7 ms·
> On Egyptian maps, Bir Tawil is shown as belonging to Sudan. On Sudanese maps, it appears as part of Egypt. In practice, Bir Tawil is widely believed to have t
by bjourne 7y ago
> On Egyptian maps, Bir Tawil is shown as belonging to Sudan. On Sudanese maps, it appears as part of Egypt. In practice, Bir Tawil is widely believed to have the legal status of terra nullius – “nobody’s land” – and there is nothing else quite like it on the planet.
This is wrong and the article later corrects itself:
> Their ties to the area may be based on traditional rather than written claims – but Bir Tawil is not any more a “no man’s land” than the territory once known as British East Africa, where terra nullius was repeatedly invoked in the early 20th century by both chartered companies and the British government that supported them to justify the appropriation of territory from indigenous people.
The fascinating thing is that the idea that Bir Tawil is, or ever was, terra nullius comes from atriciously bad Wikipedia pages on the subject (in the past even the West Bank was listed as terra nullius!). It likley was those that lead Jeremiah Heaton to think he could claim it by planting a flag there. Because you cannot find any scholarly sources claiming that Bir Tawil is terra nullius. So what must have happened is that one or more Wikipedians, with no legal training, must have found terra nullius described in some source and then started to give terra nullius designations to pieces of land that they thought fit.
Along comes a lot of clueless journalists and repeats Wikipedia's erroneous claims. Wikipedians in turn find these articles and inserts them as references into the articles and the circle is complete.
And fwiw, the literal translation of terra nullius isn't "nobody's land" it's "empty land". Ownership of land is orthogonal to whether it is inhabited. Examples of terra nullius would be Antarctica or tiny remote islands that sometimes pops up in the Atlantic far from any country's coast. Bir Tawil does't fit the bill because it is inhabited. Which state has sovereignty is unclear but we do know it is either Egypt or Sudan. There is no room for a third party to make any claims.
- jmkni 7y agoI've often wondered if you could use the process described above to create an historical event that never happened. Create the Wikipedia page(s), some journalists write about it, then add those articles as references. I wonder if people might even say they remember it happening.
- saghm 7y ago> So what must have happened is that one or more Wikipedians, with no legal training, must have found terra nullius described in some source and then started to give terra nullius designations to pieces of land that they thought fit. > Along comes a lot of clueless journalists and repeats Wikipedia's erroneous claims. Wikipedians in turn find these articles and inserts them as references into the articles and the circle is complete. https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/ describes this process perfectly
- dclowd9901 7y agoThe concept of "owning" land is baseless in the grand scheme of nature and existence. I like the idea of Bir Tawil because I think it surfaces the idea that land _should_ be borderless and ownerless.
- Retra 7y agoThat's a self-defeating argument. Your objection to the concept of ownership would apply to just about every concept, including your own morality, which leaves your thoughts about what _should_ be a little out of place. That is, unless you think there's something very special about ownership in the grand scheme that is not true of other abstractions...
- Supermancho 7y ago> That's a self-defeating argument. I don't think so. > Your objection to the concept of ownership would apply to just about every concept, Except he constrained it to specific concepts. How you interpret those is likely different, but you didn't really ask as much as define and declare an outcome. That's not constructive.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Retra 7y agoYou seem to be satisfied to do the same. I at least explained what the problem was with the argument. "I don't think so" is not any kind of improvement there.
- laumars 7y agoI don't agree with the GP's point but I do agree with the defence against your counterargument. The GP clearly stated "owning land" - you might consider other forms of ownership a logical extension but that wasn't the context of the GP's point and thus you're being a little disingenuous to argue it in that way (one could even say you presented a "straw man argument").
- Svip 7y ago> And fwiw, the literal translation of terra nullius isn't "nobody's land" it's "empty land". But isn't terra nullius a play on res nullius, which in Roman law meant a thing nobody owned? Perhaps it literally meant 'empty thing'. (My Latin is very weak.)
- simonebrunozzi 7y agoI don't think it has to do with Roman law. It seems the term originated much later: "Starting in the 17th century, terra nullius denoted a legal concept allowing a European colonial power to take control of "empty" territory that none of the other European colonial powers had claimed." [0]: http://homepages.gac.edu/~lwren/AmericanIdentititesArt%20folder/AmericanIdentititesArt/Terra%20Nullius.html http://homepages.gac.edu/~lwren/AmericanIdentititesArt%20fol...
- bjourne 7y agoWell, the literal translation of res nullius is "thing empty" but it is true that phrase was used in Roman law for "unowned things". But the defining feature of res nullius was that it could be taken possession of by means of occupatio. For example, a tree in the forest would be res nullius until someone cut it down and made logs of it. But it would be the act of cutting down - occupatio - that made the tree cutter the legal owner. It wouldn't be enough for him to just wander into a forest, see a lot of trees and declare "those trees are mine!" In a way he would be required to "fill the void" so to speak. The relation between res nullius and terra nullius is dubious to say the least. During the Middle Ages "unowned things" disappeared as a legal concept. Instead most everything became the property of God or the monarch. It is questionable if the European colonizers ever actually used the terra nullius doctrine to justify conquest. For example, Manhattan was purchased from the Native Americans. Had terra nullius been applicable they could have just taken it.
- jcranmer 7y agoThe closest thing to a historical application of terra nullius is Australia, where the British (and later Australian) government did not consider the natives to have any legal title to the land, and therefore no one had any title that would need to be extinguished for the settlers to occupy. Countries like the US did recognize that the native Americans held title to the land, and this title was somewhat orthogonal to the rights acquired via European diplomacy (e.g., Louisiana purchase). The native rights were extinguished via treaties that were quite often violated, but there was definitely a recognition that indigenous peoples had a claim to their territory that needed legal processes to be extinguished in favor of the settlers.
- BurningFrog 7y agoPeople often confuse ownership and sovereignty. The land there is very likely owned by the local people according to whatever arrangements they have. There is no country claiming sovereignty, which is what makes it interesting. I guess it's true that no third country could make a claim, though it would be fun to to see one try. Or if the locals declared independence. If one country made a complaint, would it be seen as giving up their claim on the other part? :)
- Smithalicious 7y agoEither country could even openly support the rebels!
- firethief 7y ago> And fwiw, the literal translation of terra nullius isn't "nobody's land" it's "empty land". Is it an Italian term or something? In Latin it would be "land of no one". Terra is nominative (alternatively ablative or vocative, but that's unlikely here), nullius is genitive; there's no parsing in which nullius could be in agreement with terra, and even if they were in agreement, nullus doesn't mean "empty" (terra nulla would be more like "no land", definitely not a land that exists but is characterized by emptiness). If it's Italian though I'd have to take your word for it; I don't speak that language.
- leetcrew 7y agono it's definitely a Latin term and your translation is about as literal as it can get. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
- bjourne 7y agoNo, you're right. The literal translation is "land of no one". I maintain that "empty land" is a fair translation of the term though.
- derefr 7y ago> There is no room for a third party to make any claims. Is there room for the people living in Bir Tawil to establish their own government and call what they're living on a sovereign nation?