Paul,

The Nazis at Nuremberg were tried for genocide and mass murder which was not lawful even in Nazi Germany, and as Germany had signed the Geneva convention there was no doubt as to the illegality of their actions.

By contrast the principle of Terra Nullius was widely accepted worldwide, and the British actions of settling in Aus was not considered illegal by any other country.

Even the Mabo trial did not try and reverse the settlement, granting native title only to the land not already settled.

Shadow, "By contrast the principle of Terra Nullius was widely accepted worldwide, and the British actions of settling in Aus was not considered illegal by any other country."

By the colonizing countries and given Britain was a super power and at war with another European super power at the time, France, there was little anyone was going to do about it.

The concept of Terra Nullius was alien to Aboriginal people and if it was not they were given no opportunity to contest 'the laws' validity as applied to them by the British. Hardly seems fair.

How does this Terra Nullius law stack up against the principle of 'jurisprudence'?

The English word jurisprudence is based on the Latin maxim jurisprudentia: juris is the genitive form of jus meaning "law", and prudentia means "prudence" (also: discretion, foresight, forethought, circumspection; refers to the exercise of good judgment, common sense, and even caution, especially in the conduct of practical matters) ...

Shadow minister, not true the senior National Socialists were charged with:
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
War crimes
Crimes against humanity

The word Genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin after the war to describe the actions of the National Socialists from the Jewish perspective.
Ethnic cleansing would be a more accurate term to describe the official National Socialist program of deportations and widespread mass shootings of Jews in Eastern Europe but again, there's no comparison to be made between Australia and Europe in that regard.
There's no evidence of either formal or informal plans to ethnically cleanse Australia of it's pre 1788 population, quite the opposite conclusion can be made from even a cursory study of official records and the journals of early colonists.

The High Court's Mabo Judgment

On the 3rd of June, 1992, after a decade of litigation, the High Court ruled that the land title of the Indigenous Peoples, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, is recognised at common law. This Indigenous Peoples' land title, or native title, stems from the continuation within common law of their rights over land which pre-date European colonisation of Australia. In the absence of an effective extinguishment by the crown, this title presents through inheritance the original occupants' right to possession of their traditional lands in accordance with their customs and lores. The judgement has, at long last, rejected the "Terra Nullius " legal fiction, bringing Australia almost in line with remaining common law countries, ie USA, Canada and New Zealand.

Paul1405: How does this Terra Nullius law stack up against the principle of 'jurisprudence'?

You are trying to push, what was acceptable then against what is acceptable now. It's just not possible to do that.

Newsflash from Beijin:

Anyone found talking about Terra Nullius after the transfer of ownership of the Australian continent from the Commonwealth of Australia to the Peoples Republic of China will be taken out and shot.