Abstract
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) present unique challenges and opportunities for law enforcement. Characteristics such as strong communal ties, social and cultural norms, limited state visibility, and strained resources impact the interpretation and application of state laws. At the same time, local legitimacy is often found in community-oriented approaches to policing and tailored law enforcement responses through parallel policing systems. While most research on plural policing in the Pacific SIDS has considered the larger Pacific Island countries in Melanesia, this paper focuses on how plural systems of law-and-order maintenance impact policing in Tuvalu, a microstate in Polynesia. Key stakeholders (N = 23) including religious leaders, police officers and leaders, and community leaders from Tuvalu participated in semi-structured interviews. The findings highlight the significance of informal networks in influencing policing decisions. This influence has implications for action on the access to justice agenda, particularly concerning the use of police authority, equitable law enforcement practices, accountability, and fairness. The findings contribute to more inclusive discussions of plural policing and its nuanced impacts on access to justice in the Pacific SIDS.
Introduction
The United Nations (n.d.) has recognized Small Island Developing States (SIDS) for their developmental and environmental considerations since 1992. They present unique socio-political, economic, and cultural contexts that shape governance, law enforcement, and access to justice (Singh, 2014). Characterized by small populations, geographical isolation, limited resources, and strong communal ties, SIDS face distinctive challenges in maintaining law and order (Watson & Harry, 2022). Unlike larger states with well-resourced and highly visible state law enforcement agencies, SIDS often operate with government constraints, such that formal institutions, including police forces, may be limited or supplemented by informal mechanisms (Turvey, 2007; Watson et al., 2023). In these contexts, policing is not solely the function of the state but is often shared with, or influenced by, non-state actors, including religious leaders, community elders, and traditional governance structures (Watson et al., 2023). These realities shape the ways in which justice is accessed, disputes are resolved, and state policing authority is perceived.
Plural policing systems, where state and non-state actors co-exist in maintaining law and order, are particularly significant in the Pacific (Dinnen & Allen, 2016; Watson et al., 2023; Watson & Harry, 2022). Traditional authorities, religious figures, and community leaders often play central roles in dispute resolution and conflict mediation, either in collaboration with, or as an alternative to, formal law enforcement (Loader, 2000; Scarpello, 2017). While such arrangements may contribute to maintaining social cohesion and ensuring justice within localized settings, they also raise critical questions regarding the nature of law enforcement, accountability, and equitable access to justice. The presence of parallel systems may create inconsistencies in the application of laws, varying levels of oversight, and potential conflicts between state laws and customary practices (Watson et al., 2023). Understanding how these systems function, interact, and influence policing decisions is essential for evaluating access to justice within Pacific SIDS.
Despite the prevalence of plural policing across the Pacific region, research on its implications for law enforcement and justice accessibility remains limited. Much of the existing literature on plural policing focuses on larger, Melanesian Pacific SIDS, such as Papua New Guinea (e.g., Dinnen, 2022; Watson et al., 2023), Fiji (e.g., Chand et al., 2024), Vanuatu (Watson et al., 2023), and Solomon Islands (e.g., Harry et al., 2022; Watson et al., 2023). By contrast, research in smaller Pacific SIDS is underdeveloped and there is a need for research to explore the nuanced realities of law enforcement in small Pacific Island countries, namely the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu. In particular, few empirical studies examine how plural policing structures in smaller Pacific Island countries shape law enforcement practices, decision-making processes, and perceptions of justice. This gap in literature necessitates a closer examination of policing practices in under-researched Pacific contexts to understand the extent to which plural systems enhance or hinder the community’s access to justice.
This paper seeks to address this gap by exploring the case of Tuvalu, a Pacific Island country where law enforcement operates within a plural policing framework. Drawing on interviews (N = 23) with religious leaders, police officers and leaders, and community leaders, this study examines how plural policing functions in Tuvalu and the ways in which informal networks influence policing decisions. The paper begins with an overview of plural regulatory systems and plural policing in SIDS. It then considers what is meant by access to justice and its relationship with plural policing. Next, the paper outlines the context of Tuvalu and the methodology of the study. Finally, the paper then presents the findings and discussion, which shed light on key issues such as the use of police authority, the equity of law enforcement practices, and mechanisms of accountability and fairness within the plural policing framework. By situating the case of Tuvalu within broader discussions of plural policing and access to justice in Pacific SIDS, this paper contributes to a more inclusive understanding of how law enforcement operates in resource-constrained, community-driven contexts and the implications for access to justice.
Plural Regulatory Systems and Plural Policing in SIDS
Plural regulatory systems have been conceptualized in various ways, which often reflect the coexistence of multiple sources of authority within regulatory and governance frameworks (Meidinger, 2007; Reyntjens, 2016). Some perspectives emphasize the dynamic interaction between state and non-state actors, where official legal structures operate alongside traditional, religious, and community-based regulatory mechanisms (Krahmann, 2005; Mirkooshesh & Razani, 2023). Others highlight the functional role of plural regulatory systems in bridging gaps created by weak state institutions, particularly in regions with limited state enforcement capacity (de Sardan, 2015; Dinnen & Allen, 2016; Schemeil, 2013). Both conceptualizations consider pluralism as an adaptive response to socio-political realities, fostering localized governance models that may offer more effective dispute resolution in certain contexts. In addition, legal pluralism is understood as a historical construct, evolving from colonial legacies that left behind hybrid legal frameworks combining Western legal traditions with Indigenous and customary laws (Dinnen, 2022; Swenson, 2018). In the context of SIDS, plural regulatory systems are not just theoretical constructs but also practical necessities, deeply embedded in social norms and cultural traditions (Rivers & Amankwah, 2003; Wilson, 2012). This pluralism often results in a fluid and negotiated approach to law enforcement and governance, wherein formal legal structures and informal community-based mechanisms interact and influence one another.
Drawing on understandings of plural regulatory systems as evolving responses to legal pluralism and governance challenges in diverse socio-political contexts, policing in SIDS reflects a dual structure that combines formal and informal mechanisms of law enforcement (Scarpello, 2017). Formal policing systems, established and maintained by the state, typically encompass national or regional police forces operating within legally defined mandates, procedural codes, and judicial oversight (Watson et al., 2023). These systems focus on enforcing codified laws, investigating crimes, and maintaining public order through structured bureaucratic frameworks. They may also focus on meeting norms and expectations associated with the influences of globalization on policing (Watson et al., 2025). However, in many SIDS, formal policing agencies face significant constraints, including budgetary limitations, understaffing, and logistical challenges (e.g., the remoteness of outer islands from the main administrative center), which hinder their capacity to provide comprehensive law enforcement services (Dinnen, 2022; Harry et al., 2022; Loader, 2000). These limitations often necessitate the integration of informal policing structures that are deeply rooted in community traditions and cultural norms.
Informal policing systems operate alongside formal institutions, often filling gaps left by limited state enforcement (Watson, Scott, et al., 2022). These systems include traditional leaders, religious institutions, and community-based groups that enforce societal norms and resolve disputes outside formal legal frameworks. Such mechanisms rely on customary practices, oral traditions, and social consensus to address conflicts (Dinnen & Allen, 2016). Informal policing is particularly prominent in societies with strong communal bonds, where maintaining collective well-being is prioritized over rigid legal enforcement (Peterson & Uhnoo, 2012). In Tuvalu, for instance, religious leaders and community elders play a central role in conflict resolution, often intervening in disputes before formal state authorities become involved (Amin et al., 2022). This interplay between formal and informal policing entities exemplifies the complex interactions within plural regulatory systems, shaping the broader landscape of law enforcement in many SIDS.
Pluralism and Access to Justice in SIDS
In SIDS, access to justice is shaped by unique structural and cultural factors, including geographic isolation, limited formal legal infrastructure, and deeply embedded customary laws (Wallace & Neptune-Figaro, 2023). The legal landscapes in SIDS vary, but many share a dual legal system where formal laws exist alongside informal customary practices (Evans et al., 2010). While this duality can enhance opportunities to access justice by providing culturally relevant dispute resolution mechanisms, it can also create inconsistencies, particularly when customary practices diverge from state laws or international human rights norms (Watson, Blaustein, et al., 2024).
Three core principles underpin access to justice: fairness, accountability, and equitable law enforcement (Rhode, 2003; Sackville, 2003). Fairness requires that judicial and policing systems operate without bias, ensuring equal treatment under the law. However, in plural policing contexts, fairness can be compromised when customary systems prioritize community harmony over individual rights (Watson et al., 2021). Accountability involves mechanisms to ensure that policing authorities, whether formal or informal, operate within established legal and ethical frameworks. In plural policing settings, accountability can be challenging when informal actors lack oversight structures or when community loyalty shields perpetrators from scrutiny (Peterson & Uhnoo, 2012). Equitable law enforcement ensures that legal protections and sanctions apply to all individuals without discrimination. In SIDS, the integration of customary practices into policing can sometimes lead to disparities in enforcement, particularly in gender-related cases where traditional norms and customary dispute resolution mechanisms may reinforce patriarchal norms and limit women’s rights (Ada Tchoukou, 2025; Bull et al., 2021).
Several challenges hinder access to justice in SIDS. One significant challenge is the limited state presence across geographically dispersed multi-island countries such as Tuvalu. The dispersed nature of island communities results in formal law enforcement agencies lacking visibility and/or legitimacy in remote areas (see Watson et al., 2021), leading to reliance on informal justice mechanisms. Resource constraints further exacerbate this issue, with police agencies often operating with restricted budgets and human resources, limiting their capacity to respond equally promptly across the country (Watson et al., 2023). In addition, with legal pluralism, conflicts arise due to divergences between state laws and customary practices. There can be legal ambiguities, particularly in cases involving land disputes, inheritance rights, and gender-based violence (Barrera, 2015; Mukaddam, 2024). Social pressures and community loyalty also play a role, as strong communal ties may deter individuals from reporting crimes for fear of social ostracism or retaliation from influential community members.
Cultural and social norms significantly influence law enforcement in SIDS, shaping how justice is perceived, administered, and enforced (Watson, Berg, & Laponi, 2024). Many SIDS operate on a collectivist ethos where social harmony and conflict resolution through consensus are prioritized over adversarial legal procedures. In Tuvalu, for example, traditional leaders play a critical role in maintaining order (see Howes et al., 2021). These leaders resolve disputes through mediation and reconciliation, often emphasizing restitution rather than punitive measures. Religious institutions also wield considerable influence, with churches acting as de facto centers for community justice initiatives (Amin et al., 2022). However, while these systems foster localized justice, they may also perpetuate informal power dynamics that disadvantage marginalized groups.
Informal networks in justice systems present both benefits and limitations. One of the main benefits is accessibility, as informal justice mechanisms are often more accessible than formal courts, particularly in rural or remote areas. Cultural relevance also plays a crucial role, as community-based resolution methods align with Indigenous norms, making them more socially acceptable and effective in fostering long-term peace (see Amin et al., 2022). Another advantage is efficiency, with informal systems capable of resolving disputes more quickly than state courts, which may be burdened by procedural delays. However, informal networks also present several limitations. One major issue is the lack of legal oversight, as the absence of formal regulatory mechanisms can lead to arbitrary decision-making and potential miscarriages of justice (Baker, 2005). Exclusionary practices can also emerge, with informal systems reinforcing social hierarchies that disadvantage women, youth, and minority groups. In addition, inconsistencies in law enforcement can arise in plural policing systems, leading to varied interpretations of justice and potential conflicts between customary and statutory laws (Rogers, 2016).
Despite the existence of both formal and informal policing mechanisms in SIDS, access to justice is a crucial issue. The issue centers on the ability of individuals to seek and obtain fair legal remedies through transparent and effective mechanisms. In many Pacific SIDS, the police represent the most visible, and at times only, arm of state governance available in remote areas. This makes their role in justice delivery particularly significant, as they not only enforce laws and mediate disputes, but also serve as the sole or main providers of government services where other state institutions are absent (Watson, Scott, et al., 2022). While informal networks may offer culturally relevant and accessible dispute resolution mechanisms, they also pose risks in terms of accountability, fairness, and equitable law enforcement. Understanding the complex interplay between formal and informal policing systems is essential for developing justice frameworks that balance traditional governance with human rights standards. In the case of Tuvalu, recognizing the strengths and limitations of plural policing can help inform policy discussions on enhancing access to justice within the constraints of small island governance.
The Tuvaluan Context
Tuvalu is a small multi-island nation, described as a microstate, located in the South Pacific Ocean, midway between Hawaii and Australia. The population of just under 11,000 people is spread across nine islands—comprising three reef islands and six atolls (Central Statistics Division, 2017). The country’s primary island, Funafuti, serves as its central hub, while the other eight islands are categorized outer or remote islands. The capital and economic center, Fongafale, situated on Funafuti, houses over 6,000 residents, while Niulakita houses only 30 (Central Statistics Division, 2017). Most government services, including the national hospital, airstrip, and judicial institutions (excluding police services), are centralized in Funafuti. Transport between islands is facilitated by state-operated inter-island ferries and private vessels. Infrastructure, such as roads, internet connectivity, electricity, and water and sewage systems, is significantly more developed in Funafuti compared to the outer islands (Howes et al., 2021). Despite an extensive exclusive economic zone, Tuvalu’s remote location, limited infrastructure, scarce natural resources, and reliance on external financial assistance have led to its classification as a least-developed country by the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Tuvalu is also susceptible to the negative impacts of climate change, making policy in this area a key priority (Kofe & Marinaccio, 2023).
Historical and Political Context
Tuvalu has a predominantly Christian population. Christianity was introduced by Pacific missionaries from the London Missionary Society in the 1860s, leading to the establishment of the Ekalesia Kelisiano Tuvalu (EKT), or Congregational Christian Church of Tuvalu, which remains central to social life (McIntyre, 2012). Churches were located next to communal halls around which communities were traditionally structured, and religious leaders, came to hold high status along with traditional chiefs and elders (Pratt & Melei, 2018). From the 1860s to the early 20th century, to protect its people from external exploitation, forced labor (Connell, 2010) and slavery, Tuvalu, along with Kiribati (formerly known together as the Gilbert and Ellice Islands), became a British protectorate in 1892 and a British colony in 1915. As global decolonization efforts increased, Tuvalu separated from the Gilbert Islands in 1975, and gained independence from Britain in 1978 (McIntyre, 2012).
Governance and Law Enforcement
Tuvalu’s governance structure integrates both state institutions and customary authorities (Pratt & Melei, 2018). While modeled on the British Westminster system, the nation’s government incorporates traditional leadership and Christian principles, creating a hybrid framework (Amin et al., 2022). A key component of government is the Falekaupule, the traditional all-male Indigenous assembly. The Kaupule is the executive arm of the Falekaupule, with elected elders responsible for implementing and enforcing island-specific by-laws. These by-laws vary between islands and regulate matters such as alcohol consumption limits, business operation hours, and dispute resolution processes (Pratt & Melei, 2018).
Law enforcement in Tuvalu is primarily handled by the Tuvalu Police Service (TPS), the most visible government agency. The TPS workforce consists of approximately 101 sworn officers stationed across eight of Tuvalu’s nine islands: Funafuti (66), Vaitupu (5), Nanumaga (3), Nukufetau (3), Nanumea (2), Niutao (2), Nui (2), Nukulaelae (1), with none stationed on Niulakita. Beyond conventional policing responsibilities such as crime prevention, investigation, and law enforcement, the TPS also manages maritime operations, emergency response services, and the country’s prison system (Watson, Amin, & Pino, 2022).
Community and Policing Practices
Given Tuvalu’s small population and multi-island geography, community policing is a fundamental aspect of law enforcement. Similar to other Pacific Island nations, Tuvaluan police operate in close-knit communities where traditional customs and formal legal frameworks intersect (Amin et al., 2022). Local leaders and community governance structures play a significant role in conflict resolution, often handling disputes through mediation before they escalate to the formal justice system (Howes et al., 2021). Since traditional authorities are recognized by law and play a key role in governance, police legitimacy depends on maintaining public trust and ensuring continued community satisfaction with law enforcement services (Watson, Amin, & Pino, 2022).
Methodology
Data for this paper were extracted from a larger project titled Religion and Policing in the Pacific Island Countries (see Amin et al., 2022). The project looked at how the institution of policing has changed, the external and internal influences impacting those changes, and how religious and cultural institutions and practices impact policing practices in Tuvalu. The study received ethical approval from both Mount Royal University, Canada and the University of the South Pacific, Fiji. Organizational approvals were received from Tuvaluan stakeholders, specifically, the TPS, the People’s Lawyer, and the Traditional Council. Data collection was organized jointly by the University of the South Pacific and the TPS. Although the research team was from outside the Tuvaluan cultural setting, the team members responsible for data collection engaged with stakeholders prior to initiating fieldwork to ensure cultural sensitivity and adherence to gender-specific and customary expectations. This engagement enabled the team to demonstrate cultural sensitivity by seeking guidance from local contact points, observing appropriate dress codes, conducting interviews in gender-segregated settings when required, and ensuring deference to community protocols such as obtaining permission through traditional leadership structures.
Here, we draw on interview responses to provide local stakeholder insights that contribute to an understanding of the plural policing structures in Tuvalu, the established justice framework, and how justice is (or is not) accessed. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews (30–90 min), of which one was in Tuvaluan with interpreter assistance, and the rest were in English. Participants included senior police leaders and frontline police officers of the TPS, Funafuti-based chiefs and community leaders from the different islands, religious leaders or those who had previously occupied these roles, and participants from the People’s Lawyer’s office. Participants were asked questions that explored both their official and informal responsibilities, affiliations with religious groups and islands, educational histories, and their involvement in addressing social challenges and crime within their communities. All interviews were transcribed and examined using a deductive thematic analysis approach (see Braun & Clarke, 2022). Quotes that best illustrate common themes and perspectives were selected and are reported with participant number and designation as police officer or leader, community leader, or religious leader, noting that there was sometimes overlap in roles.
We acknowledge methodological limitations as follows. First, outside the above noted groups of respondents, we did not delve into the perspectives of the wider Tuvaluan community, limiting a more well-rounded view of policing and its influences in Tuvalu. Second, the larger project focused on the role of religious and cultural impacts on policing, potentially limiting the detail of responses related specifically to plural policing and access to justice. Despite these limitations, we found substantial detail in the interviews on a wide range of issues related to policing in Tuvalu. In reporting themes below, we selected the quotes that best reflected participants’ sentiments.
Findings and Discussion
We present the findings and discussion in four thematic areas relevant to an understanding of plural policing and access to justice in Tuvalu. The key themes are as follows: (a) the dynamics of plural policing systems in Tuvalu; (b) access to justice—challenges and opportunities; (c) religious influence on policing and governance; and (d) implications for plural policing and access to justice. Each theme includes several subthemes, which are denoted by subheadings.
The Dynamics of Plural Policing Systems in Tuvalu
As outlined earlier, governance in Tuvalu is underpinned by a plural regulatory environment, where state mechanisms function alongside traditional authority structures. The subthemes for the dynamics of plural policing explore the continuities and changes in the roles of customary and religious leaders in maintaining law and order.
The Role of Customary Leaders in Law-and-Order Maintenance
Chiefs, through the Falekaupule and Kaupule, continue to exert significant authority over community affairs, from resource distribution to dispute resolution. These traditional leaders are regarded as central figures in maintaining order and guiding local development, often working in parallel with state institutions. As illustrated in one chief’s words: I finalize everything if I decide to. I can make a conclusion to the debate that goes on about different topics like environment, projects for the island, all those decisions but I rarely do that, I let them decide and take a vote. (Participant 22, Community Leader)
This highlights the enduring role of customary leadership in shaping community consensus and upholding social norms.
However, tensions occasionally emerge between statutory law and customary practices. On the one hand, traditionally, involving police was often regarded as a harsh approach by customary and religious leaders in that it focused on individuals (Pratt & Melei, 2018). On the other hand, the use of corporal punishment, historically condoned by local leaders, stands in conflict with contemporary human rights standards. As one police official reflected: The whole island acted on the decision of the chief . . . The penalties were brutal . . . [They would] tie them [wrongdoers] to posts in a community hall and allow men to hit them with sticks naked . . . There are certain kinds of punishment that can be considered and there are certain kinds that are more than necessary. (Participant 2, Police Officer)
The Role of Religious Leaders in Law-and-Order Maintenance
Religious institutions, particularly the EKT, play a significant role in shaping moral and legal consciousness within communities. Churches are involved not only in spiritual guidance but also in conflict resolution and law enforcement collaboration, especially in cases involving gender-based violence and youth misconduct. On outer islands, where police presence is limited, church figures are trusted intermediaries. One officer shared: “We often rely on the different pastors’ wives to talk to female victims because we trust the pastor’s wife and the victim may open up.” (Participant 20, Police Officer). Religious teachings also serve as a deterrent to criminal behavior, reinforcing community compliance through moral rather than coercive means. As several religious leaders explained, members were encouraged to abide by the law: We’re teaching the Word of God and all about the law. . .respect matters, don’t kill, steal, you know, adultery—all of those Commandments. . . I hope that people know what it is to obey the rule of the island, the government. For the church, that is relationship with God, your brother and sister in the community. (Participant 17, Religious Leader)
Access to Justice: Challenges and Opportunities
The subthemes regarding access to justice explore community influence on policing decisions, barriers to equitable law enforcement, and innovative community solutions to justice.
Community Influence on Policing Decisions
Policing in Tuvalu is deeply relational, with chiefs and pastors frequently consulted before enforcement actions are taken. As one participant explained, “Whenever there is an issue, we discuss it with the Falekaupule before acting.” (Participant 2, Police Officer). This embedded consultative model fosters community legitimacy for policing decisions but may also dilute the uniformity of legal application when outcomes are shaped by local consensus.
Relatedly, community-based dispute resolution is preferred for most non-violent offenses, aligning with customary priorities of restoration and social harmony. However, this often leads to inconsistencies in access to justice, particularly when outcomes disproportionately favor those with status or influence (Dinnen, 2007). As one religious leader noted, “The gap between traditional practices and modern justice systems is growing, and the church must work to harmonize these differences.” (Participant 1, Church Leader).
Barriers to Equitable Law Enforcement
Geographically dispersed islands and infrastructural limitations contribute to uneven law enforcement coverage. As one police officer noted: “On outer islands, there are only one or two officers but so many people” (Participant 20, Police Officer). Outer islands often have minimal police staffing, prompting traditional leaders to take on de facto judicial roles. While this arrangement addresses immediate enforcement gaps, it may entrench local biases related to gender, kinship, or denomination (Churchman, 2022).
Innovative Community Solutions to Justice
In response to these limitations, police have begun developing locally adapted, collaborative justice approaches. These include awareness campaigns led jointly by police and religious institutions, with support roles filled by trusted community members. Several police officers and religious leaders mentioned awareness programs, held in churches of various denominations, on topics such as domestic violence. Awareness programs were seen not only as a way to educate communities about domestic violence and legal rights, but also as a way to “build the relationship between the police and the people in the community” (Participant 11, Police Leader). These initiatives reflect a shift toward a more inclusive and culturally grounded model of justice delivery.
Religious Influence on Policing and Governance
The subthemes for the role of religious influence explore the embeddedness of religious values on governance and the evolving role of churches in governance.
Embedded Religious Values in Governance
Christianity, particularly through the EKT, continues to permeate both governance structures and the daily operations of law enforcement in Tuvalu. As one police officer noted, “If I look at the whole organization Tuvalu police service, we can see the belief in God. Even when we have meetings like management meetings, we always start with prayer” (Participant 20, Police Officer). Such religious rituals are not merely ceremonial; they signal the moral authority embedded within the state apparatus and reinforce the legitimacy of policing activities. This moral alignment fosters trust between the police and the communities they serve, but it also shapes the nature of justice delivery. As noted earlier, religious leaders encourage members to follow the law. Many participants viewed the relationship between religion and policing as mutually reinforcing.
However, policing and religion prioritize different processes. Concepts such as forgiveness, reconciliation, and moral correction are core to Christian teachings. As several religious leaders noted, there was a focus on counseling and harmony: “And it is a method of reconciliation, a method of forgiveness . . . I hope that we can do more. I always encourage all young ministers to get involved in counselling.” (Participant 21, Church Leader). For different reasons, human rights–based policing practices recognize the value of diverting people from formal justice processes. However, for intractable social issues, such as domestic violence, a proportion of community members and police officers in Tuvalu supported legislation and police intervention (Howes et al., 2021).
The importance of religion and a degree of symbiosis between religion and policing supports cohesion. However, it also raises critical questions about the plural sources of moral and legal authority. In particular, there are important questions around the dominance of Christian moral codes in public administration. While most citizens identify as Christian, this embedded religiosity could limit recognition of diverse beliefs or practices, particularly for members of smaller denominations or secular individuals. In contexts where the church and the state are intertwined, there is a risk that certain religious ideologies may overshadow constitutional guarantees, particularly in areas such as gender equity or minority rights (Bader, 2003). Thus, the embedded nature of religion in governance creates both opportunities and tensions in the pursuit of equitable justice.
Evolving Role of Churches in Governance
The authority of churches in Tuvalu, while enduring, is not static. Increasing literacy, internet access, and exposure to international norms have led to a more questioning public, particularly among younger generations. For example: The role of churches in the community has become more confined to the spiritual realm of the lives of the people. . . a lot of Tuvaluans were educated in Western education systems, and they started questioning things. Today if a pastor speaks and [someone] questions, the majority of them will weigh what the other is saying. (Participant 1, Religious Leader)
This shift has prompted churches to adapt their roles in governance, often repositioning themselves as mediators between traditional values and contemporary norms, including human rights. For example, one religious leader stated: “We need to learn more about those issues of human rights . . . where we can better advise our communities” (Participant 21, Religious Leader). The same participant noted a new approach to supporting families: “We have a family outreach programs now. We go into homes and talk about their roles and their differences and how they can solve their problems.” This approach, along with holding awareness workshops as noted above, suggests momentum and creativity among younger religious leaders, educated both theologically and academically, for finding ways to support communities and playing an increasingly important role in bridging the gap between customary obligations and legal reform. These leaders contribute to a more dialogic and inclusive religious leadership model, one that acknowledges diverse experiences and perspectives.
At the same time, religious institutions remain powerful cultural gatekeepers. Their influence extends into policymaking, community education, and restorative justice initiatives. While this positions churches as critical stakeholders in plural policing frameworks, it also necessitates ongoing engagement with questions of inclusivity, gender sensitivity, and interfaith representation. The evolving role of churches thus reflects broader societal transitions, as Tuvalu negotiates its place within both a global human rights framework and enduring Indigenous and Christian traditions.
Implications for Plural Policing and Access to Justice
The subthemes exploring implications for plural policing and access to justice explore balancing tradition with modernity, supporting vulnerable populations, and building collaborative networks.
Balancing Tradition and Modernity
Navigating the interface between formal legal systems and customary or religious norms requires more than coexistence; it demands strategic integration. Law enforcement officers are not simply enforcers of codified law; they act as cultural brokers (Howes et al., 2021), mediating between institutional expectations and the lived realities of community members (Merry, 2006). As one police officer explained, “We are trying to bring traditional leaders on board with modern legal principles.” (Participant 2, Police Officer). Navigating these relationships requires more than procedural knowledge; it demands cultural fluency and interpersonal skill. “You can’t just enforce the law without talking to the chiefs . . . We have to work with them, not against them.” (Participant 11, Police Officer).
This balancing act necessitates flexibility and cultural competence. For instance, officers must understand not only the letter of the law but also how traditional conflict resolution mechanisms operate, and how to engage with leaders whose authority is derived from custom rather than statute. When managed well, this relational model enhances police legitimacy and fosters community trust. When misaligned, it risks undermining procedural fairness and equal treatment before the law. One police officer recalled a case: “The elders wanted to deal with the offender their way; banishment and feeding the village. But we had to step in because it was also a legal offence” (Participant 2, Police Officer). This balance between systems is not always easy to achieve. Yet, as one community leader observed customary leaders were involved in maintaining community harmony when someone was involved with the law; both systems were mutually reinforcing: We still have to reach to make sure that our assistance is passed to the person. Just to assist . . . We cannot stop the law because . . . nobody is beyond the law . . . (Participant 12, Community Leader)
Supporting Vulnerable Populations
Traditional authority structures, whether chiefly religious or community-based, are often patriarchal, creating systemic barriers to justice for women, children, people with disabilities, and minority religious groups and denominations. Despite notable progress, gender-based inequalities continue to affect access to justice, particularly in contexts where male-dominated structures, such as the Falekaupule and church councils, hold decision-making power. Participants acknowledged that traditional leadership often excluded women from key roles. As one community leader noted: “Men can speak in community meetings once they reach 50, but for women, it’s different. We have to be older, and even then, it’s hard to challenge the norm” (Participant 16, Community Leader). The lack of gender parity has direct implications for victims of domestic and sexual violence, who may struggle to access support or be pressured into reconciliation over justice.
However, change is occurring. The growing visibility of female police officers and religious leaders signals a shift in access to power and opportunity to contribute to public discourse. One leader noted, “After we held awareness programs in the churches, women began coming forward more. Even men started to talk about [domestic violence]. That’s a big change” (Participant 16, Community Leader). Others emphasized the importance of safe and trusted interlocutors, in enlisting the support of the pastor’s wife to talk with female victims and “also even in cases like offenders of crimes” (Participant 20, Police Officer). As one officer noted, “Women here often feel confined by cultural mindsets, and we must encourage them to speak out.” (Participant 18, Police Officer). These actors are not only challenging traditional gender norms but also expanding the scope of plural policing to include a rights-based approach to community safety. Such advocacy leads to increased reporting of domestic and sexual violence, greater community awareness, and calls for structural reforms, such as the establishment of victim shelters and specialized support services.
Nevertheless, progress remains uneven, particularly in outer island contexts where law enforcement capacity is low and customary authority dominates. Services for victims remain limited: “We don’t have that center [a women’s shelter] here like they do in Fiji. Maybe we should.” (Participant 2, Community Leader). The challenge is to embed equity within both formal institutions and informal power structures, ensuring that all members of society, regardless of gender, age, or social status, can access justice on fair terms.
Building Collaborative Networks
Participants repeatedly emphasized the need for collaboration across institutional boundaries to address justice challenges. Chiefs, pastors, and police officers described a model of shared responsibility grounded in mutual respect. For example, one community leader said: “To make sure our people live happy and as one, we must have a formal relationship between the community leaders, police, and the churches.” (Participant 12, Community Leader). This partnership is not only practical; it is strategic. Police officers are expected to draw on personal relationships and community ties: “Build up a good relationship with the community, so in times of crime or trouble, they will help you” (Participant 18, Police Officer). Examples of effective collaboration included joint training workshops, awareness campaigns, and school outreach programs, on topics such as cyber safety and violence. As one police officer noted: “After our awareness sessions, we received more reports of domestic abuse from teachers. That means it’s working.” (Participant 2, Police Leader).
Participants emphasized the importance of mutual respect and clear role demarcation. As one police officer explained, “Training that combines legal principles with cultural understanding is key to bridging gaps.” (Participant 2, Police Officer). However, the need for sustained investment was clear: “Sometimes programs stop when funding runs out . . . but the issues remain. We need long-term partnerships, not just one-off workshops.” (Participant 2, Police Officer). The views expressed by participants suggest a need for collaboration to be strategic and inclusive, while actively involving leaders from minority religious groups and denominations, not only those embedded in dominant power structures like the EKT.
Conclusion
This study aimed to explore how plural policing in Tuvalu impacts access to justice and policing practices through interviews with key stakeholders. It contributes new insights on plural policing in Pacific SIDS from the perspective of a smaller and less researched state in Polynesia, adding to previous studies that have explored the changing dynamics in Tuvalu (e.g., Howes et al., 2021; Pratt & Melei, 2018; Watson, Amin, & Pino, 2022; Watson et al., 2025). The Tuvaluan case demonstrates that sustainable access to justice in plural systems depends on robust, ongoing collaboration across state and non-state actors. This mirrors trends observed in Fiji and Kiribati (see Naylor, 2024), Samoa (see Sousa-Santos & Howes, 2022), and Solomon Islands (see Corrin, 2019), where community-based resolution is often more trusted and accessible than formal justice systems. Police officers, chiefs, pastors, and community leaders each possess distinct but complementary capacities. Unlike other SIDS where tensions between formal and customary systems have sometimes resulted in jurisdictional clashes or human rights concerns (Short, 2014; Watson et al., 2023), Tuvalu presents a more collaborative, albeit informal, coexistence. Religious and traditional leaders often mediate disputes with little resistance from state authorities, and there is general community acceptance of these roles. Yet, this very informality can obscure rights-based protections, particularly for women and youth, who may face social pressure to resolve disputes privately rather than through legal means.
Our findings provide evidence of collaboration and network building in the Tuvaluan context, which was particularly evident in awareness programs involving police and church leaders, collaborative community awareness workshops on domestic violence, and school outreach programs. Such activities have the potential to strengthen and deepen the networks essential to forging trust and legitimacy in plural policing practices, particularly at a time of changing social norms (Watson et al., 2025). Religious leaders expressed a desire to deepen these efforts through further training on human rights to better serve the community. This willingness reflects a growing recognition of shared roles in promoting justice.
When aligned, these plural policing capacities can yield powerful, culturally resonant approaches to crime prevention and conflict resolution. However, as the results and discussion highlight, to ensure that human rights-based policing practices are prioritized, there is a need to continue to foster inclusivity, as customary, religious, and police leadership have traditionally been the realm of older men in communities. Our findings suggested signs of increasing inclusion and representation of women and religious leaders from minority religious groups and denominations. However, the findings also indicate that more needs to be done to ensure that representation of diverse groups is further strengthened.
There is also a need for sustained funding, resource allocation, and training in Tuvalu to work toward more equitable access to justice across this multi-island country. Further collaboration and integration of formal and customary systems with agreed protocols could enhance justice by reducing disparities in justice for all community members. While challenges exist in navigating the complexity of differing views and practices across social institutions, consensus-based decisions reflect the cultural norms of Tuvalu. Further research exploring these dynamics through ethnographic studies of awareness workshops and meetings among different groups of leaders in Tuvalu would provide further insights valuable to other Pacific SIDS and global discourses on plural policing. Further studies of perceptions of plural policing among Tuvaluan Community members and in other under-researched Pacific SIDS would also be valuable.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We thank all who supported the project, including the Director of the University of the South Pacific (Tuvalu Campus) and a former Acting Police Commissioner of the Tuvalu Police Service. Finally, we thank the participants for sharing their valuable insights.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was funded by the Global Research Initiative (GRRI) Grant, administered by Mount Royal University, Canada.