Talk:Terra nullius

RfC on Palestine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Content on Palestine was recently removed from this article as three editors considered it a fringe theory. Following extensive discussion, no consensus on revised wording could be reached. This RfC asks editors to vote on three options: 1) No content on Palestine (Option 1); 2) Revised wording for inclusion (Option 2) 3) Shorter revised wording for inclusion (Option 3).

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I have extended this for another 30 day due to the small number of responses. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Option 1

Status quo: no content on Palestine and terra nullius.

Option 2

Add the following content to sub-section on "Current claims of terra nullius":

As of 26 September 2025, 157 UN member states recognised the State of Palestine, and most of these recognised its borders as including the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. S. Ilan Troen argues that terra nullius is a crucial aspect of contemporary debate on Jewish claims to Palestine. Tina Al-khersan and Azadeh Shahshahani write that Israel has used, and continues to use, terra nullius to justify the dispossession of Palestinians of their land, while academic Atalia Omer, writes that Zionism has sought to render the disputed land terra nullius. Alexandre Kedar, Amara Ahmad and Oren Yiftachel argue that Israel's "Dead Negev Doctrine" is a variant of terra nullius which it uses to dispossess Bedouins.

In 2024, legal academic Tomáš Mach argued that the West Bank was terra nullius and in 2025 Eugene Kontorovich argued that the Gaza Strip was terra nullius, both reasoning that these territories were not under the sovereignty of any state. Jean-François Gareau, writing in 2005, argued that the territory claimed by Palestine was not terra nullius but was under the sovereignty of the Palestinian people until a Palestinian state should come into existence. In 2026, the legal academic David Kretzmer wrote that the West Bank was not terra nullius when occupied by Israel in 1967 and that its population retained the right to self-determination.

Option 3

Add the following content to sub-section on "Current claims of terra nullius":

Tina Al-khersan, Azadeh Shahshahani and Atalia Omer argue that Israel has used the concept of terra nullius to justify the dispossession of Palestinians of their land. Eugene Kontorovich, arguing that a State of Palestine does not exist, concluded that the Gaza Strip was terra nullius. Jean-François Gareau, writing in 2005, argued that the territory claimed by Palestine was not terra nullius but was under the sovereignty of the Palestinian people until a Palestinian state should come into existence.

Vote and discussion

Please state your preferred option here. You may include your reasons or brief comments. You may rank your preferences if you wish.

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 per everything I've said in the above section.--JasonMacker (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 then Option 3 The content is reliably sourced and written from a NPOV. The extensive academic discussion on Palestine and terra nullius should be included in an encyclopaedic article on terra nullius. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 then Option 3 as per Aemilius Adolphin, and agree with comments in above section about this not belonging in the lead due to not being mainstream, but for sure agree it fits in a "current claims" section (with its being made clear it's a non-mainstream claim, as Option 2 does). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 then Option 3. Option 2 is well written, balanced and the correct size for wp:weighting in this article. Option 3 is arguably too small. Irrespective of whether or not Palestine is terra nullius, enough RSSs discuss the issue to obligate us to mention it here. An observation is that the definition of terra nullius in this article hinges on the existence of sovereignty as has been defined by more advanced, mainly Western, countries. There is little consideration given to sovereignty based on native title where land is occupied by people under a different governmental structure, one that does not meet the established definition of sovereignty, such as a centralised authority or individual land ownership. It is difficult to see how the occupied areas in Palestine can be called 'no man's land' unless we distort the meaning of terra nullius. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Lean toward Option 1 or more limited inclusion per WP:UNDUE - Option 2 and 3 may be sourced but they risk presenting terra nullius as an actively applicable legal category today - when it's not. It's more a largely historical doctrine followed in 19th century but this colonial doctrine is largely rejected by today's world and is unlikely to ever be used for legal effect anymore, let alone still be used by an occupying power for acquiring territorial sovereignty. You can't mislead as if the intl legal world today follow this doctrine in its colonial form. What I see in option 2 and 3 are a moot discussion; largely the views from Israeli lawyers that are then rejected as WP:FRINGE by mainstream international legal circles. Article should not give undue weight to a contested and non-mainstream framing within today's international scholarship.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  Counterintuitively, for this case I think inclusion that is "more limited" would have the opposite effect of what you are arguing for. Option 3 is shorter than Option 2, but between the two seems to have a greater suggestion of legitimacy. (I don't know if the Wiki-bureaucracy will allow this comment or not, but since I am not !voting nor arguing a side in the conflict, if it doesn't it ought to per WP:NOTBUREAU. ~2026-30333-18 (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  No issues with replying to comment. And perhaps you are right but outside conservative American think tanks, Zionists and individual Israeli lawyers; the consensus in international law is that Palestine is not recognized as Terra nullius. Some commentators prey on the highly uneducated and give the impression that international law prioritise terra nullius just because they say it so. But the international law is very clear. The UN recognise the region having a long-standing, densely populated, and politically organized society. It is not empty despite disinfo promoted by certain Israeli "lawyers". Even the old League of Nations classified Palestine as a "Class A Mandate" which means they had acknowledged that the local population possessed attributes required for eventual statehood, directly dismissing any notion of terra nullius. So literally no country or any world authority, past and present, have claimed this. The issue of Option 2 and 3 is that it implies it's an ongoing valid dispute listened in the highest courts, when it is not that at all. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2 > 3 (but really, include in some form; these versions would just be starting points and could be further refined.) There is plenty of high-quality sourcing supporting the idea that mainstream academics discuss the concept of terra nullus as it relates to the I/P controversy; at least some attributed discussion of that seems WP:DUE. We obviously shouldn't state in the article voice that it was terra nullius, but the argument that the perspective that it was terra nullius is fringe today misses the point; the understanding of certain Zionist and Israeli arguments, and the broader history of the region and the conflict over it, in the context of the concept of terra nullius is a comparatively mainstream reading. See It is a major aspect of how the topic is discussed today; covering that discussion, carefully and with attribution, is not the same as us saying that Palestine was literally a terra nullius or that the literal argument that it was is mainstream today. --Aquillion (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  the perspective that it was terra nullius is fringe First off - according to who was it formally terra nullus? You frame it as if it happened. All you can find are isolated ideological arguments but they are not formal legal designation. Palestine was not formally declared terra nullius by Israel. It never was historically made terra nullius by any authorities even back in the 1940s. Not by British Mandatory authorities, nor the United Nations. So it shouldn't even be in the article if it has never been formally recognised or applied as terra nullius by any governing or international authority in all history, and is explicitly explained by UN and multiple scholars it has never been terra nullius.

  But the bigger issue is not merely whether the unofficial and revisionist view is "fringe" - but that the wording in option 2 and 3 risks presenting terra nullius as some currently viable legal framework applicable to Palestine, (because you gave it both excessive weight and WP: FALSEBALANCE as if both sides are equally matched) despite in practice that doctrine has no actual standing in modern international law regarding Palestine.

  Such isolated non-mainstream ideologically comments can be maybe put in the Zionism article only but has def not warranted enough weight for articles meant for real territories that had been either widely viewed or at least declared by at least just one country or authority as terra nullius in all of history. What's wrong here is presenting it with too much weight as if the side arguing it's terra nullius is not WP:FRINGE. That be like adding flat earthers in a article for astronomy when no serious professional scholar pay attention to that nonsense anymore - other than for responding to criticise it as wrong. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 These are fringe theories that contradict each other, and are contrary to the meaning of terra nullius as evidenced by the first sentence in Option 2. Off and running (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2 but maybe more explicit in paragraph 1 that for states which recognize a Palestinian state the concept clearly doesn't apply. Look for ways to shorten paragraph 2 to tackle Undue claims. Rolluik (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to lead

I have reverted some major good faith changes to the lead by @Jared McKenzie. I reverted them because:@JaredMcKenzie:

1) They were unsourced

2) They were not an accurate summary of the article as it stands

3) The Mabo case and native title were based on the common law. The High Court specifically rejected the idea that it was reviewing the international law grounds for the British claim of sovereignty over Australia.

4) The additions were argumentative and not written in encyclopaedic English

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

All that info can easily be sourced. if that's the issue, give me a few hours and I can easily support every single info. But I believe the real underlying issue with you alone is Palestine. My edits had explained why today's world do not follow the colonial era doctrine anymore. This is a true fact, yet in above thread, you have been constantly advocating that Wikipedia regard Palestine as being some claimed territory for Terra nullius. That is blatant misinformation. I ask you - Who made a claim of Terra nullius on Palestine? The correct answer is nobody (that matters). As far as I know - no country or authority has done so. A single unofficial individual with no power at all - cannot push an official claim for this. I mean u can go claim the moon but so should Wikipedia mention that you have argued you officially claimed the Moon despite you are not a country or any kind of recognised legal authority? And my edits to lede was necessary as it explains the change throughout history where once Terra nullius created a legal avenue for colonial powers to categorize land as empty despite already being occupied by indigenous groups. (TRUE), and that historically more modern courts rejected historic colonial claims of terra nullius (also TRUE). JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie. I strongly suggest you self revert your reinstatement of the changes to the lead which I object to on the grounds listed above.

Please note that under policy the onus is on you to justify the reinstatement of material than an editor has objected to: Wikipedia:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content." Also note that the usual rules for citing content applies to the lead if the additions are contentious or have been challenged: MOS:LEADCITE. My objections to the changes you made are listed above. They are based on policy and have nothing to do with the RfC on the inclusion of content on Palestine. The lead is supposed to be a concise and accurate summary of the article as it stands; not a rewrite of the article to highlight your particular slant on the topic; ie, "My edits had explained why today's world do not follow the colonial era doctrine anymore." Our job as editors isn't to provide our own explanations: it is to accurately summarise the reliable sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is Miller explaining that Europeans indeed applied this doctrine to lands that was most definitely occupied like Australia and parts of north America. But Europeans historically argued that the occupants don't count as being proper people as they lacked spiritual values or did not settle the land in the "European civilised sense". (Miller) Essentially it was just an antiquated legal avenue for old European colonising powers to categorize a land as being empty despite already being occupied by indigenous groups. This is verified history already in history chapter. The onus is on you to prove it's disputed or factually wrong when no expert is saying otherwise. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add critiques of the law of terra nullius to the article the place to do this is in the body of the article; perhaps in a section called "Critiques of the law". But you need to include a wide range of sources which accurately reflect scholarly debate. Once this has been done it can be summarised in the lead. Your changes to the lead are badly written, inaccurate, unsourced and not a balanced and accurate summary of the article. For example: you write: "Historically, however, the doctrine was frequently applied by European colonial powers to lands already inhabited by Indigenous peoples, whose sovereignty, systems of land tenure, and political organization were often not recognized under European legal standards." But nothing in the article says that and most of the examples of historical claims of terra nullius cited in the article are not cases of Europeans claiming lands occupied by indigenous peoples under the doctrine of terra nullius. The doctrine wasn't even developed until the 1880s. The classic case of claims of terra nullius is Spitsbergen in 1909 and this involved Europeans. Antarctica is another classic case. In Australia, no British explorer or government official ever claimed Australia under the doctrine of terra nullius because the concept was unknown at the time. The High Court of Australia decision simply confirmed that the concept of terra nullius (or more accurately some expanded notion of terra nullius) could not be retrospectively applied to 1788. The HCA didn't reject the international law concept of terra Nullius: it simply said that English common law equivalent of terra nullius didn't apply in 1788 as a question of fact.

"Since the twentieth century, the doctrine had been increasingly rejected in international law, particularly in relation to colonial expansion and unilateral land grabs. Example include the ICJ judgement in 1975 when the court affirmed that the Western Sahara could not be acquired through unilateral occupation." This is nonsense. The article doesn't say this and it isn't true. The Western Sahara case affirms the concept of Terra Nullius. It simply says that it didn't apply in that case. And terms like "land grabs" are not encyclopaedic.

I would be happy to expand the lead to include a concise and accurate summary of the history section of the article but it needs to be accurate, well written and based on what the article actually says. If you want to improve the article, I would suggest that the sections on historical claims of terra nullius needs to be completely rewritten with much better sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Read Miller who supports a better understanding. Not your original research. He explained it as an idea where powers will label a Land as empty or no owners and take it even when there's people already living there. Historically there weren't even many lands that didn't have people. The concept of "empty lands" in practice, was often used disingenuously to refer to certain lands as empty despite it had occupants, to justify rightful ownership as European powers often did not recognise Indigenous sovereignty. That it needed colonisers to make the Land right. Today it is technically international law but its usage is largely theoretical as there are hardly any places with zero people. And modern law largely rejects its usage for colonial acquisitions as seen in many 20th century legal challenges that improved recognition of indigenous rights. That's why my edit to lede was important as it showed how the concept or idea was implemented throughout history, and also how attitudes have changed in 20th century in not continuing the old colonial form of it. All of this is verified and supported. All of it was already in the article body like (Historical claims of terra nullius) before I came along including stating Australia overturned Terra nullius concept etc. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Secondly, the National library of Australia wrote on overturning Terra Nullius; Cook considered that the land belonged to no-one. To Cook, Aboriginal people were ‘uncivilised’ hunters and gatherers—he did not see evidence of settlement and farming in a form he recognised. The concept of terra nullius, or land belonging to no-one, remained the legal principle on which British colonisation rested until 1992, when the High Court brought down its finding in the Mabo vs Queensland (No. 2) case. It ruled that the lands of the continent were not terra nullius at the time of settlement, just as Pascoe’s evidence suggests. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You are going about this the wrong way around. If you want to improve an article you don't unilaterally change the lead then do a google search for websites to justify your changes. You look for gaps in the article then try to fill them using the highest quality sources available. Once this is done the new material can be summarised in the lead. This is some blog for School students and it is utter nonsense. James Cook did not consider Aboriginal people were ‘uncivilised’ hunters and gatherers" he thought Aboriginal society was perhaps superior to British society. And he didn't claim Australia on the basis of terra nullius: the concept had not even been invented. Please see my comments above: if we are to improve this article we need to be citing proper scholarly articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you kidding? James Cook considered aboriginal people to be superior to British society? That's a whole new level of historical revisionism and no solid evidence to say that. And it's hard to continue to assume good faith when you call my source as a blog for school kids. Our gov also recognized this history . And your logic doesn't track. Even if they didn’t say the exact phrase - "terra nullius", they used frameworks like "empty lands" or "vacant lands". That's why experts like Miller use terra nullius because it captures a cluster of legal assumptions. That's standard 101 for legal history: we often use modern labels for older systems and historians use the term terra nullius as a retrospective category, not as a claim that historical actors used the exact phrase. Regardless we follow sources and it's common for RS to refer to them as such as it's merely a later label, and not a later invention.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Well in that case Miller is critiquing something different than the current definition of terra nullius in international law as explained in the article. If you want to add this to the article the place is not the lead in the first instance. See my points above. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Who are you? I don't know you. Miller is the one stating the concept of terra nullius indeed occured in history whereas you are using unconvincing technicalities. I see no point trying to reason with you anymore IF you continue to misrepresent Miller. He described it as a concept and wrote: This Latin phrase literally means a land or earth that is null or void. Terra nullius stands for the idea that lands that were not possessed or used by any person or nation, or that were occupied by Indigenous peoples but were being used in a fashion that European legal systems did not understand or approve, were considered to be empty, waste, or vacant, and available for taking by Euro-Americans. The principle was used to justify Europeans claiming the lands of American Indians Nations because Euro-Americans allegedly put the land to better uses than did Indians. This principle is considered one of the elements of the international law Doctrine of Discovery Btw the major legal trajectory in the 20th century is the rejection or abandonment of that terra nullius concept for colonial purposes, most clearly in Mabo v Queensland (No 2).JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Miller is not the only authority on Terra Nullius or the history of the concept and his argument needs to be balanced against other views. The history section of this article does this, but your summary in the lead relies solely on your interpretation of Miller's view. Also you don't seem to grasp the distinction between rejecting the international law of terra nullius and rejecting its application in particular cases. And most scholars argue that the land of Native Americans or First Nations of America was acquired by European powers by treaty and conquest. My objections remain: your changes to the lead are not an accurate summary of the article as it stands. As for the Miller article you cite, you should find a better one, as it is full of fundamental mistakes that indicate Miller doesn't know the basics of colonial history and hasn't read the Mabo decision. Miller writes: "For example, England claimed all of Australia due to terra nullius although Aboriginal peoples had lived there for tens of thousands of years. In 1992, the Australian Supreme Court rejected that Discovery claim as a falsehood in the case of Mabo v. Regina." In fact, England didn't claim any of Australia. It was the Kingdom of Great Britain that claimed Eastern Australia and the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that claimed the remainder of the continent. And they didn't claim it on the basis of terra nullius. As the Mabo decision states, the King simply claimed it as an exercise of sovereign power without any other legal justification. And it wasn't "the Australian Supreme Court" that handed down the Mabo decision, it was the High Court of Australia (HCA). And the HCA didn't reject that "Discovery as a falsehood". It expressly found that it had no jurisdiction to question the basis for the Crown's claim to the land. As I said above, I have no problem with you adding a section on Critiques of the Law of Terra Nullius but I suggest you find better sources than that Miller one because he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. I reiterate: I have no problem with expanding the lead so it contains a balanced and concise summary of the history section and historical claims of terra nullius section of the article. But the changes you have made make the article worse, not better. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Terra nullius is not just a doctrine. It is a concept or a set of ideas. When scholars often talk about Terra nullius, they are commonly referring to the principle where it was used in colonial legal doctrine, to justify claims of lands already occupied by indigenous people. It's difficult to find significant sources talking about Terra nullius without it referring to colonised land grabs like Australia. As I said before, you confused Terra nullius as nothing more than a literal word where you believe it doesn't exist if say a person doesn't use the exact phrase. But it's also a concept where the labels can change but the idea is the same. It is shallow thinking to not grasp that concept. It's like saying no rich people existed in history because people didn't used the word "rich". Regardless, we follow sources. It is true that the actual phrase wasn't used in the past but the concept was definitely utilized and is why scholars often refer to the concept or principle of terra nullius when talking about colonial dispossession during the colonial era FREQUENTLY. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source for these claims? Or is this your own thesis? It certainly isn't anywhere in the article. This article is about the the international law doctrine of terra nullius. The history section of the article is about how the doctrine developed. I actually agree with you that the term "terra nullius" is now used more widely as a metaphor/shorthand for any powerful group which dispossesses a less powerful group of their land. For example, the section on Ireland in this article is bollocks: England simply conquered Ireland and terra nullius did not come into it. But if you want to change this article from one about the doctrine of international law to one about how some academics and activists for Indigenous rights now use the term "terra nullius" as a concept to do with colonialism then I suggest the way to go about it is not to start with the lead but to start with a new section along the lines of "Other concepts of terra nullius". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not my thesis. That's already reality. scholars telling the historical application of the concept of terra nullius often involved cases where territories that were inhabited but in which Indigenous sovereignty was not recognised under colonial European legal frameworks. And that's like virtually all Major historical cases too even when that term was not used at the time. So again - legal and historic scholarship do not define Terra nullius as an event in which the exact pronunciation of the word is made. That's your original synth. Instead scholars commonly explain it's a concept or idea that you can take lands if you decide it's empty or has no recognized sovereignty. Even when it wasn't called "terra nullius" at the begining, scholars now retrospectively call it as that. This practice is seen commonly in reliable secondary sources and is not original research. You seen to try to hard to make it seem like colonial Europeans didn't use this concept like justifying colonisation over Australia despite many RS directly says it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have reworded the lead. It isn't true that, "Historically, it [terra nullius] referred to the concept that land could be regarded as empty, vacant, or unowned if it was not considered to belong to a recognized sovereign or if its inhabitants were not recognized as exercising sovereignty under European legal standards. Historically, the term wasn't used at all before 1885. We should also be using scholarly sources rather than websites with anonymous and unsourced content. See policy: WP:SOURCE. And Miller isn't the only available source; many scholars deny that the term terra nullius can be usefully used as a concept before the nineteenth century.

I would be happy to discuss the wording to see if we can come up with something we can both live with. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I would admit that phrasing could be misread as if the term itself was used in the old colonial era. That was unintentional. It's more the concept or set of ideas that Terras nullius represented was widely practised well before the term later appeared. Tho historians commonly refer to genuine historical cases where powers indeed claimed territory as empty or without sovereign as theirs despite it was inhabited, as Terras nullius. So I rephrased it to say it's a term used by historians, rather than claim term itself is used in old times. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

History

Hello all,

I have rewritten most of the newly added content from here and moved it to a new section: "Modern usage". I have also replaced some citations from commercial websites (consultants and tour groups) with scholarly articles in accordance with policy on reliable sources for historical and legal articles. See: WP:SOURCE.

Apart from the quality of some of the sources, the problem with the newly added content was that it sometimes used the sources selectively to make unwarranted generalisations not supported by these sources and contradicted by other sources. It also focuses too much on British colonisation and the colonisation of Australia. Some of the material could go in the section on Australia, but I think it would be only repeating content which is already adequately summarised there using a wider variety of sources.

Happy to discuss and to provide more detailed reasons for my changes. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Enough with the disruptive editing. Literally every single live section on this talk page has to do with you trying to force your edits into the article. You don't own this article. Stop.--JasonMacker (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you have any objections to my changes based on policy and the sources please discuss here. I am perfectly entitled to improve an article based on an accurate summary of high quality sources. I would welcome a discussion this basis. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I already once tried to engage in conversation with you, and you refused to honestly answer simple questions. Then you went on to create a new set of talk page sections. That's not positive engagement with other editors. That's gaming the system. JasonMacker (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Quit implying that you know more than scholars like Miller. The only real debate is extremely superficial that the exact phrase was not used in the past. Past colonisers typically say "empty or vacant lands" to imply it belongs to nobody. All historians acknowledges that but that doesn't mean the concept didn't occur. And it's widely accepted by scholars that the concept of calling a land as empty or having no sovereign and open for taking - occured well before the 19th century regardless of what it was called. You are rushing false impression the concept of Terra nullius never occurred when that is not supported by any scholar and is revisionism. There's no usage of the "word" but the concept was undeniably practised before 19th century. The Latin term terra nullius means ‘land belonging to no one.’ In international law, terra nullius is occasionally used as a principle to justify the occupation of territory where no previous sovereignty has been exercised. Although the term didn’t develop as a legal theory until the 19th century, it’s widely accepted that Captain Cook claimed the east coast of Australia for the British Crown in 1770 on the doctrine of terra nullius. (Miller in US Academic Encyclopedia for University reading); This Latin phrase literally means a land or earth that is null or void. Terra nullius stands for the idea that lands that were not possessed or used by any person or nation, or that were occupied by Indigenous peoples but were being used in a fashion that European legal systems did not understand or approve, were considered to be empty, waste, or vacant, and available for taking by Euro-Americans. The principle was used to justify Europeans claiming the lands of American Indians Nations because Euro-Americans allegedly put the land to better uses than did Indians.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is the content you apparently object to:

The first use of the term terra nullius in international law was in 1885. However, some modern scholars use it anachronistically to refer to earlier, related concepts such as res nullius (no-one's thing) and vacuum domicilium (argument from vacancy) and other legal arguments used to justify claims of European sovereignty over inhabited foreign lands. Scholars are divided on the usefulness of the concept of terra nullius to describe these rationales before the 19th century.

Here are the quotes from the sources supporting the content:

"Since the 1940s, historians have used the term terra nullius (a Latin term which

means ‘nobody’s land’) to refer to the legal thought of British authorities as they dispossessed First Nations of their lands. When applied to explain colonial decision-making in the 1780s, the term is ahistorical. As Andrew Fitzmaurice wrote, ‘the term terra nullius was not used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to justify the dispossession of Australian Aborigines’." Knapman (2023) p 444

"Historians of the application of ‘terra nullius’ to Australia differ in their assessment of its importance. In an argument compatible with my argument in this article, Bruce Buchan disputed that ‘terra nullius was the foundational assumption of Australian colonization’." Knapman (2023) p 458

"Recent research has focused on practical colonial assertions of sovereignty, rather than doctrines of terra nullius. Bain Attwood has argued that we cannot explain the British assertion of sovereignty over New Holland as its application of ‘terra nullius’; instead he endorses the argument of Benton and Straumann that historical factors, such as self-interest, geo-strategic power politics and opportunism explain the British assertion of sovereignty. Lisa Ford and David Andrew Roberts have rightly declared that ‘there was no declaration of “terra nullius” in 1788’. Instead Ford and Roberts conclude that the idea that the land was unoccupied was an ‘epistemic dispossession’ that ‘grew, over time, into the doctrine of terra nullius’. Knapman (2023) pp 459-460

"In the Australian context, Attwood, Ford and Roberts have all demonstrated that the terra nullius narrative was a retrospective innovation in Australian legal and political discourse." Knapman (2023) p. 463

""Debates have arisen among historians about whether the term [terra nullius] should be used to characterize rationales for late eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century imperial expansion when the term itself was rarely - if ever - cited before the late nineteenth century." Benton and Straumann (2010) p 6. [The authors discuss the concepts of res nullius (no-one's thing) and vacuum domicilium (argument from vacancy) and other legal arguments immediately before this quotation]

"Whether or not the formal international legal doctrine of terra nullius had been formulated by the late 18th century and so could have informed British imperial policy makers and colonial governors of that time, is a matter of dispute among historians." Biggar (2024) p. 408

I believe these fully support my changes. They are more accurate, nuanced and reflect a wider range of high quality sources than your recently added version. Your citation of anonymous and unsourced content on a commercial website promoting tours is not in accordance with policy. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a False Balance or overgeneralised synthesis. At best, you should attribute the specific case and or who is saying that terras nullius didn't exist before 19th century. All historians agree the term itself wasn't used in 17-18th century but most of them refer to past practices (of claiming a land by saying it has no sovereign) as terras nullius retrospectively as an umbrella term.

The core issue is you are mixing certain practises that are DEFINITELY NOT TERRAS NULLIUS, such as Europeans claiming that they need to help the indigenous people and guide them and so have to take over. Examples of cases that are NOT TERRAS NULLIUS include notably Palestinian mandate and British in South East Asia Islands. Those cases aren't Terras nullius and are isolated cases where certain scholars explain they are not terras nullius at all. My sole issue with you is that you go use those isolated examples to imply most historical cases of definite Terra nullius is now being disputed or debated by scholars.

And "Usefulness” is not even a defined scholarly category here. Those sources actually debate different things such as whether it is a retrospective construct. That is not identical to "usefulness ". The term is undoubtedly useful to refer to past cases where a colonial power definitely justified taking lands from inhabitants by claiming the land lacks a sovereign. Nobody is debating against the usefulness of that definition for such past colonial practices if it occurred that way. Nobody is also arguing if term - “terra nullius” was uttered by Captain Cook. But it is widely accepted by historians that he did express the idea of Terras nullius without actually saying the words at the time.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Doctrine

@JaredMcKenzie The words you have added are in bold: "According to the historic work of Oppenheim, first systemized in the late 19th century and predating the United Nations charter. This is an unsourced editorial comment which castes doubt on the reliability of the cited source. It therefore violates policy on neutral point of view.WP:NPOV. It is also wrong: the citation is from the 1992 edition which has been revised and updated by eminent scholars. I therefore ask you to restore the previous version. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That works has context where it was formulated during a time when early positivist international law writers taught sovereignty in terms of European style state structures, which meant that nomadic or non-centralised societies were frequently not recognised as practicing sovereignty. Tho Oppenheim didn't explicitly say it, that was the past meaning where non euro indigenous people without European recognized state structures aren't really sovereign. From modern perspective, that quote is more a historically contingent in today's understanding where it's no longer acceptable to casually rehash insensitivitely, knowing very well that it was used to emphasize on colonial ideology that natives living on a land isn't actually practicing sovereignty. It was what was understood in that era but we don't do that anymore. Modern doctrine no longer accept that land is terra nullius merely because the inhabitants are indigenous people without a European style state structure. Nonetheless I added the necessary context of that era where they created legal thoughts (no longer acceptable in today's time) that certain people aren't really sovereign; which btw is firmly supported by body but don't feel like copying and repeating every early legal writer again from history chapter. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie But you are missing the point: it doesn't matter who the original Oppenheim was and when he originally wrote: this is a revised, updated, modern edition written and endorsed by eminent scholars in 1992. It is one of the most prestigious reference works on International law. It is a high quality source and you unsourced editorial comments on its quality violate NPOV. Here is a review of it in a scholarly journal. Please restore the previous version. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

And my final revision is; Writers such as Lassa Oppenheim formulated occupation as applying to territory not already under the sovereignty of a state, including territory inhabited by populations not regarded, within that framework, as constituting a state exercising sovereign authority. Given Oppenheim doesn't clarify what it meant by not having sovereignty. It is nonetheless crucial to add in context that during that time of writing, it was understood that sovereignty back then was defined via a European state structure lens. And people considered anything outside that as not having sovereign. That's just history and useful for readers to understand the implications of such writings. Later in modern times, we refined it a great deal further to say that people who live on the territory and don't have European style state structure sovereignty, is still not terras nullius. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie But Oppenheim did not write the 1992 edition of the book! This section is not a historical survey of the doctrine; that's what the History section does. It's meant to give a concise definition of the concept. You have replaced a perfectly concise and correct explanation of the doctrine with an unsourced editorial opinion about a person who did not write that definition. I ask you again to restore the version without your unsourced editorial comments which violate policy on NPOV. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The issue is not that the quote is wrong. The issue is that in today's world, that work is a massive oversimplification that lacks the modern nuances.

In modern international law, terras nullius is a highly restricted concept referring only to territory not subject to any state sovereignty and ALSO not inhabited by legally recognized people exercising social or political organization with a right to self-determination. It can not be applied solely on the basis that a territory is not governed by a European-style state structure.

THE problem with citing Oppenheim is that it is only a fraction of what Today's law says on the matter. It misleads people into thinking that's the full definition when today, it's become way more restricted than that. Hence it should be noted early writers emphasized people who didn't practise European style state structure was deemed not sovereign and their territory is terra nullius. But today after Western Sahara 1975, it's no longer that simple.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

With respect, you are the one missing the point: You can't add unsourced editorial comment on a quote from a very high quality reliable source. The quote from Oppenheim is from 1992; that is, after the Western Sahara case. And the paragraph immediately after the Oppenheim quote includes a summary of that case so no one will be misled into thinking that the Oppenheim quote or the earlier ones represent an exhaustive analysis of the concept of terra nullius. To reiterate: this section is supposed to be a concise introduction to the doctrine of terra nullius. The following section is where the history of the concept is explained. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Which is the unsourced editorializing?

Don't know if you noticed, but I just revised it to; Early international law scholarship, reflecting a European state-centric conception of sovereignty, commonly limited recognition of sovereignty to entities that were recognized by European agricultural and legal norms. Within that framework, writers such as Lassa Oppenheim formulated occupation as applicable to territory not already under the sovereignty of a state, including territory inhabited by populations not regarded as constituting a state exercising sovereign authority.

That info is true and as I explained, Oppenheim is useful for classical positivist doctrine but is the WRONG ANCHOR for explaining modern Terras nullius. Notably he says NOTHING about the fact that recognized people with a right to self determination who inhabits the land and possess social and political organization, regardless if sovereign is universally recognized; their territory can not be legally deemed Terras nullius. Regardless, it's not unsourced to say he was a writer who wrote within the old era framework, and later add in that modern international law SIGNIFICANTLY restricted the criteria for what is a legal occupation.

Your version presenting Oppenheim's formulation without minimally explaining the subsequent developments just risks giving wp:undue weight to an outdated framework and omitting the major changes in international law, esp with rise of self-determination, decolonisation, and newer law restrictions on territorial acquisitions.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I have added compromise wording to remove unsourced editorialising and improve neutral point of view. Specifically:

"Within this framework, writers such as Lassa Oppenheim described occupation as applicable to territory not already subject to state sovereigty, including lands inhabited by populations not regarded as constituting a state." ["Within this framework" is editorial comment. And the latest edition of the work was 1992 and Oppenheim didn't write it.]

"Modern international law has significantly restricted this approach. It rejects the proposition that a territory may be treated as terras nullius simply because their inhabitants do not have a European model of statehood. [The cited sources do not state this.]

"The absence of a recognized sovereign state is therefore not, by itself, sufficient to lawfully classify a territory as terra nullius. The existence of socially and politically organized peoples, Indigenous societies, and system of territorial authority, as well as the principle of self-determination, are relevant considerations." [Unsourced editorial comment]

I have also added another source: Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't need a citation for every single trivial sentence esp something that is common sense and confirmed in last paragraph. And it is supported. The last paragraph explicitly explained that territory that is inhabited by socially and organized people cannot be legally classified as Terras nllius. Quit using disingenuous gaming of the system to falsely push colonial era disinformation as being applicable to today's times via oversimplifying with a framework that doesn't show the complete picture. Also previous version stated that conquest is legally recognized means to take territory. Maybe when Hitler was still alive but that's also an oversimplification in today's time so don't restore that as it's also equivalent disinformation to imply countries under international law can take other territory from foreign nations by conquest. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

But a statement of a general proposition of law needs a reliable source, preferably several which confirm that it is now the general view of scholars. The statement you have added is, "Modern international law regards terra nullius to only apply where land is truly uninhabited or devoid of socially/politically organized peoples, and cannot be used to ignore Indigenous or structured societies." It is you saying this. Even if you say this based on your reading of the West Sahara judgement it is still original research because that is a primary sources and you are making a generalisation based on that source alone. It so happens that I mostly agree with your generalisation but two editors agreeing on a proposition not based on the consensus of reliable secondary sources does not make it a reliably sourced statement under wikipedia policy. You need to find a reliable secondary source to support that statement. I have found one that supports most of your comment. I will add it and modify the statement to conform with the reliable source. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's proven in practise. The large majority in the ICJ looked at international law and made that conclusion/reasoning that - a territory that possessed politically and socially organized peoples cannot be terra nullius. This proves that modern international law upholds this principle and wasn't made by some random scholars but one of the most highest respected courts of international law. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Have a look at my change. The problem is that we say the same thing twice: as a general principle and as the finding in the 1975 case. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Look at my change; I removed the repetition explaining that the existence of socially and politically organized peoples preclude classification as terra nullius. I also added that modern OZ human rights law institutions issuing their rejection of colonial-era understanding of the doctrine, as being incompatible with modern developments of the indigenous rights. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see my edit summary. I think your earlier wording along the lines of "the application of terra nullius to inhabited areas has been severely restricted in modern jurisprudence" is better. probably don't even need a citation for that. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you think we should add the Canadian case here? The point is that both superior courts completely rejected the doctrine of terra nullius, at least in its implications for municipal law. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add it then go ahead. It doesn't really matter as it's detailed already in the history section if people want to read about it. The point is that respectively, they recognized the indigenous societies and that makes terra nullius hard to apply when there is recognition of prior indigenous societies and their pre-existing customs. Also it was not my intention to say Australia gov recognized indigenous rights globally. I obviously meant to refer to Australian indigenous. Your wording changes is sufficient enough so I consider it resolved. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Lede is incomplete (outdated legal definition)

Only the original doctrine says any territory without a sovereign is open for legal occupation. But that had clearly been updated with modern legal restrictions where the absence of a recognised state is not enough to qualify for Terra nullius. Nowadays the existence of organised peoples, indigenous societies, territorial authority, and self-determination rights must also be considered for Terra nullius claim. That should be noted in modern legal definition that updates over the classical/original one. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That sounds a good idea. The focus nowadays is on sovereignty and the idea is that a people or population can exercise sovereignty even if they are not organised into a state: their sovereignty is said to be suspended or in abeyance. However, I think we need to sort out the Doctrine section first. It reads like a university essay trying to prove a thesis rather than a balanced assessment of the available scholarship written from a NPOV. The sources you have used are also not the best quality (websites rather than the best scholarly sources) and they don't always support the content you have added. I suggest we focus on the best available sources including authoritative textbooks such as Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law and others.

I am certainly not faultless in my behaviour on this article, but I suggest that you will find that I and most other editors would be a lot more cooperative if you slowed down a bit, and took seriously the objections of other editors that are based on policy and the sources. The Talk pages are not a battle ground where there is a fight to be won. And there is no need to try to make all the changes you would like to see made in the article in record breaking time over the reasonable objections of other editors. We are all here to try to improve the articles based on policy and a fair and balanced assessment of the best available sources.

I still have quite a few concerns with the changes you have made to this article but I am always ready to compromise if my objections to particular changes are taken seriously.

You will also find that the predominant variety of English used in this article was British English before you started your major rewrites in American English. Please see policy on MOS:RETAIN Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The previous version was subtle disinformation. At best, it's oversimplifying and at worst, it's the same identical disinformation used today only by fringe Zionist organizations to justify illegal occupation. Who else is actually seriously using this nowadays for colonial practices? You can call my improvement as "University essay" but it's unacceptable to push disinformation on Wikipedia regardless of how it's written. Unless you have a source stating today's law - that any inhabited territory without recognized sovereignty is open for lawful occupation then we cannot continue to rely on Oppenheim formulation, at least the version that omits the modern international factors that shows that is an outdated framework. Ironically not even Israel is seriously entertaining terra nullius claim because they know it's legally a dead end to pursue because modern international law have indeed significantly reduced terras nullius where it completely dismantled its use for inhabited territory. Your old version falsely insinuates it can be used for inhabited territory - that can never be acceptable and so my version at least fixes that serious error. As for tone being written like an "essay", that just seems awfully pedantic and how else would you explain modern international law has updated and restricted on the old international doctrine of 19th century? The current version is sufficient enough so don't mass revert the fixes. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are bringing Israel and Zionists into this. My concerns relate strictly to wikipedia policy regarding NPOV and the quality of sources. I have tried to fix the Doctrine section to remove the unsourced editorialising and generalisations that were not supported by the cited sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The red line that cannot be compromised is removing the verified fact that modern law no longer generally accepts you can ignore social and organized peoples inhabiting the land and push colonial era legal fiction that it's "empty" or classify it as terra nullius. This shift already occured following rulings like the International Court of Justice's 1975 Western Sahara advisory opinion. Unless you can find a modern ruling that now reversed this position and says we can again take lands that are inhabited and call them as terra nullius, you are just denying modern law and promoting outdated colonial legal fictions by constantly deleting that verified info. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Content on Palestine

Hello all

The recently closed RfC found a consensus that content on Palestine should be included and suggested that a revised version of Option 2 should be the basis for the content, subject to better wording suggesting the relative prominence of opposing views. I have re-added content on Palestine to reflect this.

Happy to discuss, but please note that this topic is subject to the rules regarding contentious topics. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The chapter cannot mislead. There has never been any historical or current claims on Palestine being Terras nullius. This is easy to understand when you dispel the myth. The fact is Palestine was populated, governed, and cultivated long before the creation of today's states in the region. The territory had been governed by the Ottoman Empire for centuries and it then became the British mandate after world war 1. So in which time era were they not under the sovereigty of a recognized state? They went from Ottoman empire continuously to the British. The UN on Question of Palestine: Legal Aspects (Document 1) explicitly wrote; The territory of Palestine was not terra nullius to be given away by the United Nations to anyone.

Even Israel doesn't claim it as such. So this is WP:UNDUE even for historical claims chapter let alone for current claims chapter. Per the doctrine, only a state can make a claim. . Last time I checked, Israel has never made that claim. Not a single leader or major politician have ever passed a law that even resemble terras nullius. Wikipedia cannot push fibs and disinformation that legal claims have been filed when that is not the case. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

It's just some Israeli lawyers with a COI pushing academically fringe views and critics seeing Zionist slogans as terra nullius. Other than that, this arguably shouldn't even be in current claims as if implying the state of Israel has made an active claim. Chapter should only be for countries that now officially claimed lands as Terras nullius. Unless we are lowering the bar and also counting fringe voices (who lack any real power) as qualified claimants now? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Your changes are good. But there have been many claims regarding terra nullius as the cited sources show. "Claims" are not limited to claims made by a state to an international tribunal. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I have slightly changed the sentence construction to show that the citations are for those who do make such claims. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie I think the sentence you added is good. My only concern is that it is a close paraphrase of the source.

You added. "In Palestine's case, claims that the territory was terra nullius have been linked to the "sovereignty-vacuum theory", which has been criticized as resembling colonialism as this theory assumes the indigenous population had no rights. Although the state of Israel has never officially relied on this argument to support its claim to Palestine..."

The source says: "The sovereignty-vacuum theory as applied to Israel has been criticized as smacking of colonialism since it assumes the indigenous population had no rights. Israel itself has never used this argument since it claimed a prior-existing right."

I suggest we reword it to: "Claims that Palestine was terra nullius have been linked to the "sovereignty-vacuum theory", which assumes that Palestinians had no rights. Although Israel has never relied on this argument to support its claim to Palestine…"

This is more concise and not so much a close paraphrase. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

That source was summarizing the scholars. But for wiki purposes and to avoid paraphrasing, I had made the words different and more appropriate in tone: criticized as resembling colonial reasoning as it presumes the absence or suspension of continuing indigenous legal and political rights - and added in that proponents of that theory claimed - that the UN Partition Plan for Palestine created a situation in which sovereigty over the territories of West Bank and Gaza was not clearly vested. Ultimately, zionists arguments for Terra nullius solely rests on their interpretation of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine as having affected the pre-existing sovereigty into a "void". JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie I object to these new additions of yours: "[Sovereignty] was not something that could be "given away by the United Nations" as the organisation possessed no "power, dominion or sovereignty in Palestine" that legally enabled it to unilaterally dispose of the territory.

"Similarly, legal scholars Ian Brownlie and Elihu Lauterpacht argued that the United Nations General Assembly lacked legal authority to transfer sovereignty over Palestine through Resolution 181. Brownlie argued that the United Nations General Assembly could not transfer sovereignty over territory because it was not itself a sovereign authority, while Lauterpacht argued that Resolution 181 could not by itself create new territorial rights, and that any such rights would have to arise from other legal sources, such as agreements, state practice, or subsequent events."

These are arguments against the UN authority to issue Resolution 181. They have nothing to do with terra nullius. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

We are literally talking about sovereigty and arguments that it has no sovereignty. So the UN Partition Plan matters immensely in these terra nullius debates as it is the core context that belies that key legal transition point between colonial administration (the British Mandate) and the question of who had sovereignty afterwards. Some zionist arguments that claims terra nullius to Palestine are associated with their interpretations of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine that suggest the UN effectively altered or disrupted the pre-existing sovereignty framework, producing what those Zionist scholars describe as being a "sovereignty vacuum or void" aka TERRA NULLIUS. Without their interpretation of the UN Partition Plan's effects, zionists literally got nothing else to argue for Terra nullius even if it's a weak argument since the partition plan had no lawful authority to impact or dispose of the existing sovereigty regardless. Thus it is by far the most important part of the chapter if you are talking about Terra nullius claims and anything else pales in comparison in relevance or importance. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

That's your opinion. But Troen, Kedar, Ahmen, Yiftachel, Al-kherson, Atalia Omer, Kintorovich and Mach, who are the scholars we cite in this article, do not make such as argument. You are adding a rebuttal of an argument which is not stated in the article and which has a tenuous link to terra nullius. The section was fine before you added the highlighted passages. Please don't try to turn this section into yet another article debating the pros and cons of the UN partition plan. Particularly when you only present one side of the argument. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I explained to you that Terra nullius is based on the argument that territory of Palestine had no sovereigty. I did not cite your above scholars but clearly cited Henry Cattan, Ian Brownlie and Elihu Lauterpacht. They made the argument that - An inhabited territory, said Brownlie, "cannot be regarded as terra nullius susceptible to appropriation by individual states in case of abandonment by the existing sovereign.//46 and The International Court of Justice made this point in the case involving Spain's departure from its colony of Western Sahara. When Spain relinquished sovereignty, Western Sahara was not terra nullius since there was a people in occupation. They explained the UN system couldn't extinguish the sovereigty regardless of their action as this concerned an inhabited territory that UN has no territorial authority over. If my 3 sources explain that context sufficiently about Palestine having sovereigty not impacted despite what proponents of terra nullius says, it doesn't matter if some other scholars do not. They have limited wordspace but that doesn't mean they disprove what my sources say. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie Please put your citations directly after the sentences you believe they support. This will help other editors check whether the citations support the content. You have also put the sentences in an illogical order. You jump from mandate Palestine to 21st century claims then back to Mandate Palestine and the "sovereignty vacuum theory" then back to 21st century claims that do not even mention this theory. The previous order was more logical. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The order is fine. Also modern day claims are based on the same period of mandate. They are not in reference to some modern event in 21st century they are referring to so it makes no difference. The previous version was also flawed in that it can be misread as if the only criticism of the (reset sovereignty theory) is that it's colonial reasoning. As I couldn't go repeat the earlier paragraph that critics also denounced the label for other reasons. So I consolidated all critics of the theory directly afterward. It's better to first introduce the theory of no sovereignty and then follow it up with all the arguments of critics explaining why it does not result in eradicating sovereignty.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I further consolidated it so entire origin/background is in first paragraph. The second paragraph leads by introducing terra nullius claims and is followed by the academic analysis. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I have made some changes. Quigley is not commenting on the 21st century claims cited in this article, he is commenting on earlier arguments that when Britain abandoned its UN mandate over Palestine it created a legal vacuum in Palestine. He is specifically talking about 1948. (Quigley 2005, p 91). I have restored the Tomas Mach citation. I have separated the citations to those making specific claims of terra nullius in the 21st century from those arguing that Palestine never was terra nullius and can't be now. I have given a more logical order of sentences and paragraphing: first we talk about the region under the Ottoman Empire, then Mandate Palestine, then 21st century claims of terra nullius and rebuttals of these claims. You can't just assert that "Also modern day claims are based on the same period of mandate." You need to cite a reliable secondary source saying just that. Otherwise you are engaging in Original Research. Kontorovich's and Mach's arguments are based on Egypt and Jordan renouncing sovereignty over the Gaza strip and West Bank in 1978 and 1988, not on what happened in Mandate Palestine. As the article states, the other scholars cited are making quite different claims regarding the application of terra nullius to Palestine. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Those claims that Palestine was terra nullius after the end of the Mandate have existed, but they attracted little support in international legal scholarship. So whether a particular claim was made in 1948, 1967, 2005, or 2025 is secondary. Both mid 20th and 21st century are both relatively modern history and are both fringe. The issue with your edit is that it now slants at explicitly only saying 21st century claims have little Academic support but pre-21st century claims are treated differently from that and prob do not refer to the sovereignty vacuum theory at all unlike earlier ones. That is very misleading and why it was better to introduce the theory and then consolidate all academic analysis afterwards in good order. You simply made it all over the place. You are not wrong here that claims are not all 21st century tho is it even necessary to differentiate 1947 - 1999 period from 2000+? A simple fix is to say "since the end of the British Mandate there have been claims that Palestine, or parts of it, were terra nullius" - then add there is little Academic support and then add academic analysis. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

When scholars criticise claim of terra nullius, they are not targeting a specific time frame of Terra nullius claims but any of them that calls the land as terra nullius. I have never once seen scholars specifically mark a time frame where they state only 21st century claims of terra nullius are wrong but not the 20th century claims also saying it is terra nullius. That is original research whether intentional or not. I wasn't the one who originally emphasize that only 21st century claims of terra nullius is wrong which imply 20th century claim are treated differently. That is a terrible way to frame it and seems you originally added that phrase. I didn't notice it until you brought it up. So I corrected to not imply specifically only 21st century claims have little support unlike 20th century with my edit. The chapel is fine now, and further tweaks don't seem likely to improve it in any meaningful way. Unless there's a substantive sourcing or factual issue, I'd prefer to leave it as it is.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasoning, but I think your last changes are improvements. I agree that the section looks quite good now. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Off and running While I understand why you have given Palestine its own section, we need a more concise section heading. The entire discussion on terra Nullius is an academic debate, not just its applicability to Palestine. And there is no need to specify that the debate is about terra nullius because that's what the entire article is about. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Some Zionist figures argue that interpretations linking terra nullius to the UN Partition Plan assume that the General Assembly had the capacity to actually determine or reconfigure / reset sovereignty through its partition plan. Such interpretations have been unsurprisingly criticised in international legal scholarship on the basis that the General Assembly lacks the authority to transfer or extinguish sovereignty. Hence there is not really an academic debate like mainstream scholarship is evenly divided. It's really more a group of predominantly zionists being opposed by the overwhelming mainstream international law scholarship as fringe.

So giving the topic an entire dedicated subchapter would be giving too much weight to a chapter on largely discredited Zionist views firmly denounced by legal scholarship. It should go back into "Current claims" subchapter given the zionist interpretation is WP:fringe and nobody of real official power had been making these claims seriously.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The two other major sections are named "Current claims of terra nullius" and "Historical claims of terra nullius". So in line with that, it would make sense that the section about Palestine, which is at the same level as the two other sections, would have "terra nullius" in the section heading. Since the contents of the section is about an academic theories on the applicability of terra nullius to Palestine, a reasonable section heading would be "Theories on the applicability of terra nullius to Palestine". Off and running (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)