the value of land to all facets and practices of community life, that knowledge of it is complete; landowners carry this knowledge as their cognitive maps. Tagupa (1977: 40), who wrote on the Marshallese land tenure system, cited Richard (1957), as follows:

Though the islanders kept no formal records of land and title transactions, they knew who owned every square foot of land.

4. Land and Lagoon Guarantees Economic Self Sufficiency

Both observations by Spoehr (ibid) and Neas (ibid) have been reinforced by a similar statement from Jack Tobin. A district anthropologist, Tobin was retained by the United States to work for the TTPI Administration in the 1950s as advisor on matters relating to the victims of the U. S. testing activities on those atolls now under Section 177 of the Compact. Tobin (1954) reiterated the utter dependence of the landowner, his family and the society at large on the land. Through lands, economic sufficiency is ensured, social and cultural obligations are met, unforeseen emergencies are forestalled, and successive generations are guaranteed security and rights.

The Marshallese system of land tenure provides for all eventualities and takes care of the needs of all the members of the Marshallese society. It is, in effect its social security. Under normal condition, no one needs to go hungry for lack of land from which to draw food. There are no poor houses or old people’s homes in the Marshall Island. The system provides for all members of the Marshallese society, each of whom is born into land rights.

In recent assessments of the economies of rural households in outer islands of the Marshall Islands and in other rural communities of other Pacific islands states, it is apparent that rural populations depend almost entirely for their livelihood on resources from the land and sea/lagoon. Information obtained from a study conducted by a consultant of the Asian Development Bank indicates that traditionally, landowners rely on 53 percent of their sustenance on resources from the lagoon and 47 percent on resources from the land. These resources include sources of food, building and construction material, and equipment for economic production. When these core resource bases are affected through a short-run or hit by a typhoon or a cyclone, the immediate effect can be so devastating that a whole population can starve, unless food aid is provided immediately. The landowners’ margin for strategic reserve does not exist. In other words, but for lands and the sea, the landowners completely lack any alternative means to survive.

5. Land as Means to Sustaining Social Institutions, Reinforce Kinship and Maintaining Self Sufficiency

In a more recent and in-depth study undertaken on Rongelap Atoll – one of the main atolls in the Marshall islands acutely affected by U. S. nuclear testing in the 1950s - for the RMI National Claim Tribunal, Johnston and Barker (September 2001) elaborated on the issue of land value as perceived through the eyes of the Marshallese. They drew attention once again to the divergence between the Western and the Marshallese perceptions of land ownership, where the former viewed land as a saleable/tradable commodity, while the latter treasured it as a fundamental means for sustaining social institutions, strengthening kinship, and ensuring economic self-sufficiency.

In the Marshall Islands land is not a commodity that can be bought or sold, but is an integral component in the “natural capital” that sustains a way of life. In Western property law, loss of land means loss of income. But for the Marshallese loss of land represents the loss of the means to sustain social institutions, to reinforce kinship systems, and to survive and thrive as a self-sufficient entity. And while Marshallese generally refer to inherited rights as “land rights” – land include the lagoon, reefs, clam beds and broader atoll ecosystem, as well as the marine, arboreal and terrestrial life within.

The divergence between the modern view of land value and the traditional perspective is brought more sharply into scrutiny in the following statement by Ward and Kingdon (1995: 37). Both authors have written extensively on the subject of land tenure in island societies of the Pacific:

Population pressure has increased and new demands for land have arisen from cash cropping and urbanization. Land has become a tradable commodity with concomitant to the demand for easy transferability of title. The comparative value of land according to location relative to roads, town, or to particular assessments of quality has changed. There is a divergence between the new pressure and traditional culture perception of land.

6. Land Rights Intimately Linked to Lineage (bwij) and Social Structure

As land tenure is intimately related both to the lineage and class and social structure, no action in any of its elements may be altered without “ripple” ramifications throughout the lineage and social structures. Thus selling a plot of land, or mortgaging, or exchanging, or even gifting it, creates imbalances throughout the Marshallese traditional and social system. Land rights held by lineage are inherited from generation to generation within a lineage framework; any arrangement that disrupts this process has a direct adverse effect on inherited principles and practices treasured over successive generations, and aimed at safeguarding everyone’s birthrights. It is from this unique intimacy to the system of rights and obligations with regard to land use and practices that the hierarchal system draws much of its strength and legitimacy. Spoehr (1949: 158) explained as follows:

The lineage is first and foremost a land- holding group. With certain exceptions, the right to the use… of a given land or plot is vested in a lineage rather than in an individual. It is the land- holding function of the lineage that stands out as its dominant characteristic.

7. Inter-temporal Nature of Land: Burial Rites

As every Marshallese born possesses land rights, so everyone has a right guaranteed by the system to a burial site. No Marshallese purchases or leases land for burial, as is the practice in most Western societies. In short, as the land provides the individual with the necessary sustenance in life, so does it also provide him with the security in death, thus ensuring that the spiritual relationship between the landowner and the land transcends the earthly plain of existence into the inter-temporal sacred sphere.

8. Examples of impact of land dispossession in the Marshal Islands

The impact of being dispossessed from land and sea/lagoon may best be evaluated by looking at the dramatic experience of Kwajalein landowners and the people of the Four Atolls under the Section 177 of the Compact. After the lapse of over five decades, the undiminished consequences of the U.S. military activities on the cultural, social, political and economic structures on both Kwajalein and the Four Atolls still lingers, constituting major obstacles to cultural restoration, rehabilitation, resettlement, and social and economic development effort. The populations of the Four Atolls were victims of starvation and deprivation, while Kwajalein landowners and families were faced with the situation where there were no ready alternative means from which to sustain a livelihood. Both populations were disoriented and evicted from their traditional homes and a self-reliant way of life.

To date, both populations continue to be entirely dependent on compensations and assistance from the United States for their means of subsistence. The Kwajalein landowners and families subsist on arrangements with U. S. under MUORA, while the populations of the Four Atolls receive compensations under provision of Section 177. The loss of access to natural resources, disruption to birthrights and deprivation of coherent community living; forced habitation led to conditions highly conducive to health hazards, erosion of fishing and navigational skills, frustrations, low esteem, and social insecurity, dispersion of community and hardships.

9. Land Rights and Evolution of Customs

While customary laws and traditional practices provide the framework for the regulation of lands, properties, and social relations, there is also the knowledge that customs themselves do undergo changes, however imperceptible at times. Kwajalein landowners are fully aware of this inevitability and are not at all perturbed by it, recognizing fully that organic changes in customs are a necessary nature of a dynamic community. In general, however, their perspective on the matter is substantially reflected in the following ruling made in 1954 (Lalon v. Aliang, I. T.T. 94, 95) as cited by Tagupa (1977).

Customs may change gradually and change may be started by some new way of doing things, but such new ways will not become binding until they have at least existed long enough to have become generally known to have been peaceably and fairly uniformly acquiesced in those whose rights would naturally be affected. Mere agreements to new ways by those adversely affected, will not of itself work as a sudden change in customary law.

The wisdom embedded in this statement is given practical application and protection in the Constitution of the Marshall Islands.

10. Land Rights fully recognized and safeguarded by Marshall Islands Constitution

The Marshallese land tenure system constitutes a fundamental component of the country’s Constitution. In fact, those Constitutional elements relating to the land tenure system are themselves influenced by the tenets and traditional practices of the system itself, and thus ensuring that they are upheld and safeguarded. The Constitution also fully recognizes and safeguards where applicable, the rights and obligations of the bwij leader, land manager, and the worker. This is reflected in Article X, Section 1 of the Constitution that deals with Traditional Rights of Land Tenure:

(1). Nothing in Article II shall be construed to invalidate the customary law of traditional practice concerning land tenure or any related matter in any part of the Marshall Islands, including, where applicable, the rights and obligations of the Iroijlaplap, Iroijderik, Alap and Dri Jerbal.

(2). Without prejudice to the continued application of the customary law pursuant to Section I of article XIII, and subject to the customary law or to any traditional practice in any part of the Marshall Islands, it shall not be lawful or competent for any person having any right in any land in the Marshall Islands under the customary law or any other traditional practice to make any alienation or disposition of that land, whether by way of sale, mortgage, lease, license or otherwise, without the approval of the. Iroijlaplap, Iroijderik, Alap and the Senior Dri Jerbal of such land, who shall be deemed to represent all persons having an interest in that land.

The national government of the Marshall Islands is constitutionally bound to provide the needed protections for the landowners and their lands. Section 5 of the Constitution affirms this duty:

No land right or other private property may be taken unless a law authorizes such taking; and any such taking must be by the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, for public use and in accord withal safeguards provided by law… (And) where any land rights are taken, just compensation shall include reasonably equivalent land rights for all interest holders or the means to obtain the subsistence and benefits that such land rights provide.

11. Interviews of Landowners

i. First Interviewee: Every person is born to and belongs to the land. Your birthright is secured even before you are born. Your relationship with the land begins prior to birth. People and the land are inseparable. Your land defines you in society. By land I mean the land and lagoon. Both land and lagoon ensure that no one is left behind. . Food is only one of the elements provided by the land. In addition, social security, social relations, social identity is guaranteed. Everyone is protected. Land binds people together. Strengthens community ties, prevents you separation of families, kinship and communities.

ii. Second Interviewee: I may have slightly different feelings now about my relationship to my land rights. This is because I have been out doing my education and training elsewhere and I have acquired a more moderate way of looking at the subject. However, if something threatens my right to the extent that I am dispossessed and my children are therefore affected, it would be the greatest injury caused to anyone. To say I am deeply humiliated is too soft a word. Some people take to the bottle and withdraw completely from society. Some people plan a revenge, magic! The psychological effect can go on from generation to generation. You know the vacant look. I am sure there are some very deep injuries in the minds of the victims of the Four Atolls, Section 177 and Kwajalein Atoll.

12. Summary

The summary findings of the subject point to certain key persistent and fundamental issues underlying the relationship between landowners, families, clans and kinship, and land. Among these are the following:

• i. The relationship is deeply entrenched and inseparable, with the individual, family and clan entirely dependent on the land for their social and cultural and political identity. Economic security is guaranteed.
• ii. While the modern and westernized perspective towards land may be strictly economic, where land is a tradable/ saleable commodity, the Marshallese traditional land tenure system prohibits land sale. Land belongs to the bwij and every Marshallese has land rights from birth, even unto death, he is assured of a burial site.
• iii. Disruption of fundamental land rights will have ripple ramifications throughout the social, political, economic and cultural system.
• iv. As there is no other alternative means for livelihood, landowners lack the strategic reserve for survival. A typhoon hit can have direct and immediate effect as to cripple a whole population. A sustained period of damage or dispossession will lead to total social and cultural disruption, hardship and suffering.
• v. The experience of prolonged dispossession, deprivation, relocation, and inaccessibility to use of cultural land sustained by population of Kwajalein Atoll, and the Four Atolls - Bikini, Rongelap, Enewatak and Utrik –over five decades, have left permanent scars in the social, political, economic, cultural and psychological of a whole group of people victimized through U.S. weapon testing programs in the Marshall Islands. Both sets of population
• vi. A great deal of the insights, knowledge and actual experience recorded and researched on land tenure system on the Marshall Islands have come from Americans themselves. Most, if not all, have had in-depth experience in the Marshal Islands in various capacities as anthropologists, researchers, or U. S. administrators, retained by the U. S Government. It cannot be said therefore that the accounts presented in this paper are strictly indigenous and so subjective. That there is a consistent pattern of convergence in their views and analysis on the subject, despite the different periods in which each experience took place, indicates the uniformity in the basic tenets underlying landownership, and the unbroken observance of these tenets in the Marshall Island land tenure system.
• vii. The Marshall Islands land tenure system, and governing tenets and principles, rights and obligations including those applicable to the Iroijlaplap, Iroijdrik, Alap and Dri Jerbal are recognized, safeguarded, and protected in the RMI Constitution as they were under the U. S. Trust Territory period.

Reference

1. Acquaye, Ben and Crocombe, Ron (eds.). Land Tenure and Rural Productivity in the Pacific Islands. (date not known)

2. Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, in Paterson, Don. Selected Constitutions of the South Pacific. University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. 2000.

3.Gray, Kevin. Elements of Land Law. Second edition. Butterworths, London. 1993

4. Johnston, Barbara Rose, & Barker, Holly M. Hardships and Consequential Damages from Radioactive Contamination, Denied Use, Use, Exile, and Human Subject Experimentation Experienced by the People of Rongelap, Rongerik, and Ailinginae, Prepared for the Nuclear Claims Tribunal, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, September 2001.

5. Neas, Maynard, “Land Ownership Patterns in the Marshall Islands”, in Atoll Research Bulletin 85. Land Tenure in the Pacific: A Symposium of the Tenth Pacific Science Congress. Convened by Edwin Doran, Jr. (date unknown)

6. Spoehr, Alexander. Majuro: A Village in the Marshall Islands. Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol.39. Chicago National History Museum, Chicago, 1949.

7. Tagupa, W.E. “Marshallese Land Tenure Rights Disputes: Anglo American Jurisprudential Consideration”, Oceania, XLVIII No.I, September, 1977.

8. Tobin, Jack. Ebeye Village: An Atypical Marshallese Community. Majuro, Marshall Islands, February 18, 1954.

9. Ward, R. Gerard and Kingdon, Elizabeth (eds.). Land, Custom and Practice in the South Pacific. Cambridge University Press. 1995

--Posted July 3, 2002