Illegal Invasion: Did the British take LEGAL possession of Australia or did they invade illegally?

[montrel68]

The occupation of Australia, by the British, was it a "legal" occupation or an invasion? If the premise is taken that Cook was under the juristiction of the Maritime Law of the time, then a huge discrepancy occurs because, under the Maritime Law of the day, written consent to the coming of them as settlers was needed. Said 'Letters of Consent' do not exist. Cook got around this Law by claiming 'Terra Nullis', no people existed here, obviously a lie, Britain didn't know, but legally they are still liable because one does not need to have direct knowledge to be an accessory (British Law). On top of this a friend, who has done much research in this area, pointed out that he believed the King of the time ordered Cook to obtain letters of consent, These letters also do not exist. If these queries make you think, I've been thinking about it for months. Lets hear some other viewpoints!! I'm an involuntary immigrant, born here of convict stock. And damn proud of it!

[adin55]

I assume you mean a letter of consent from the Aborigines that were at the time?

He was probably able to get away with it because they are a nomadic tribe who mainly moved around and never settled or established towns.

I don't think its the first time that the British have claimed the land regardless of native settlement as they see those natives as "savages" and not proper settlers. You only need to look into Australian history to see the kind of things they did to the Aborigines here once they had settled.

Im a free settler myself so my ancestors migrated voluntarily.

[aviya]

I think it was illegal but no one is going to do anything about it (people should though)