Editing Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (section)

=== Terra nullius ===
Various members of the court discussed the [[international law]] doctrine of {{Lang|la|terra nullius}} ({{Gloss|no one's land}}),<ref name=":4" /> meaning uninhabited or inhabited territory which is not under the jurisdiction of a state, and which can be acquired by a state through occupation.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Grant |first1=John P. |title=Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law |last2=Barker |first2=J. Craig |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2009 |isbn=9780195389777 |edition=3rd |pages=596}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Oppenheim's International Law, Vol. I, Peace |publisher=Longman |year=1992 |editor-last=Jennings |editor-first=Sir Robert |location=Burnt Mill |pages=687 |editor-last2=Watts |editor-first2=Sir Arthur}}</ref> The court also discussed the analogous common law doctrine that "desert and uncultivated land" which includes land "without settled inhabitants or settled law" can be acquired by Britain by settlement, and that the laws of England are transmitted at settlement.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Ritter |first=David |date=1996 |title=The "Rejection of Terra Nullius" in Mabo, A Critical Analysis |journal=The Sydney Law Review |volume=18 |issue=5 |pages=5–33}}</ref> A majority of the court rejected the notion that the doctrine of ''{{Lang|la|terra nullius}}'' precluded the common law recognition of traditional Indigenous rights and interests in land at the time of British settlement of New South Wales.<ref>Mabo Case (1992). per Brennan J (Mason and McHugh agreeing), at paras. 41, 42, 46, 63. Per Deane J. and Gaudron J. at 55, 56.</ref>

In 2005, historian Michael Connor argued in ''The Invention of Terra Nullius'' that Mabo was  wrongly decided as the British actually [[annexed]] Australia, rather than treating it as ''{{Lang|la|terra nullius}}.''<ref>{{Cite book |last=Connor |first=Michael |title=The invention of Terra Nullius: historical and legal fictions on the foundation of Australia |date=2005 |publisher=Macleay Press |isbn=978-1-876492-16-8 |location=Paddington, N.S.W}}</ref> Responding to these criticisms, Mason stated, "what the British thought about its international law grounds for establishing sovereignty over Australia, for annexing Australia, is beside the point" with the decision actually concerned with answering the question, "does the common law (as applied in the Australian colonies) exclude altogether the rights of the indigenous people so that forever the rights they formerly had are excluded?"<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Hope |first=Deborah |date=25 February 2006 |title='Minor role' for terra nullius |work=[[The Australian]] |publisher=[[News Corp Australia]] |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/356242488 |url-access=subscription |id=ProQuest document ID: 356242488 |via=ProQuest}}</ref>