Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T16:09:49.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recognizing Collective Cultural Property Rights in a Deceased—Clarke v. Takamore

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

Nin Tomas
Nin Tomas*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, Aotearoa-New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent New Zealand Supreme Court decision in Clarke v Takamore raises issues about how Maori society views deceased tribal members as belonging to the extended family and tribal group collective. This conflicts with English common law understandings that a closer, legally protected individual relationship exists with an executor, if the decedent has left a will, or with a spouse, if there is no will. This note examines the conflict and suggests a solution that would be fairer to Maori than that unanimously reached by three of New Zealand's general courts.

Type
Case Note
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2013 , pp. 333 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Best, Elsdon. “Notes on Customs, Ritual and Beliefs Pertaining to Sickness, Death, Burial and Exhumation Among the Maori of New Zealand.” Journal of Polynesian Society 35, no. 137 (1926): 6–30.Google Scholar
Durie, Eddie. “Constitutionalising Maori.” Paper presented at the Legal Research Foundation Conference, Liberty, Equality, Community: Constitutional Rights in Conflict, Auckland (20–21 August 1999).Google Scholar
Firth, Raymond. Economics of the New Zealand Maori. Wellington, New Zealand: Whitcombe & Tombs, 1959.Google Scholar
Flew, Antony. A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: McMillan, 1979.Google Scholar
Hubert, Jane. “Dry Bones or Living Ancestors? Conflicting Perceptions of Life, Death and the Universe.” International Journal of Cultural Property 147, no. 1 (1992): 105–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Robert. “Recreating Legal Space for the first law of Aotearoa-New Zealand.” Waikato Law Review Taumauri 17 (2009):74–97.Google Scholar
Magnasson, Roger. “The Recognition of Proprietary Rights in Human Tissue in Common Law Jurisdictions.” Melbourne University Law Review 18 (1991–1992): 601.Google Scholar
Matthews, Paul. “Whose Body? People as Property.” Current Legal Problems 36 (1983): 193–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mutu, Margaret. “Cultural Misunderstanding or Deliberate Mistranslation.” Te Reo: Journal the Linguistic Society of New Zealand 35 (1992): 57–103.Google Scholar
New Zealand Law Commission. Maori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law. Study Paper 9, Wellington, New Zealand (2001).Google Scholar
Nwabueze, Remi. “Legal Approaches to the Burial Rights of a Surviving Wife.” Amicus Curiae no. 73, Spring (2008): 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, R. S.Maori Death Customs. Wellington, New Zealand: Reed Publishing (1973).Google Scholar
Orange, Claudia. The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, New Zealand: Allen and Unwin (1987).Google Scholar
Perry, Joseph. “The Right of Ecclesiastical Burial.” Catholic Lawyer 28 (1983): 315.Google Scholar
Provost, James. “Canonical Aspects of the Treatment of the Dead.” The Jurist 59 (1999): 203–13.Google Scholar
Richardson, Ruth. Death. Dissection, and the Destitute. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Servant, Louis. Customs and Habits of the New Zealanders 1838–1842. Wellington, New Zealand: Reed Publishing, 1973.Google Scholar
Theodorson, George. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology: The Concepts and Terminology of Sociology and Related Disciplines. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1970.Google Scholar
Thomas, Cordelia. “The Retention of Body Parts—Do the Best of Intentions Excuse Ethical Breaches?” Butterworths Family Law Journal 4 (June 2002): 33–42.Google Scholar
Tomas, Nin, ed. Collective Human Rights of Pacific Peoples. Auckland, New Zealand: International Research Unit for Maori and Indigenous Education, University of Auckland, 1998.Google Scholar
Tomas, Nin. “Implementing Kaitiakitanga under the RMA.” New Zealand Law Reports 1 (1994): 39.Google Scholar
Tomas, Nin. “Who Decides Where a Deceased Person Will Be Buried—Takamore Revisited.” Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence, 11 & 12h (2008/2009): 81.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkley: University of California Press, 1978.Google Scholar