This article asks a simple question: Is cultural property a coherent concept? It answers this question through a critical examination of the concepts of cultural and property that builds on the work of Alan Audi. The article examines concepts of property and culture as they have developed separately in political theory. It suggests that arguments about cultural property are shaped by the discursive structure of the public/private divide. On this basis, the structure of cultural property arguments are critically examined. Then conclusions are drawn about the role of the public/private divide in structuring the tension between culture and property. It is concluded that this tension that defines the concept of cultural property.

Singapore is not well known for its archaeological heritage. In fact, chance finds in the early twentieth century and systematic archaeological excavations since the 1980s conducted at sites around the Singapore River have unearthed artifacts shedding light on the island's early history. In addition, the value of archaeology for a deeper knowledge of Singapore's British colonial past is increasingly being recognized. Nonetheless, Singapore law provides only a rudimentary framework to facilitate archaeological investigations and protect cultural artifacts. This article considers how the National Heritage Board Act (Cap. 196A, 1994 Rev. Ed.), the Planning Act (Cap. 232, 1998 Rev. Ed.), and the recent Preservation of Monuments Board Act 2009 (No. 16 of 2009, now Cap. 239, 2011 Rev. Ed.) may be strengthened in this regard.

In this article, the preservation of the monumental built environment from the colonial period is related to and discussed within the perspective of heritage ownership. It contributes to a debate in which heritage resource preservation is approached and connected to several heritage ownership issues. It argues that an effective built environmental preservation policy for colonial heritage is strongly related to and dependent on issues such as legal property ownership, legislation on listed buildings, enforcement of such legislation, and the willingness among different categories of potential owners to participate and support such preservation. Especially, when it comes to built colonial heritage as an imported alien resource from a colonial past, these issues are particularly interesting and sensitive. A good illustration of these issues is the case of Paramaribo, Suriname. The national government policy following the inscription of the historic inner city of Paramaribo on the World Heritage List of UNESCO in 2002 clearly demonstrates an area of tension and difficulty between and within the interested parties. It shows that monumental preservation and heritage management and interpretation are strongly affected and determined by concepts such as ownership, affinity, interest, economic priorities, and political will. By referring to the actual problems encountered in the preservation efforts relating to the built colonial heritage in Paramaribo and subsequently explaining these problems in relation to specific ownership issues, this article throws light on a number of dilemmas. Conclusions are drawn widening the argument and contributing to the ongoing debate on heritage ownership issues and monument preservation policies especially as it relates to the global issue of managing the relics of now defunct empires.

In recent years an increasing interest can be detected in issues concerning the legal property ownership of heritage. This growth in interest focuses in particular on the legislation in relationship to property ownership issues. An important aim of national governments is to use legislation to safeguard their cultural property by embedding it in law, especially, when this cultural property has a high monetary or identity value (as stressed by Fechner, 1998). Additionally, the growing awareness and recognition of heritage as a valuable economic, sociopsychological and environmental asset is receiving increasing international attention. For example, the international acknowledgment that heritage resources are under pressure from all kinds of processes and impacts has encouraged the need for an extension of international legal measures. Consequently, this international interest, often expressed in conventions, charters, and treaties, encourages national and local initiatives (Techera, 2011). An interesting complication to this issue is the question that arises where it involves the monumental built environment from the colonial period that is being preserved and restored, as it may be viewed as a heritage based on alien resources. In particular the acceptance, recognition, and role of what may be viewed as an imported colonial built environment in a multicultural and multiethnic context, may impact effective legislation. Although the discussion about the roles of heritage within a plural cultural and ethnic society has already begun (recently emphasized by Van Maanen, 2011; Ashworth, Graham, & Tunbridge, 2007), it is still an underresearched topic when it comes to legal property ownership as part of a management strategy for preserving built colonial heritage resources.

This article examines in particular the effectiveness of policies and laws pursued in Suriname as an instrument for the preservation of resources. It highlights the legal and administrative challenges facing the implementation, management, and enforcement of these strategies and measures. The first part of this article examines the debate about the approach and strategy in using law in conservation and preservation policies. Then the article proceeds to introduce Suriname as an instructive case study. It describes the existing multiethnic context of Suriname and the evolution of legislative policy for the historic inner city of the capital, Paramaribo, with its monumental built environment from the colonial period. By using field data, the article continues with an analysis of the effectiveness and impacts of this administrative and legal framework established in Suriname. It examines in detail the main problems encountered and the extent to which this strategy is supported by the key stakeholders.

In July 2011 what is commonly known as the Wai 262 Report was released. After a protracted series of hearings, dating back to 1997, the New Zealand Waitangi Tribunal has at last reported on the some of the wide range of issues canvassed in those hearings. Three beautifully illustrated volumes contain a large number of recommendations in what is described as a whole-of-government report. This article notes earlier comments on Wai 262 in this journal and reframes what is often known as the ‘Maori renaissance’ from which this claim emerged in 1991. The Tribunal decided not to discuss historical aspects of the evidence presented, except for the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, as this was not ‘an orthodox territorial claim’ allowing the Crown to negotiate with iwi for a Treaty Settlement. Of great significance for this readership, the Tribunal staunchly refused to entertain any discussion of ‘ownership’ claims to Maori cultural property. Rather, the Tribunal focussed on ‘perfecting the Treaty partnership’ between the two founding peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand. Its report is concerned with the future and with the Treaty of Waitangi when the nation has moved beyond the grievance mode that has dominated the last quarter century. The partnership principles are pragmatic and flexible. Very seldom indeed can Maori expect to regain full authority over their treasured properties and resources. The eight major topics of the chapters on intellectual property, genetic and biological resources, the environment, the conservation estate, the Maori language, Maori knowledge systems, Maori medicines and international instruments are briefly summarised. The author is critical of this Tribunal panel's timidity in refusing to make strong findings of Treaty breach as the basis for practical recommendations—the approach usually adopted in previous Tribunal reports on contemporary issues. The article then notes that the Wai 262 report featured significantly in 2012 hearings on Maori claims to proprietary rights in freshwater resources. It featured not to assist the freshwater claimants, however, but as a shield wielded by the Crown to try to deny Maori any remedy.The low bar of partnership consultations encouraged by the Wai 262 report was congenial for Crown counsel seeking to undermine Maori claims to customary rights akin to ‘ownership’ of water. The 2012 Tribunal panel, under a new Chief Judge, restrictively distinguished the Wai 262 report and found in favour of Maori rights to water. In conclusion, the article notes the irony of a government following neo-liberal policies in pursuing a privatisation strategy and yet relying on ‘commons’ rhetoric to deny Maori any enforceable rights to water; and of indigenous people arguing for ownership property rights to frustrate that government's policies.

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.