As in much of Oceania, Palauan society of the pre-European contact era practiced sophisticated systems of tenure and management that extended to the fish and other resources of the surrounding coral reefs and lagoons. With its colonial experiences, the opening up of economic and social links with the outside world, and the introduction of highly efficient fishing technologies, Palau’s customary marine resource management systems have eroded. Like most Pacific Island countries, the Republic of Palau only recently gained independence from a western administrating nation. Its constitution, being based on western models, emphasizes democratic and egalitarian ideals. At the same time, it seeks to preserve and revitalize many aspects of customary Palauan society, particularly its institutions and processes of chiefly authority. These customs, however, are based on titled elitism and other principles contrary to those emphasized in the constitution. Through a combination of a series of court decisions that illustrate the incompatibility of the two bodies of law and a lack of any legislative initiative that could reconcile them, the exercise of purely customary authority has been relegated to matters of only minor importance. Thus, as in many Pacific Island nations, independence has contributed to the erosion of traditional tenure and management systems. Some recent village-level initiatives, however, may portend an important shift back toward decentralized, if not exactly traditional, control over the use of Palau’s inshore resources. The constitution’s critical provision that inshore resources are owned by the 16 states has allowed these relatively new village-level political and social units, with their mix of titled and elected leaders, to exert increasing control over inshore resources. They have done so in response to increasing resource scarcity owing to increasing fishing pressure, increasing demand by the booming marine-based tourism sector, and impending resource degradation from physical development. The effectiveness of these emerging local-level management regimes will be determined largely by the degree of support offered by the national government. Little has been forthcoming. The executive branch has been hesitant to support the marine property rights of the states, the judiciary has interpreted the constitution in a manner that has limited the authority of traditional leaders, and the legislature has not enacted laws that might guide the other two branches in interpreting and implementing the constitution with regard to either customary law or state ownership of marine resources.