As Chinese investment expands in Vanuatu, tensions are rising over land ownership between foreign investors and Indigenous landowners. A hybrid legal system blending customary tenure and formal law has led to increased legal uncertainty and disputes.
Vanuatu, like many of its Pacific Island neighbours, has experienced increasing impact of Chinese investment over the last decade. This has been particularly evident through China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the granting of citizenship to foreign investors through financial contributions, which have created new opportunities for Chinese investment.
However, this surge in investment has also intensified conflicts over land use rights and ownership between Chinese investors and customary landowners.
In response to the land dispossession during the colonial period, the Constitution of Vanuatu declares that all land belongs to its Indigenous customary owners and their descendants (Article 73). Customary landowners have the right to lease their land to individuals or foreign investors for periods of up to 75 or 99 years, depending on mutually agreed terms in formal leasehold arrangements. The leasehold system is a legacy of colonial rule, which introduced formal land tenure and property rights concepts based on Western traditions.
However, informal arrangements are often observed in the customary land tenure system, where land ownership is governed by tradition and local customs such as oral agreements and ancestral inheritance practices.
This hybrid legal system, derived from the intersection of formal property frameworks and customary tenure, creates legal ambiguities in tenure and an increased likelihood of land disputes and contested ownership.
Studying land disputes involving Chinese investment
To analyse legal conflicts, we identified eight court cases involving land disputes between Chinese investors and customary landowners, using the Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute (PacLii) database, which is a repository of legal documents in the Pacific region. In addition to the court case review, fieldwork was conducted in Port Vila in November 2024 to gain insight into the perspectives of Chinese investors engaged in land transactions. Eight semi-structured interviews were successfully conducted, offering limited but valuable perspectives.
Our study demonstrates that the persistent uncertainties and challenges of customary land investment, as revealed through both court case review and in-depth interviews, stem from the country’s hybrid legal system, ambiguities in tenure, and the investors’ unfamiliarity with local customs and traditions. The findings also show that Chinese investors employ a range of strategies, from negotiation to legal action, to navigate these disputes.
Disputes over customary land in court
Court cases regarding customary land disputes between Chinese investors and Indigenous landowners generally fall into two main categories: eviction actions and ambiguous or contested ownership over customary land.
The first type of land dispute arises from eviction claims sought by Chinese investors after purchasing land occupied by local residents who often lack formal leases but claim rights based on customary or informal arrangements. In these cases, Chinese investors act as claimants, holding formally registered leases as bona fide purchasers and seeking legal eviction through the courts. For instance, in Guan Kai v To [2022], a Chinese investor was involved in a land dispute with ni-Vanuatu after purchasing a leasehold title that was subject to an inheritance conflict. Further complicating the matter, oral agreements were made with ten families granting them permission to reside on the land. These families claimed rights under Section 17(g) of the Land Leases Act, citing oral agreements and long-term residence. The investor pursued legal action to request an eviction order.
The second type involves disputes where Chinese investors are positioned as respondents in cases where they purchased land subject to ambiguous or contested customary ownership. In these cases, the issue is not the occupation of the land but rather the legitimacy of the lease, often involving claims of unauthorised lease transfers or misconduct by officials. For instance, in Toro v Kiri [2016], the unclear customary land ownership arose from the unlawful registration of leases by the Minister of Lands without the consent of the customary landowner. The court ruled in favour of the customary landowner by compensating VT 45 million (approximately US$370 thousand), while also recognising the Chinese investor as a bona fide purchaser.
Interviewee perspectives
The interviewees encountered disputes over customary land ranging from trespassing to complex ownership claims and overturned agreements. In one instance, an interviewee purchased land and later discovered unresolved inheritance disputes. To prevent the land from being sold, a relative and his supporters occupied the site.
In some cases, agreements between investors and customary landowners were overturned. One interviewee described her experience of villagers rescinding the agreement, demanding additional payments, and blocking the entrance to the land. She took legal action to resolve the issue.
When facing these disputes, the interviewees indicated that they considered legal action as a last resort, preferring to take alternative action such as asserting their rights over the land by installing security cameras and hiring security guards for surveillance on their property. Many also attempted to resolve conflicts through negotiation. Engaging with community chiefs was regarded an effective strategy for resolving disputes with Indigenous villagers. For example, one interviewee contacted a chief after villagers began a plantation on his land. After the communication with the chief, the plantation was removed from his property.
As a real estate agent noted in an interview, “Many Chinese investors arrive in the country with rosy assumptions, and some simply rely on their agents’ advice to invest. Nonetheless, they often lack sufficient preparation and familiarity with local customs and traditions. In many cases, they find themselves facing difficulties when their economic gains fall short of expectations. In the worst-case scenario, they become entangled in land disputes and suffer financial losses. It is crucial for investors to fully understand the local context before making investments.”
A longer version of this article was published by Melbourne Asia Review, Asia Institute, University of Melbourne.
Dr Kaling Cheung has a pHd in Urban Planning from the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include urban development, housing policy and urban geography.
Associate Professor Jennifer Day works on issues of forced displacement and eviction, economic development, and urbanisation across Asia and the Pacific, and she is an expert in methods ranging from econometrics to qualitative storytelling. Jennie holds a PhD in City and Regional Planning from the University of California, Berkeley, and a master’s degree in Civil Engineering from San Jose State University.
This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.
