DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Terra nullius

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Palestine and Terra Nullius

[edit]

This section is unsatisfactory. We don't need quotes from post-modernist legal academics who treat "terra nullius" as a metaphor or linguistic construct. What we need is the consensus of international lawyers: is or is not Palestine Terra Nullius in international law.

Happy to discuss but I just don't have the time to do a search of the academic literature on this point. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger Particularly interested in your view on this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate view without time to elaboate is what I said, that the topic should be handled with care (due to its contentious nature). The quote was really just trying to point out the source isnt saying Palestine is terra nullius so the IP who thought it did was probably misled by what the article text said, or did not say. I note it is in a section about current examples of terra nullius that is also potentially misleading. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be happy with the following wording: "Tina Al-khersan, Azadeh Shahshahani and Atalia Oma have linked the establishment of the state of Israel to the concept of terra nullius, but do not argue that Palestine was terra nullius."
These authors appear to be starting from the assumption that Palestine was not terra nullius in 1948 and isn't terra nullius now. But unfortunately they don't state anything clearly.
My concern is that we have Eugene Kontorovich's argument that the Gaza Strip is terra nullius (he is silent on the West Bank), but we don't know whether this is a majority, minority or fringe view. So I would argue that the whole sub-section is possibly misleading as it stands. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy with your suggestion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger Sorry, I have read the two articles again, and I now think that it is more accurate to say: "Tina Al-khersan, Azadeh Shahshahani and Atalia Oma argue that Israel has used the concept to terra nullius to justify the dispossession of Palestinians of their land." The relevant quote from the first article is: "Be it the words "absent" or "dead" the State of Israel relied, and continues to rely, on terra nullius to further the dispossession of Palestinians and to carry out its settler-colonial project." (Al-khersan and Shahshahani (2025) p. 7/17). Also: "As a political movement, Zionism has sought, from its inception, to render the land [of Palestinians] a terra nullius." (Oma (2025)) p. 18 Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I didn't read everything and picked out one quote from several that looked sort of alright. If your quote is used I can see it starting a lively discussion. I wonder if the Israel/Palestine connection with terra nullius wouldn't fit better in a separate section? I don't think Palestine fits well into the definition of terra nullius beyond a fairly rigid interpretation, as I think you have pointed out. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the change. I share your concern about turning this article into yet another battlefield in the Israel-Palestinian debate, but I think we need to summarise the relevant parts of cited articles accurately. If other editors wish to join in, hopefully they will be able to supply reliable sources on the consensus of international lawyers on the terra nullius question as it applies to all or part of contemporary Palestine. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The claim and concept has been applied to Gaza and the ongoing dispute. That is a fact. To be sure, it is a disputed opinion, but it does exist as a statement. It is sourced and verifiable. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. We are not deciding whether it is justified or not. To be sure, there are no doubt contrary opinions, and they can be cited, quoted and referenced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be removed under WP:UNDUE. This is very similar to the example given in WP:UNDUE of people who believe in the Flat Earth not being included in an article about the Earth. Off and running (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid analogy with the flat earth theory. That is a case where there is overwhelming scientific evidence against a theory on a scientific issue. This is a case of a reasoned opinion by an expert in international on a matter of international law. What you need to do is find experts who state a contrary opinion. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Regardless of which side you are on, it is an indisputable fact that all of Palestine has been legally recognized as part of one state or another basically for as long as states have been a thing. While terra nullius can be used as a rhetorical device, either to correctly draw parallels between Zionism and previous iterations of settler-colonialism, or to make racist claims that the government of Gaza is illegitimate because you don't like the outcome of the 2006 election, it doesn't literally apply to the actual situation. ~2026-16692-99 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Off and runningPlease discuss your proposed changes and please cite reliable secondary sources. You can't just delete sourced material because you disagree with it. If you think the author has got it wrong you need to find a secondary source (or sources) which say so and add them to the article along with the opinion they are disputing. See WP:NPOV Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I made my rationale for the removal of the sentence pretty clear in the edit summary. I think the author is completely misusing the term, and hence should not be mentioned in the article.
Remember that WP:VNOT says that just because something is properly reference does not guarantee inclusion, and per WP:ONUS, the onus is on you to get consensus to include in the article contentious content. Off and running (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you say "I think the author is completely misusing the term" you are putting your own personal views above the views of a reliable source (in this case an expert in international law writing in the Wall Street Journal). This breaks the fundamental rationale of wikipedia; ie, that it is based on reliable secondary sources, not on the opinions of editors. Furthermore you have not cited any policy reason for removing the content; you simply state that you think the author (an expert in international law) has got it wrong. Sorry but that won't do. Policy states, "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased." The content appears in a section about "Current claims of Terra Nullius". We have an expert in international law claiming that Palestine is terra nullius and giving his reasons for this. It is up to you to find scholarly sources that show that the author has got it wrong. As for onus, the discussion above shows that you are the only editor objecting to the inclusion whereas we have three for it (including the editor who originally added the content). The consensus therefore is currently for inclusion.
If you read this thread through and look at the edit history of the article, you will see that I agree with you that Kontorovich has got it wrong. But the way to remedy this is to add reliably sourced content that contradicts his opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't be about suppressing relevant expert views with which we as editors disagree. We should accurately record current disputes between expert sources. Surely you can find some statement by some expert that Gaza remains the sovereign territory of an independent Palestinian state? That would be much better than trying to suppress an expert opinion you disagree with. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's NOT considered WP:SECONDARY when it's an editorial. See WP:NEWSOPED. Off and running (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Off and running I have rewritten your edits to make them more concise and neutral in point of view. As editors, we should avoid adding commentary on contested matters. We should just accurately summarise the relevant points made by scholars and let them speak for themselves. For example, if we say that in 2025 these authors have extended the concept of terra nullius to Palestine we are making a personal assessment on the significance and meaning of these articles. (Indeed the first two articles are arguing that Terra nullius has always been used by Zionists in relation to Palestine.) And if we say "x goes further" we are also making a personal assessment on the substance of the article. Also, specifying that someone is "a self proclaimed anti-Zionist Jew" introduces a bias as it suggests to readers that this should influence their reception of their arguments. As far as I know, all of the scholars cited are lawyers or academics with relevant expertise. That's all we need to say in letting readers know who they are. Also avoid words like "claims", "makes the claim", as this implies doubt about the statement. Please re-read WP:NPOV for further guidance on this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have several issues with your edit, which I will break into separate sections. Off and running (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory sentence that these are new theories

[edit]

We ought to do a better job to emphasize that these are new theories about an issue that has persisted for either 20 years, 60 years, 80 years, or 130 years than just to say that the theories were introduced in 2025. The reason for the different numbers is because

It is therefore important to introduce the topic that these are new theories to describe conditions that have existed for a long time. Off and running (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point. Calling these "new theories" (whatever that means) is editorial commentary. If you want to state in the article that these are "new theories" you will need to find a reliable source that describes them as exactly that. Please read policy on original research. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Background on Atalia Omer

[edit]

Since Atalia Omer does not have a Wikipedia page, it's important to give something about her background that is relevant to her theory. The fact that she is a self-proclaimed anti-Zionist Jew is the perfect background. Off and running (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't relevant, it is biased as I explain above. The idea that people's views on matters of international law should be given more or less weight based on their religion or nationality is offensive. Particularly when only people of one religion or nationality are singled out for this treatment. She is an academic with relevant expertise. That's all that matters. Anyway, you have already added an article she wrote which explains her background and opinions on various issues. I suggest you re-read this article yourself because you seem to have missed her major point. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relations between Omer's theory and the Al-khersan / Shahshahani theory

[edit]

The State of Israel is the fruition of the Zionist project. Therefore, Atalia Omer's theory which says that Zionism calls the land terra nullius is an extension of the Al-khersan / Shahshahani theory that Israel used terra nullius as a justification for its policies. Off and running (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. That's editorial comment. let the readers read the article and decide for themselves. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Kontorovich's theory

[edit]

Whereas the three academians, Al-khersan, Azadeh Shahshahani, and Atalia Omer published in peer reviewed academic journals, Eugene Kontorovich's is just an editorial. His theory is based on something that is dubious at best (that the Gaza Strip is "not under the sovereignty of any nation"). It is therefore important to add that it's his opinion. Off and running (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on Kontorovich's arguments are irrelevant and should not influence the way we present them. The article already states that the view is his. If readers want to know where he expressed his expert legal opinion they can simply click on the citation.
I've already explained all this. Let's let other editors have their say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just wipe the section

[edit]

I really don't see how it's possible to keep the section without violating WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE. The vast majority of legal scholars do not consider the territories claimed by the State of Palestine to be terra nullius.--JasonMacker (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The three theories are fringe, inconsistent, and in some cases contradictory. Although WP:UNDUE does not require removing the fringe theories, it does require presenting them as such. I tried to properly present the theories as fringe, and ran into an obstacle. So better to remove than present them as serious theories. Off and running (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonMacker If you are so certain that these theories are fringe and that the "vast majority of legal scholars do not consider the the territories claimed by Palestine to be terra nullius" then you should easily be able to find reliable secondary sources that say just that. The way to remedy perceived bias in an article is to add reliable sources which state alternative views. You don't removed reliably sourced views on legal issues from experts in the field just because you disagree with what they say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
>add reliable sources which state alternative views.
So, we have an entire article on this: International recognition of Palestine. That's 157 member states of the United Nations. This is not really an "alternative view" because it's the mainstream view. And that's just the member states of the UN. If you want, you can do a search on Google Scholar to find countless examples of academic articles written by experts that declare the Gaza Strip to be part of the State of Palestine. JasonMacker (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Even minority opinions should be covered with WP:DUE weight. I'm ok with as little as a single sentence on this topic, but strongly opposed to deleting it altogether.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new content

[edit]

I have found a legal expert expressing a different view on the status of Gaza under international law. My proposed rewrite of the section follows. I also propose that we move the section to the main heading "Historical claims of terra nullius". Whatever the merits of Kontorovich's argument that Gaza was terra nullius, it has been overtaken by events, specifically the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2803. Nevertheless, it behoves an encyclopaedia to record that there has been significant academic discussion of historical claims (including in very recent history) that Palestine was terra nullius.

My proposed text is:

In 2025, Tina Al-khersan and Azadeh Shahshahani wrote that Israel has used the concept of terra nullius to justify the dispossession of Palestinians of their land,[1] while academic Atalia Omer,[2] wrote that Zionism has sought to render the disputed land terra nullius.[3] The same year, legal academic Eugene Kontorovich argued that the Gaza Strip was terra nullius as it is "not under the sovereignty of any nation".[4] Marco Longobargo, of the University of Westminster,[5] writes that, as of 7 July 2024, there was no doubt that the Gaza Strip was occupied territory according to international law and that Israel was the occupying power.[6] United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted on 17 November 2025, contains provisions for the transitional governance of the Gaza Strip before turning over its governance to a reformed Palestinian Authority.[7]

Pinging those who have been involved in this discussion. Any comments on this proposal welcome. @Roger 8 Roger, Off and running, and JasonMacker: and 7&6=thirteen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemilius Adolphin (talk • contribs) 03:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That draft looks fine in my opinion. Slightly tangential, but I noticed the quote that Gaza was terra nullius because it is "not under the sovereignty of any nation". I think a territorium nullius existed when nobody or no centralised authority exercised any effective control over an area, which does not necessarily mean having sovereignty, which is a narrower, recent and Eurocentric concept. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good addition, @Aemilius Adolphin. I would split the proposed paragraph into two:
  1. Paragraph 1: the Al-khersan-Azadeh Shahshahani and Omer theories that apply to the entire area of British Mandate Palestine
  2. Paragraph 2: the Kontorovich theory that applies only to the Gaza strip.
I would also explicitly add that Kontorovich's theory is contrry to Longobardo's legal opinion and UNSC Resolution 2803. Otherwise, it's just disjoint pieces of information. Off and running (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just wipe the section. Totally non-notable fringe view that doesn't need to be mentioned, for WP:UNDUE reasons. Maybe if this was an article specifically on the crackpot theories of Israelis, it could be mentioned, but alas, this is not that article. WIPE. "Dr. Jon Doe believes that E equals mc cubed" should never appear anywhere in Wikipedia's science articles. In that specific person's wikipedia article, maybe. This is a similar situation, except the guy isn't even notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. JasonMacker (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonMacker Please don't change the article to your preferred option before the discussion is finished. You have no consensus for your changes. Please don't remove reliably sourced content because you disagree with it. Please see policy on WP:disruptive editing. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He now has a consensus. I am supporting the removal of the content of these fringe theories. Off and running (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Off and running Please self-revert your deletion of relevant reliably-sourced content. There is no consensus for its removal. The issue is still under discussion, but as far as I can see we have only two users, you and JasonMacker who who support removal. I support retention, 7&6=thirteen supports retention but hasn't yet had a chance to reply to my proposed new wording, and Roger 8 Roger support retention with the new wording added. There is also the editor who originally posted the content on Palestine. As I forgot to ping this editor I will do it now. In any event the current consensus is against deleting the section. Please don't be a disruptive editor, restore the content and wait until the discussion has run its course.
@Vice regent I understand you originally added the content on Palestine. Do you have a view on its inclusion/exclusion, or my proposed new wording? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are distorting the situation. I too supported your new wording, but am more in favor of removal. Off and running (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a formal RFC for me to have to wait for the discussion to finish. Any editor is free to revert my changes if they disagree, including you (but consider the restrictions of Contentious Topics). The issue isn't whether it's reliably sourced or not. The issue is whether it is WP:UNDUE or not. The answer is that it's incredibly undue. This article is about areas that are broadly understood to be terra nullius, not a platform for fringe academics to share their views that directly go against the vast consensus of 150+ countries and countless scholars. As it says at WP:UNDUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "See also" to an article about those specific views." This view that Palestinian territories are terra nullius is an incredibly tiny minority view, and as it says on the policy page, should not be included at all. JasonMacker (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong to think that the normal rules relating to disruptive editing only applies to formal requests for comment. Please re-read the policy on disruptive editing. Disruptive editing includes "repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors" and also includes trying to push through your preferred version of the article despite the objections of other editors. As far as I can see, you are one of only two editors involved in this discussion who wants to delete the entire section on Palestine. Your argument that this section is undue ignores the reliable sources cited in the section and in my proposed rewording. The article is about terra nullius. The section is about academic discussion of terra nullius as applied to various countries. The sub-section you removed incudes three articles by four experts in the field each discussing Palestine in relation to the concept of terra nullius. So when we consider whether the sub-section is undue, the issue isn't "is Palestine currently terra nullius?" the issue is "has there been academic discussion of terra nullius in relation to Palestine which should be recorded in this article?" The very fact that we have three recent reliably sourced articles by academics specialising in international law and other relevant fields indicates that such discussion is not fringe. Rather than suppressing reliably sourced discussion by experts on this topic and pretending it doesn't exist, we should be including content which summarises it accurately, concisely and from a neutral point of view. We should restore the content you deleted until a consensus emerges regarding any changes to its wording. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the key problem. As you correctly stated, "The section is about academic discussion of terra nullius as applied to various countries". Terra nullius does not apply to countries.
Although the section is about novel academic theories (that are not even consistent with each other), they are fringe. Being well referenced, and by academians, does not make the these theories main stream.
Therefore, we need a clear consensus to include the fringe theories, and at the moment, I'm just not seeing a clear consensus for inclusion of the fringe theories. All I'm seeing at the moment is your support for inclusion, and that's not a consensus. Off and running (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree removing this material entirely. I'm ok with reducing it to Aemilius' first sentence: "In 2025, Tina Al-khersan and Azadeh Shahshahani wrote that Israel has used the concept of terra nullius to justify the dispossession of Palestinians of their land,[1] while academic Atalia Omer,[2] wrote that Zionism has sought to render the disputed land terra nullius.[3]" Or something else. But I've seen terra nullius used (and abused) again and again in the I-P legal discourse.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "used and abused". To present it within the section titled "Current claims of terra nullius" is therefore not acceptable. Off and running (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So please propose more neutral wording. VR (Please ping on reply) 22:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made several changes to improve the content, the vast majority were reverted with the explanation that almost everything I put in constituted "original research".
    In addition, I proposed in the subsection below to take out the content of the section in question and place it into a new "Academic claims" section.
    I'm not opposed to including fringe theories, so long that the theories are presented as fringe. Off and running (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you prefer this wording: In 2025 academians offered theories that extend the concept of terra nullius to Palestine. Tina Al-khersan and Azadeh Shahshahani made the claim that Israel has used the concept of terra nullius to justify the dispossession of Palestinians of their land, while Atalia Omer, a self-proclaimed Anti-Zionist Jew, went further and theorized that Zionism itself relies on the land having been terra nullius. Also in 2025, Eugene Kontorovich of The Heritage Foundation published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the Gaza Strip was terra nullius because in his words the Strip is "not under the sovereignty of any nation".
    I would suggest a much simpler version like: "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 State of Palestine doesn't exist, concluded that Gaza Strip was terra nullius."
    If we look at literature, it seems that the terra nullius of Palestine (or Gaza) really comes from those who reject the existence of a Palestinian state.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would accept VR's more concise wording as a compromise. However, I suggest that we should add the sentence, "Marco Longobargo, in contradiction of Kontorovich, states there was no doubt that the Gaza Strip is occupied territory according to international law and that Israel was the occupying power." Kontorovich's argument rests on the premise that Gaza is not part of a state and therefore cannot be occupied territory. Longobargo states that it is occupied territory. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't find any explicit references to terra nullius in Longobardo's writing, so I'd avoid using it for now.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Longobardo doesn't have to write about terra nullius to be used as a reference. We can just point out that Eugene Kontorovich's opinion that the Gaza Strip is "not under the sovereignty of any nation" is contrary to Longobardo's legal opinion. The opinion that the Gaza Strip is "not under the sovereignty of any nation" is the basis for Kontorovich's conclusion that the Gaza Strip is terra nullius. Off and running (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Kontorovich's opinion that the Gaza Strip is "not under the sovereignty of any nation" is based on three assumptions (that he explicitly states in his article):
    • Egypt doesn't claim sovereignty over Gaza
    • Israel doesn't claim sovereignty over Gaza
    • Gaza can't be under Palestinian sovereignty since Palestine, in his view, doesn't exist
    RS have never challenged the first assumption and I'm not even sure they challenge the second assumption. Its his third assumption that's the noteworthy one (and frankly, widely rejected by RS). Do you agree? VR (Please ping on reply) 00:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If such a section is to stay, it should be frontloaded with many sentences that explain how the vast majority of countries and scholars do not consider Palestine to be terra nullius. And then the fringe position can be mentioned with the caveat that it is widely rejected. Personally, I don't see much value in such a section, but if editors REALLY want such a section, then it still needs to follow WP:UNDUE. JasonMacker (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Since these are new theories (all from 2025), I don't think there has been much time to widely reject them. Specifically, the theories by Tina Al-khersan and Azadeh Shahshahani and Atalia Omer were published in peer reviewed journals. While that doesn't mean that those theories are not fringe, it shows that there was some level of support, since their theories were reviewed before publication.
    Bottom line: I doubt that there is much to find on Palestine NOT being terra nullius, since there hasn't been much time to refute these new theories. Off and running (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I linked to earlier in this section, there is a lot on Palestine not being terra nullius, because of International recognition of Palestine. So, this view that Palestine is "terra nullius" is in direct contradiction with international recognition of the state. Note that the view that territories claimed by Palestine are terra nullius is itself a fringe of a fringe minority, because not recognizing the specific government of the state of Palestine is not the same as the view that there is no Palestinian state, or that the territory simply belongs to Israel rather than nobody. JasonMacker (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And what makes this even trickier is that Tina Al-khersan, Azadeh Shahshahani, and Atalia Omer are not even saying that Palestine is terra nullius. They're accusing Israel (Al-khersan & Shahshahani) and Zionism (Omer) of using the concept of terra nullius to justify their policies / ideology. Off and running (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New content proposals 2 and 3

[edit]

Given the discussions above, I propose two new versions of the content on Palestine

Proposal 2 takes into account some of the comments made by Off and running. It divides the content into 2 paragraphs and specifies that these are 21st century sources. I have replaced the article by Longobardo with an article on the ICJ Advisory Opinion which states that Gaza is Occupied Palestinian Territory. This should dispose of Kontorovich's argument. However, I think Kontorovich and the other cited sources should be retained and moved to the section on "Historical claims of Terra Nullius" because the article should record that Israel/Zionists have used the concept of terra nullius (or concepts closely akin to it) in relation to Palestinian land.

Proposal 3 is more concise and is based on VP's preferred wording. However, I have added the article on the ICJ advisory opinion for the reasons cited above. Please provide your comments/preferences below.

Proposal 2

In the 21st century, a number of scholars have used the concept of terra nullius in their analysis of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Tina Al-khersan and Azadeh Shahshahani write that Israel has used the concept of terra nullius to justify the dispossession of Palestinians of their land,[8] while academic Atalia Omer,[9] writes that Zionism has sought to render the disputed land terra nullius.[10]

In March 2025, legal academic Eugene Kontorovich argued that the Gaza Strip was terra nullius as it is "not under the sovereignty of any nation".[11] In July 20025, the International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion stating that the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip was a single territorial unit and was Occupied Palestinian Territory.[12]

Proposal 3

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.[13][14] Eugene Kontorovich, arguing that State of Palestine doesn't exist, concluded that Gaza Strip was terra nullius.[15] In July 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion stating that the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip was a single territorial unit and was Occupied Palestinian Territory.[16]

--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reject both proposals - A clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Tucking away the view of the vast majority of countries in a throw-away citation of an ICJ ruling is incredibly imbalanced. Also, what is the section going to be about? It leads with the Shahshahani and Omer article, which accuses someone else of believing in terra nullius... why is this important enough to lead with? Why is this section even important enough to mention alongside Bir Tawil, Gornja Siga, and Antarctic territory? As stated in the hatnote of the article (as well as many other places), "This article is about a region of land that is not claimed by any party." So immediately, this is flatly rejected by the vast majority of people, states, institutions, and organizations, with respect to Palestine. Clearly, the territories claimed by the State of Palestine are claimed by that state. In contrast, Bir Tawil is literally claimed by nobody actually notable. That's what makes it terra nullius. The same is true of Gornja Siga, and Marie Byrd Land. In the case of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, we clearly have one principal claimant: Palestine. And then, even if that is disregarded on the idea that Palestinians are subhuman and their claims shouldn't be recognized, there is the secondary claimant, which is Israel. You know, the country that regularly displays these territories as part of its own territory (see examples such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)? Why is this fringe theory of terra nullius so important to mention? It is not only rejected by the vast majority, but it is also rejected by a sizeable minority of pro-Israel people. It is the fringe of the fringe. Just drop it. It doesn't belong anywhere in this article.--JasonMacker (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with you that those theories are crap. But that's not a reason to supress them, especially since they were published in well respected academic journals (Al-khersan-Shahshahani and Omer) or a well respected publication (Kontorovich).
    We just need to make sure we present them as academic theories, not facts. Off and running (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't suppression, the issue is WP:UNDUE. Kontorovich's theory can be mentioned in his own Wikipedia page, but not here. It's too fringe. As WP:UNDUE says, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "See also" to an article about those specific views." This is a tiny minority, and it should not be included at all. JasonMacker (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I changed my position based on your quote from WP:UNDUE. It wasn't an easy decision, but that's the appropach we are expected to take. Off and running (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with Proposal 2 if
  1. We put the content in a new section called something like "Academic theories on the application of Terra nullius in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict" rather than under the section of "current claims of terra nullius"
  2. We point out that Al-khersan and Shahshahani do not point to any official Israeli document using the term Terra nullius and that Omer does not quote any document or Zionist leader claiming Terra nullius.
  3. We contrast Kontorovich's theory with the opinions in Longobardo's 2024 paper (and say that Kontorovich does not address those opinions) rather use the International Court of Justice opinion that was published after his editorial (because the ICJ's opinion presumably does not address his editorial, and he obviously could not have addressed in his editorial an opinion released after he published his editorial).
  4. We point out that Omer's theory comes from an inherit bias of a person who is a self-proclaimed anti-Zionist Jew.

The idea behind those conditions is to make it abundantly clear that those are just theories, not facts. I don't expect my first condition to be too controversial, but I would suspect that @Aemilius Adolphin will accuse me that the second and third conditions constitute original research. In my opinion, it does not constitute original research to point out what is missing from the academic papers. We can report both what is in the papers, and what is not in the papers. Off and running (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite opposed to #4, as that just looks like WP:OR to me. Seriously, what does this have to do with the topic on hand? Everyone has their biases and why do we need to identify the religious/ethnic identity of the scholars at hand? Are Al-khersan and Shahshahani Muslim? I don't know, and we shouldn't care if they are.
For #3, I agree in principle, but lets please find sources that actually talk about terra nullius.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research. See her 9 May 2025 editorial. Off and running (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but has she, or any other source, connected her anti-Zionism to her positions on terra nulius? VR (Please ping on reply) 03:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me. She calls herself anti-Zionist, and she postulated academic theories about Zionism. She made the connection herself. Off and running (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me the source that mentions both her anti-Zionism and her positions on terra nulius? Obama self-identifies as black, but that doesn't mean we gotta mention that fact every time we talk about his opinions. The relevance between the two facts should ideally be established by RS.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And being a Muslim is not a bias. But being anti-Zionist talking about Zionism is a bias. Off and running (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose Off and Running's proposed rewrites because they are OR and editorial commentary. We are not writing an academic paper providing a commentary on the reliable sources, so we can't "point out that that Al-khersan and Shahshahani do not point to any official Israeli document using the term Terra nullius and that Omer does not quote any document or Zionist leader claiming Terra nullius." Nor is it up to us to "point out" that someone is supposedly biased. All we need do is summarise their argument that Israel/zionist have used the concept of terra nullius to justify their dispossession of Palestinian land. (By the way, a state does not have to use the term "terra nullius" to be effectively using that concept as a basis for its actions. As the authors explain, the Zionist trope that Palestine "is a land without a people" is very much in line with the terra nullius doctrine.) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent, I don't see the necessity of only citing articles which use the term "terra nullius". Kontorovich specifically argues that Gaza is terra nullius because it does not belong to a Palestinian state or a separate Gaza state. Once we cite that opinion we are perfectly entitled to present a contrary opinion, especially when this is more authoritative. The ICJ opinion is that the Gaza Strip is Occupied Palestinian Territory according to international law (ie it belongs to Palestine). It can't be both Palestinian territory and terra nullius. There is no need for the ICJ to further specify that it isn't terra nullius, just as it isn't necessary for them to specify that it isn't Norwegian territory or Dutch territory etc. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully agree with you, but I'll let this thing slide for now.
It can't be both Palestinian territory and terra nullius. - I agree. But why is occupation relevant here? VR (Please ping on reply) 03:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on @JasonMacker's quotation of WP:UNDUE, I regretfully have to change my non-vote to "No inclusion of the content in either proposed version". I hate to have to do that, because I don't believe in supressing well referenced content that is relevant, but WP:UNDUE simply does not allow us to include fringe theories along with explanation why they are fringe. The fringe theories can be incorporated into the authors' biographical articles (Azadeh Shahshahani & Eugene Kontorovich).
    Ironically, it was @Aemilius Adolphin who convinced me that the theories are too fringe to include. Obviously, the first part of Zionism's motto, "A land without a people for a people without a land", means that the land is uninhabited (in reality it was only sparsley populated, not unpopulated, but that's besides the point). It does not mean that the land is terra nullius. In fact, it's the exact opposite of terra nullius. Zionism's goal is for the Jews to realize their millenia-old claim to the land. Off and running (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the reliable sources cited above, there are plenty of others. For example, Tomáš Mach, writing in 2024, argued that the West Bank was terra nullius.[17] Oren Yiftachel argues that Israel's "dead Negev doctrine" was a form of terra nullius which they used to dispossess Bedouins of their land.[18] Ilan Troen writes, "A crucial issue in the contemporary debate over the legitimacy of Jewish claims is whether Palestine was terra nullius. The concept had become widespread by the time of the Balfour Declaration in the form that Palestine was "A land without a people, for a people without a land."[19]
    Now, we might think that some of these authors are misusing terra nullius or are simply wrong in law, but the view that Israel, Zionists and some others have used the concept of terra nullius to justify the dispossession of Palestinians is clearly mainstream rather than fringe and ought to be discussed in an article on Terra Nullius. If you still doubt it, I invite you to enter the terms "terra nullius" plus "Palestine" into any good academic search engine and you will find dozens of hits to reliable sources. In any event, we now have four editors on this thread who support in principle the reinstatement of content on Claims of terra nullius in Palestine. The only issue is the wording. To this end I have developed a fourth proposed wording below. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained, these are a minority view within the Israeli POV, because most Israelis do not consider the West Bank or Gaza terra nullius, but simply territory of Israel. JasonMacker (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New content proposal 4

[edit]

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.[20][21] Eugene Kontorovich, arguing that State of Palestine doesn't exist, concluded that Gaza Strip was terra nullius.[22] Jean-François Gareau, writing in 2005, argued that the territory claimed by Palestine was not terra nullius but territory under the sovereignty of the Palestinian people until a Palestinian state should come into existence.[23] Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent Does this address your concerns with Proposal 3? Happy for comments from any other editor. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is very good. Lets stick to this version and if other disagree, the next step would be an RfC.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger Sorry to bother you again. There appears little chance of the earlier draughts gaining a consensus. (See proposals 2 and 3.) Would you be able to live with this version? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following this long standing debate since January. I do wonder if Palestine should simply not be mentioned. The term terra nullius is not the same as without sovereignty (a modern Western concept), which makes the opinions of some writers basically flawed, or at best fringe theory. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In international law, "sovereignty" simply means the authority of an independent state. It is the basis of international law and the United Nations. Sovereignty is also the basis of the concept of terra nullius in international law. As the article says, "terra nullius is territory which belongs to no state. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius can be acquired by any state by occupation.[24] According to Oppenheim: "The only territory which can be the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for individuals may live on a territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising sovereignty over such territory."[25]
The proposal cites numerous scholars who discuss Palestine in relation to terra nullius. I could add plenty more but was trying to keep the content brief and simple as a possible way of gaining consensus. In determining whether these views are "fringe" the issue isn't "is Palestine terra nullius as of today's date"; the issue is: "does a significant body of recent scholarship discuss Palestine in relation to terra nullius and should this be recorded in an encyclopaedic article on terra nullius." I think the answer is definitely "yes", for the reasons I have argued in this discussion. The only issue is how to summarise this extensive body of recent scholarship accurately and from a NPOV. Suppressing it on the grounds that it is "fringe" is the very worst option, particularly when those arguing it is fringe have not come up with a single reliable source which says something like, "the recent scholarship on terra nullius and Palestine represents a tiny fringe view that is not taken seriously by subject experts." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you respond to objections that are being raised at a fundamental level rather than just creating more and more new subsections and proposing slightly different wordings and phrasings? Very simply, do you acknowledge that the view that the West Bank and/or Gaza are terra nullius is a fringe view? And accordingly, there needs to be careful consideration in order to avoid giving it undue weight? Do you acknowledge the current situation of the view, which is that it is a minority within a minority? As in, the hierarchy of views is as follows:
  • The area is part of the State of Palestine: This is the commonly accepted view of the vast majority of governments, organizations, and experts, and is presented on Wikipedia using wikivoice.
  • The area is part of the State of Israel: This is the minority view that only a few governments, organizations, and experts adhere to. This is presented on Wikipedia using attribution due to serious contention.
  • The area is terra nullius: This is a fringe view that is a minority within the minority. As in, of the people who reject the commonly accepted view, this is a minority within that minority.
This is the same hierarchy that the Jimbo Wales quote at WP:UNDUE is talking about:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
This maps perfectly to what is happening here. Is there anything in what I've presented that you disagree with? JasonMacker (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add to to @JasonMacker, it's not just Eugene Kontorovich's theory on the Gaza Strip that is fringe. The other two theories about Israel using the concept of terra nullius to justify its policies (Al-khersan & Azadeh Shahshahani) and Zionism using terra nullius as a foundation for its ideology (Omer) are equally fringe.
None of the theories are consistent with the way that the article defines terra nullius. Off and running (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to your arguments several times. Please read or reread my comments, citations and the sources I have cited. In contrast you have not provided a single reliable source that states that the recent scholarly discussion on terra nullius and Palestine is fringe. Using the talk page to propose alternative wording for the re-inclusion of the content on terra nullius and Palestine was a good faith attempt to build a consensus. The next step will be a Request For Comment. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to prove a negative. Since these are fringe theories, it would be unlikely that anybody would spend the effort to discuss these fringe theories. Off and running (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For an alleged fringe theory, plenty of subject experts seem to be discussing it in reliable sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Two is not plenty. The third fringe theory is an editorial, which is not considered a reliable source. Off and running (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since all three theories are different, the true count are 3 fringe theories, two of which were published in WP:RS, but they're not WP:SECONDARY to the authors of the theories, and a third fringe theory was not even published in WP:RS since it's an editorial. Off and running (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not my (or any other editor's) job to try to guess what your views are using everything you've written thus far. Especially since your behavior of continuing to make more and more subsections seems POINTy. I am giving you a direct opportunity to explain yourself, and you're brushing it off and refusing to provide a consolidated position for yourself. I once again ask you to clarify your view here. I want to know:
1. Explicitly, whether you accept or reject the idea that "The West Bank and Gaza are terra nullius" is a fringe view. In your reply to Off and running, you call it an "alleged fringe theory." Does this mean you are rejecting the characterization of "The West Bank and Gaza are terra nullius" as a fringe theory?
2. Explicitly, whether you accept or reject the idea that "The West Bank and Gaza are part of the State of Palestine" is the widely accepted mainstream view.
3. Explicitly, whether you accept or reject the idea that "The West Bank and Gaza are part of the State of Israel" is a prominent minority view.
4. Explicitly, whether you accept or reject the idea that "The West Bank and Gaza are part of the State of Palestine" is in direct contradiction to the "The West Bank and Gaza are terra nullius" view.
Because for me, I accept all four ideas, and its on that basis that I am dismissing any mention of West Bank and/or Gaza as terra nullius in this article. JasonMacker (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1. "The West Bank and Gaza are terra nullius" is a tiny minority view, but notable.
2. Accept.
3. Yeah, very minority view, but notable.
4. Accept.
VR (Please ping on reply) 23:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny minority = WP:FRINGE, and per WP:UNDUE, not notable. Off and running (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1. Is the the proposition that Israel, Zionists and some others use terra nullius arguments to justify the dispossession of Palestinians a mainstream view?
Answer: Yes. As the cited reliable sources demonstrate.
2. Do Israelis, Zionists and some others still sometimes argue that parts of Palestine are terra nullius?
Answer yes. As the cited reliable sources demonstrate.
3. Should all this be included in an encyclopaedic article about terra nullius in a section devoted to past and present claims of terra nullius?
Answer. Yes.
4. Should this be presented in the article accurately and from a NPOV?
Answer: Yes. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of answering my questions, you wrote your own questions and answered them. This conversation will not be productive if you refuse to engage. JasonMacker (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Al-khersan, Tina; Shahshahani, Azadeh (2025-07-14). "The Colonial Order Prevails in Palestine: The Right to Self-Determination from a Third World Approach to International Law". Yale Journal of International Law. Retrieved 2025-09-21. Be it the words 'absent' or 'dead' the State of Israel relied, and continues to rely, on terra nullius to further the dispossession of Palestinians and to carry out its settler-colonial project.
  2. ^ Omer, Atalia (9 May 2025). "I'm an Israeli professor. Why is my work in Harvard's antisemitism report?". The Guardian.
  3. ^ Omer, Atalia (2025-05-22). "Turning Palestine into a Terra Nullius: On Amalek and "Miracles"". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–22. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2504737. ISSN 1462-3528. As a political movement, Zionism has sought, from its inception, to render the land [in question] a terra nullius.
  4. ^ Kontorovich, Eugene (13 June 2025). "International Law Is No Bar to Trump's Gaza Proposal". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 23 September 2025. Retrieved 23 September 2025.
  5. ^ Longobardo, Marco. "Dr Marco Longobardo". University of Westminster. Retrieved 2 April 2026.
  6. ^ Longobardo, Marco (9 July 2024). "Expert opinion on the Status of the Gaza Strip after October 2023 and Corresponding Israeli Obligations upon request of Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement" (PDF). Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement. Retrieved 2 April 2026.
  7. ^ Lewis, Simon (2025-11-18). "UN Security Council adopts US resolution on Trump's Gaza plan". Reuters. Retrieved 2025-12-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ Al-khersan, Tina; Shahshahani, Azadeh (2025-07-14). "The Colonial Order Prevails in Palestine: The Right to Self-Determination from a Third World Approach to International Law". Yale Journal of International Law. Retrieved 2025-09-21. Be it the words 'absent' or 'dead' the State of Israel relied, and continues to rely, on terra nullius to further the dispossession of Palestinians and to carry out its settler-colonial project.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference :78 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Omer, Atalia (2025-05-22). "Turning Palestine into a Terra Nullius: On Amalek and "Miracles"". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–22. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2504737. ISSN 1462-3528. As a political movement, Zionism has sought, from its inception, to render the land [in question] a terra nullius.
  11. ^ Kontorovich, Eugene (13 June 2025). "International Law Is No Bar to Trump's Gaza Proposal". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 23 September 2025. Retrieved 23 September 2025.
  12. ^ Shalaldah, Mohammad Fahed (2025). "The Legal Basis for the Recognition of the State of Palestine under International Law". Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture; East Jerusalem. 29 (3–4): 26–34.
  13. ^ Al-khersan, Tina; Shahshahani, Azadeh (2025-07-14). "The Colonial Order Prevails in Palestine: The Right to Self-Determination from a Third World Approach to International Law". Yale Journal of International Law. Retrieved 2025-09-21. Be it the words 'absent' or 'dead' the State of Israel relied, and continues to rely, on terra nullius to further the dispossession of Palestinians and to carry out its settler-colonial project.
  14. ^ Omer, Atalia (2025-05-22). "Turning Palestine into a Terra Nullius: On Amalek and "Miracles"". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–22. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2504737. ISSN 1462-3528. As a political movement, Zionism has sought, from its inception, to render the land [in question] a terra nullius.
  15. ^ Kontorovich, Eugene (13 June 2025). "International Law Is No Bar to Trump's Gaza Proposal". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 23 September 2025. Retrieved 23 September 2025.
  16. ^ Shalaldah, Mohammad Fahed (2025). "The Legal Basis for the Recognition of the State of Palestine under International Law". Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture; East Jerusalem. 29 (3–4): 26–34.
  17. ^ Mach, Tomas (2024). "Legal History and the Development of Rights of Inhabitants of the West Bank since 1948 Pursuant to International Law". Journal on European History of law. 2004 (1): 190–201.
  18. ^ Yiftachel, Oran (2018). "'Terra Nullius' and Planning: Land, Law and Identity in Israel/Palestine". In Bahn, Gautam; Smita, Srinivas; Watson, Vanessa (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Planning in the Global South. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 244–247. ISBN 9781315678993.
  19. ^ Troen, S. Ilan (2013). "Israeli Views of the Land of Israel/Palestine". Israel Studies. 18 (2): 100–114.
  20. ^ Al-khersan, Tina; Shahshahani, Azadeh (2025-07-14). "The Colonial Order Prevails in Palestine: The Right to Self-Determination from a Third World Approach to International Law". Yale Journal of International Law. Retrieved 2025-09-21. Be it the words 'absent' or 'dead' the State of Israel relied, and continues to rely, on terra nullius to further the dispossession of Palestinians and to carry out its settler-colonial project.
  21. ^ Omer, Atalia (2025-05-22). "Turning Palestine into a Terra Nullius: On Amalek and "Miracles"". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–22. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2504737. ISSN 1462-3528. As a political movement, Zionism has sought, from its inception, to render the land [in question] a terra nullius.
  22. ^ Kontorovich, Eugene (13 June 2025). "International Law Is No Bar to Trump's Gaza Proposal". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 23 September 2025. Retrieved 23 September 2025.
  23. ^ Gareau, Jean-François (2005). "Shouting at the Wall: Self-Determination and the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". Leiden Journal of International Law. 18 (2005): 489–521. doi:10.1017/S0922156505002840. Consequently, it would appear that the Palestinians are laying claim to a territory over which no one – that is, no existing state – exercises sovereignty. While this, in days gone by, would have meant that the land in question would be deemed terra nullius and open for title acquisition, there is no question of that being the case here. On the contrary, the sovereignty does exist, and it resides in the Palestinian people, although, dormant until such time as they may implement their wish, it can be said to be 'in abeyance'.
  24. ^ Grant, John P.; Barker, J. Craig (2009). Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 596. ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7.
  25. ^ Jennings, Robert; Watts, Sir Arthur, eds. (1992). Oppenheim's International Law, Vol. I, Peace. Burnt Mill: Longman. p. 687.

Lead not compatible with Palestine being Terra nullius

[edit]

When the section on Palestine was added last year as a fourth subsection to the "Current claims of terra nullius" section, the lead was not updated, and still reads as "There are currently three territories sometimes claimed to be terra nullius: ....". There is therefore a disconnect between the lead and the article.
In my opinion, the lead should be left alone, and fix the disconnect by putting the Palestine subsection into a new "Academic claims" section. Off and running (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Palestine

[edit]

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) 02:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1

[edit]

Status quo: no content on Palestine and terra nullius.

Option 2

[edit]

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.[1] S. Ilan Troen argues that terra nullius is a crucial aspect of contemporary debate on Jewish claims to Palestine.[2] 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,[3] while academic Atalia Omer, writes that Zionism has sought to render the disputed land terra nullius.[4] 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.[5]

In 2024, legal academic Tomáš Mach argued that the West Bank was terra nullius[6] 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.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9]

Option 3

[edit]

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.[3][4] Eugene Kontorovich, arguing that a State of Palestine does not exist, concluded that the Gaza Strip was terra nullius.[7] 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.[8]

Vote and discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cordall, Simon Speakman (26 September 2025). "Does international recognition mean Palestine is going to be a state?". Aljazeera. Archived from the original on 9 April 2026.
  2. ^ Troen, S. Ilan (2013). "Israeli Views of the Land of Israel/Palestine". Israel Studies. 18 (2): 16. A crucial issue in the contemporary debate over the legitimacy of Jewish claims is whether Palestine was terra nullius. The concept had become widespread by the time of the Balfour Declaration in the form that Palestine was 'A land without a people, for a people without a land.'
  3. ^ a b Al-khersan, Tina; Shahshahani, Azadeh (2025-07-14). "The Colonial Order Prevails in Palestine: The Right to Self-Determination from a Third World Approach to International Law". Yale Journal of International Law. Retrieved 2025-09-21. Be it the words 'absent' or 'dead' the State of Israel relied, and continues to rely, on terra nullius to further the dispossession of Palestinians and to carry out its settler-colonial project.
  4. ^ a b Omer, Atalia (2025-05-22). "Turning Palestine into a Terra Nullius: On Amalek and "Miracles"". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–22. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2504737. ISSN 1462-3528. As a political movement, Zionism has sought, from its inception, to render the land [in question] a terra nullius.
  5. ^ Kedar, Alexandre; Ahmad, Amara; Yiftachel, Oren (2018). Emptied Lands: A Legal geography of Bedouin Rights in the Negev. Stanford University Press. pp. 9–15. ISBN 9781503604582.
  6. ^ Mach, Tomas (2024). "Legal History and the Development of Rights of Inhabitants of the West Bank since 1948 Pursuant to International Law". Journal on European History of law. 2004 (1): 190–201.
  7. ^ a b Kontorovich, Eugene (13 June 2025). "International Law Is No Bar to Trump's Gaza Proposal". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 23 September 2025. Retrieved 23 September 2025.
  8. ^ a b Gareau, Jean-François (2005). "Shouting at the Wall: Self-Determination and the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". Leiden Journal of International Law. 18 (2005): 489–521. doi:10.1017/S0922156505002840. Consequently, it would appear that the Palestinians are laying claim to a territory over which no one – that is, no existing state – exercises sovereignty. While this, in days gone by, would have meant that the land in question would be deemed terra nullius and open for title acquisition, there is no question of that being the case here. On the contrary, the sovereignty does exist, and it resides in the Palestinian people, although, dormant until such time as they may implement their wish, it can be said to be 'in abeyance'.
  9. ^ Kretzmer, David (2026). "The West Bank as Occupied Territory: The Irrelevance of the Mandate and the Lack of Jordanian Sovereignty". Israel Law Review. 2026 (59): 4–43.

What about Gornja Siga and the rest of Antarctica

[edit]

I've just read the above RfC but I just can't take myself seriously if I try to discuss what is WP:DUE to include when the rest of the article doesn't seem to care at all about it. There is serious and more pressing work to be done.

  • The inclusion of Gornja Siga here is based on one article from the Telegraph. Does anyone have any sources for international law scholars discussing this?
  • Why does the article not even mention Antarctica as a whole, which the vast majority of states considers as terra nullius and is probably the absolute best example of it? Would it not be a good idea to talk about that in the article? Does anyone have anything against this being included?

Right now it just appears the article is taking any land that no state technically lays claim to and calls it terra nullius rather than being based off WP:DUE international law opinions from academia. I think a serious overhaul of the article is needed to better reflect the actual terra nullius principle from international law. Would anyone be opposed to such an effort being undertaken? ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 06:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason the whole continent is not seen as terra nullius is that most of is considered the territory of a state, even if only acknowledged by a handful of others. I think there are only a handful of states that specificically do not accept those claims, which complicates legal matters. The claimant states would say they occupy their territory too, to the best that is possible, thereby confirming their sovereignty. Not recognising a country's claimed sovereignty over a territory does not make the territory terra nullius. I understand your point that the continent is effectively devoid of people but I think there has a court decision that covers the situation where practical occupation of land is difficult - and allows for minimal occupation, such as a scientic base. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Instinctively I'd say that by not recognizing any claim there doesn't seem to be much other option than to consider it to continue being terra nullius. I'm not an international law scholar though so I went and read some papers which told me a few possible views that are had are that:
  • Antarctica is a version of terra nullius and/or somewhere between terra nullius and terra communalis.[1] That source notably also says that viewing the unclaimed bit, Marie Byrd Land, as terra nullius is making it the last such on Earth, implying that Gornja Siga and Bir Tawil are not terra nullius.
  • States not recognizing the claims view all of Antarctica as still being terra nullius. States this was before the Antarctic Treaty and then says the legal landscape was frozen by that treaty, without saying that it created some new one, so it appears this one does say that some states consider it terra nullius.[2]
  • Antarctica is terra nullius. [1]
Another thing I noticed was that in a lot of cases where it is considered to be something other than terra nullius it would also mean that Marie Byrd Land is not terra nullius. But there do also seem to be reasonable to say that some consider only Marie Byrd Land terra nullius. I also looked for something on Gornja Siga but the material there is incredibly lacking (likely would be considered a fringe theory to call it terra nullius, although I could see it being justifiable to include any instance of technically unclaimed land in this article as this is likely where readers would look to find info on that). I found a bit more evidence to support including Bir Tawil than Gornja Siga, but I didn't look too deep on material relating to these. If I had to guess why I'd say because no scholars are actually considering it a serious question of whether something is terra nullius or not. Marie Byrd Land is clearly a case where some consider it terra nullius, and I think there's more than enough to include something about all of Antarctica being terra nullius if we insist on Gornja Siga being there based on an article from the Telegraph. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 09:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]


The whole point of terra nullius is that it's supposed to be territory that no state claims, but could. And if someone actually does claim it, then it's not actually terra nullius, even if other countries don't accept those claims. That's why Bir Tawil is a thing. It's a territory that literally no state claims (but can). It's not a disputed territory in the sense of multiple states claiming it (the real dispute is over the Halaib triangle). Separate from terra nullius is terra communis, which is territory that is considered the common heritage of humanity and thus cannot be legitimately claimed. Bir Tawil is NOT terra communis, but actual terra nullius because a state could actually go claim the land. In contrast, Antarctica, the Moon, and certain other places are NOT terra nullius, but rather terra communis. And this is precisely why the RfC and the previous discussion is so stupid; because the vast majority of states, organizations, and scholars consider those territories to be claimed.
Antarctica used to be terra nullius, up until the Antarctic Treaty System, which made it terra communis. Antarctica is a special case because of how countries made claims before the Antarctic Treaty System, and technically the treaty system did not require that they give up their claims, even though it also said other countries are not obligated to recognize the claims. JasonMacker (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonMacker Please don't put your replies after the talk-ref template because it wrecks the formatting.
I also believe you are mistaken about terra nullius. As the article makes clear, the key point isn't claiming land, it is having sovereignty over it, usually by effective occupation. If all the countries on Earth made an announcement that they claim any uninhabited island in international waters which might be discovered in the future such an island would still be terra nullius until some state established effective occupation over it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
>As the article makes clear, the key point isn't claiming land, it is having sovereignty over it, usually by effective occupation.
The key point of what? Terra nullius means territory that has not been claimed. Once it's claimed, it's not terra nullius anymore, because it's being claimed. Occupying the land doesn't change whether it's claimed or not. Competing claims can be resolved through force, but at that point it's not terra nullius anymore, since there are claimants:
as stated here:

Terra nullius. This Latin phrase means an empty or vacant land. Under the Doctrine, if lands were not possessed or occupied by any person when a Euro-American country made a first discovery then the lands were available for Discovery claims. England, for example, 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 justification as a falsehood in Mabo v. Regina. Euro-Americans were very liberal in defining Indigenous lands as being “empty” and they often included areas that were actually populated by Indigenous nations and peoples. Euro-Americans also considered lands to be “empty” and available for Discovery claims if the native peoples living there were using or governing their territories in a fashion that Euro-American legal systems disapproved or did not recognize.

JasonMacker (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to actually read the things you quote. Viz: "Under the Doctrine, if lands were not possessed or occupied" by any person. You also don't seem to have read this very wikipedia article the very first sentence of which (after the lead) states: "In international law, terra nullius is territory which belongs to no state. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius can be acquired by any state by occupation." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The papers I read did not discuss terra nullius as land that no state claims, but rather as a certain kind of land that is not under state possession. A claim alone is by no means enough for something to cease being terra nullius, and while scholars clearly have some disagreement over what is and isn't terra nullius they do agree on that. For terra nullius to cease being terra nullius a state must not only stake a claim to it, but also establish effective occupation. International recognition obviously plays a major part here, so if the international community simply rejects that you have established effective occupation of the terra nullius then we have a dispute where some consider a piece of land is terra nullius while others consider it to be in the possession of some state. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 03:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think terra nullius means what it means - belongs to nobody. If someone says it belongs to them (has sovereignty) and no other country recognises that claim then we have an ambiguous legal situation. Sovereignty is established in two steps - claim to land, 2/ effective legal posession. (ie not a military occupation). Step one only creates an inchoate title that has to be confirmed by step two. There has been judgement in the international court of justice about what constitutes legal occupation, regarding , I think, small unihabited islands in an archepelago. Antartica fits that description, ie land where practical boots on the ground is not reasonably possible. That means small examples of occupation might suffice. Note the claimant states all have bases there, they issue stamps, they have formal constitions, and Chile and Argenta include their sections as part of their country. They also have women give birth there in their bases. This is all about strengthen their claims to sovereignty (It does not count because claims were held at their 1959 position due to the Antarctic Treaty. However, the seven claimant states do make it clear that they have sovereignty over their sections, even if only recognised by each other (Argentina and Chile are different). So, my point is, I don't think it is clear that all Antarctica is terra nullius despite what some sources might say or imply. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not clear that all of Antarctica is terra nullius, and that's not what I've written in the article. I've written that according to some all of Antarctica might be terra nullius, while other's have different views. There isn't really anything on the list that is indisputably terra nullius, but I think that if Gornja Siga is terra nullius enough, so to speak, to be discussed then so should Antarctica as a whole.
I have mentioned in my edit to the article that some view Marie Byrd Land, but not the rest of Antarctica, as terra nullius. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 10:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Collis, Christy (3 July 2017). "Territories beyond possession? Antarctica and Outer Space". The Polar Journal. 7 (2): 287–302. doi:10.1080/2154896X.2017.1373912. ISSN 2154-896X. Retrieved 24 April 2026.
  2. ^ Collis, Christy (2010). "Critical legal geographies of possession: Antarctica and the International Geophysical Year 1957–1958". GeoJournal. 75 (4): 387–395. doi:10.1007/s10708-009-9260-2. ISSN 0343-2521. Retrieved 24 April 2026.
[edit]

Hello all

I have begun the process of culling the external links to include only those which are of high quality and directly related to terra nullius. For example, I removed link to various Australian social justice reports and native title reports which are not directly related to terra nullius. I also removed a link to a New South Wales Primary school curriculum which is hardly a the best source for further information on terra nullius. I also removed a private blog site which was very amateurish and does not appear to be written by a subject expert. @JasonMacker Do you have any particular reason why you object to the removal of low quality and tangential websites or are you just undoing every change I make on principle? Given that these are all unsourced websites, the onus is on you to justify restoring them see WP:EXTERNAL LINKS. Could you please provide a justification for your restoration of each of the sites I removed? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're already in a small minority on this talk page, so you should probably get consensus before making dramatic changes to the article. Given your oversized impact on this talk page, especially in comparison to the lack of support you've been getting, stop trying to force the article to be the way you want it, especially without any discussion (not that your discussion efforts have been fruitful thus far). You haven't demonstrated that you can actually engage in conversation, so I'm not wasting my time with yet another discussion with you. Enough with the disruptive editing. JasonMacker (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you both step back and refrain from further antagonizing one another. Constant bickering is not beneficial to the article and it certainly isn't beneficial to either of you. As for external links that constitutes one of multiple exceptions to the standard rules of the burden to establish consensus resting on the individual who wants to make a change. The default for external links is to exclude them if there is disagreement, with consensus being required in order to include them. This is outlined in WP:NOCON and WP:ELBURDEN. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 03:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really any bickering here beyond a user intentionally trying to edit the article to make it what they want in spite of other editors. Look at this talk page and how User:Aemilius Adolphin has repeatedly tried to convince people that he gets to dictate the article's content despite not getting any real support for his proposed changes. That's Wikipedia:Edit warring. Right now, literally every section on this talk page is directly related to his proposed edits. Even the section that you began. This is a clear example of disruptive editing and not being able to take no for an answer. JasonMacker (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the links to the most relevant articles. I have removed a couple that were already linked in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement in article

[edit]

Hello all

I have changed the opening statement of this article from "This article is about a region of land that is not claimed by any party" to "This article is about territory that is not under the sovereignty of any state or population." This change is supported by the sources cited in the lead and "Doctrine" section. Also please see the following citations:

"Apart from territory actually under the sovereignty of a state, international law also recognises territory over which there is no sovereign. Such territory is known as terra nullius." [1]

"“Nobody’s land.” Land or territory over which no state exercises sovereignty but that is open to claims of exclusive rights or peaceful occupation by any state with the intention of acquiring sovereignty over it."[2]

"‘The expression “terra nullius” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory." [3]

See also the quote from Oppenheim cited in the article: "The only territory which can be the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for individuals may live on a territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising sovereignty over such territory."

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shaw, Malcolm (2017). International Law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 364.
  2. ^ Fellmeth, Aaron X.; Horwitz, Maurice (2021). ""Terra Nullius"". Guide to Latin in International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  3. ^ Grant, John P.; Barker, J. Craig (2009). "Terra nullius". Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (3 ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Yeah I changed it to just say "international law principle". It's not that it was factually incorrect, it's just that it's a hatnote, so it should be as concise as possible while being unambiguous with any of the thing it's disambiguating between. Hope that's acceptable. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 04:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's even better. Thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have simplified to short description to match the hat note. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]