Foxy,

The requirements for declaring a land Terra Nullius don't require that the land is uninhabited only that it is ungoverned. I think those claiming that the country was invaded would struggle to show that there was a viable form of government in any part of Australia.

SOL,

I am not trying to deny that the aboriginals were here first, nor that they have some inherent claim to native title, however, I do find the claims of invasion to be fanciful.

I find the way native title is handled somewhat distasteful. roughly 70% of Australia's land mass is under native title, which is in effect owned by no one in particular and handled by nebulous tribal elders with conflicting claims and naked self interest. There is no incentive to develop the land only to sell the resources and extract rent. This was tried in Africa, and failed miserably.

I would prefer that the land under native title is divided into parcels of roughly equal value (with some sacred sites set aside) and given directly to those of aboriginal descent, to own to keep and develop, or sell after a set time.

At this point any further claims would be extinguished, and Aus could revert to a single class of citizen.

The question is based on the assumption that the European had the right to apply his norms, values and laws on indigenous people in the first place, A people who had a different set of norms, values and laws which were conveniently unacceptable, and not in the Europeans interest, which was to take over Australia for their own benefit. If they had not applied this Terra Nullius principle, they would have applied some other convenient principle, such as the Terror Gun principle, which they had applied numerous times before around the world.

In the context of what the British did to Aboriginal people would anyone have an objection to the Chinese setting up a tribunal in Bajing to determine if modern Australia is compliant with the Chinese interpretation of 'Get It For Yourself', with the objective of China taking over Australia and subjecting the "new indigenous" to the benefits of Chineseism. It would seem perfectly reasonable to me.

China will refuse to recognise Terra Nullius. China has a greater claim over the Australian continent than the Anglo-Australians have. Northern Australia is their ancestral fishing grounds and I'm sure they will have at least one historical admiral who circumnavigated Australia long before Cook sighted the eastern coast of Australia.

President Xi has already told Australia that China has a greater claim over Australia than the Anglo-Australians when he addressed the Australian Parliament during his visit here. He'll bring up the details when he has tied up the loose ends in China's annexation of the South China Sea.

Terra Nullius also implies "empty land".

It was considered empty because they did not consider the aboriginals as a race of people with rights to occupy or own it - just some sort of native fauna that didn't cultivate the soil.

They weren't officially counted as people until the 1967 referendum.

The settlers were initially accepted on peaceful terms but it wasn't long before areas were fenced off with people excluded from tribal land and skirmishes began - but by then it was too late.

It was colonisation via dispossession rather than by discovery.

This can reasonably be argued to have been some sort of invasion - albeit gradual - because other British colonies in Canada, various Pacific Islands and New Zealand involved negotiation and treaties.

However although aboriginal society had no hierarchy and no single representative who could sign a treaty on behalf of all their Nations, the real reason for no attempt at a treaty was the notion that the natives were not people.

Paul,

If you can quote the local indigenous law from the time, then you may have a valid point, however, given that at the time there were no permanent structures, no discernible governing body, and between 3000 and 6000 different language / dialect groups, I think that by the standards of the time Australia was clearly Terra Nullius. That this was agreed by pretty much every civilized nation on earth at the time (1780) gave the British the right to settle the area.

Obviously the principle of Terra Nullius does not exist anymore, but given today's laws cannot be applied retrospectively, the law of the time stands.

China is already trying to annex most of the south china sea, but is already running foul of the US and its neighbours.

Suse,

Not that it matters, they were here before we were by several thousand years, but apparently there is evidence to say that there were people here before them.