Abstract

According to students of legal pluralism, the relationship between Western law and local dispute management processes, remedies, and so on is multiple and complex. Legal pluralism studies have not ventured very far outside the arenas of conflict resolution, be they authorized or private. In this article, I argue that legal pluralism has imposed methodological blinders upon significant expressive dimensions of its problem. In a satirical mock‐trial that took place in rural Papua New Guinea, legal and indigenous constructions of order met not, as one might expect, instrumentally in the context of negotiating the resolution of a ‘trouble case’, but creatively combining in play to result in a multi‐voiced, comic discourse. The law is shown to have rhetorical value, particularly in colonial and post‐colonial settings where it may be deployed or invoked to represent and convey ambivalent attitudes about both justice and local constructions of personhood.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.