Do communitarian values justify Papua New Guinean and/or Fijian systems of land tenure?
Communitarians have alleged a connection between according specialrights to community groupings and preserving the indigenous cultureand the social cohesion of the original community. This paperconcentrates upon special group rights associated with land tenurenow maintained by Fijian Mataqali and traditional land owninggroups in Papua New Guinea. The first section of the paper assessesand compares the social consequences of each of these systems withspecial attention to the preservation of traditional culture.However, in the case of Fiji, it is undeniable that the mataqaliland tenure system has given indigenous Fijians politicaladvantages over non-indigenous Fijians, most specifically theFijian Indians. Though special land rights can possibly bejustified on the grounds of cultural preservation, their existencedoes raise this further issue of fairness. Moral considerations basedupon the territorial sovereignty of indigenous nations, rather thancommunitarian arguments, may offer a more convincing justificationof the advantages of indigenous Fijians.
The Agricultural Argument and Original Appropriation: Indian Lands and Political Philosophy
Abstract The European appropriation of Indian land in North America has often been justified through versions of the “agricultural argument” to the effect that the Indians did not need the land and did not really own it because they did not permanently enclose and farm it. Thus the European settlers could resort to original appropriation as described in Locke's Second Treatise. This article examines the agricultural argument as exemplified in the writings of John Winthrop, John Locke and Emer de Vattel. Analysis shows that the argument is formally consistent with the premises of natural rights philosophy because it assumes the equal right of both Indians and Europeans to engage in original appropriation. But the historical record shows that the argument actually applied to only a small portion of the land acquired by the Europeans. Sovereignty is the issue that should receive further inquiry. Résumé L'appropriation des terres des Amérindiens par les Européens a été souvent justifiée par la thèse que les Amérindiens n'avaient pas besoin des ces terres et ne les possédaient pas vraiment parce qu'ils n'y posaient ni clôture ni culture. Par conséquent, les colons européens avaient le droit de s'approprier les terres incultes conformément à la théorie de John Locke. Cet article examine la théorie de l'appropriation basée sur l'agriculture, théorie derivée des écrits de John Winthrop, de John Locke et d'Emer de Vattel. L'analyse démontre que la thèse s'accord formellement avec la philosophie des droits de la nature, parce qu'elle affirme le droit égal des Amérindiens et des Européens de s'approprier les terres incultivées. Mais l'histoire suggère que la thèse n'est applicable qu'à une portion mineure des terres acquises par les Européens. En fin de compte, la souveraineté constitue la question fondamentale qu'on doit d'abord considérer.
The qualitative research interview
Background  Interviews are among the most familiar strategies for collecting qualitative data. The different qualitative interviewing strategies in common use emerged from diverse disciplinary perspectives resulting in a wide variation among interviewing approaches. Unlike the highly structured survey interviews and questionnaires used in epidemiology and most health services research, we examine less structured interview strategies in which the person interviewed is more a participant in meaning making than a conduit from which information is retrieved.