4 ms·

> Wikipedia: In international law, terra nullius is territory which belongs to no state. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius can be acquired by an

> Wikipedia: 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. that sounds to me exactly like a third party coming and going "well if nobody wants it..." Of course, in reality it's always about whether or not you can defend your territory with military power. And it doesn't even need to be unclaimed.

tw04 3y ago
Right, but this is disputed land, not unclaimed land.
- trickstra 3y ago
  I expected this comment. The same wikipedia page also says: > There are currently three territories sometimes claimed to be terra nullius: Bir Tawil (a strip of land between Egypt and Sudan), *four pockets of land near the Danube due to the Croatia–Serbia border dispute*, and parts of Antarctica, principally Marie Byrd Land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius Next, someone says that wikipedia is not a credible source.
  - donpott 3y ago
    > sometimes claimed Here, Wikipedia is faithfully recording that some people make that claim. It’s not saying that there’s a consensus or endorsing any claim or its contrary.
  - tw04 3y ago
    The link quite clearly states the land is under dispute. While the two countries may disagree which of them owns it, they quite clearly agree nobody else does. I'm not an expert in international law, but I'm quite confident you would be laughed out of the room trying to claim ownership of the land in an international court.
    - trickstra 3y ago
      I'm not trying to become an international lawyer. The thread mentioned terra nullius, so I'm just pointing out what that definition says and what are the real-world examples, where these lands are clearly mentioned. Not sure why somebody gets so triggered by it. Let me point out that these two countries don't just "disagree which one of them owns it", they both say "we don't own it", which makes all the difference. Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain whether Croatia's constitution can say "this land belongs to Serbia", I personally don't see how that would be possible.
uxp8u61q 3y ago
That's just something someone wrote on Wikipedia. Do you think that if the liberland people showed the Wikipedia page to the police, they would have backed off? The only logical conclusion here is simply that the Wikipedia article is wrong.

tw04 3y ago

Right, but this is disputed land, not unclaimed land.

trickstra 3y ago
I expected this comment. The same wikipedia page also says: > There are currently three territories sometimes claimed to be terra nullius: Bir Tawil (a strip of land between Egypt and Sudan), *four pockets of land near the Danube due to the Croatia–Serbia border dispute*, and parts of Antarctica, principally Marie Byrd Land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius Next, someone says that wikipedia is not a credible source.
- donpott 3y ago
  > sometimes claimed Here, Wikipedia is faithfully recording that some people make that claim. It’s not saying that there’s a consensus or endorsing any claim or its contrary.
- tw04 3y ago
  The link quite clearly states the land is under dispute. While the two countries may disagree which of them owns it, they quite clearly agree nobody else does. I'm not an expert in international law, but I'm quite confident you would be laughed out of the room trying to claim ownership of the land in an international court.
  - trickstra 3y ago
    I'm not trying to become an international lawyer. The thread mentioned terra nullius, so I'm just pointing out what that definition says and what are the real-world examples, where these lands are clearly mentioned. Not sure why somebody gets so triggered by it. Let me point out that these two countries don't just "disagree which one of them owns it", they both say "we don't own it", which makes all the difference. Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain whether Croatia's constitution can say "this land belongs to Serbia", I personally don't see how that would be possible.

uxp8u61q 3y ago

That's just something someone wrote on Wikipedia. Do you think that if the liberland people showed the Wikipedia page to the police, they would have backed off? The only logical conclusion here is simply that the Wikipedia article is wrong.