Editing Terra nullius (section)

===Asia===
====Pinnacle Islands (Diaoyu Islands/Senkaku Islands)====
A [[Senkaku Islands dispute|disputed archipelago]] in the [[East China Sea]], the uninhabited [[Senkaku Islands|Pinnacle Islands]], were claimed by [[Japan]] to have become part of [[Empire of Japan|its territory]] as ''terra nullius'' in January 1895, following the Japanese victory in the [[First Sino-Japanese War]]. However, this interpretation is not accepted by the [[China|People's Republic of China]] (PRC) and the [[Taiwan|Republic of China]] (Taiwan), both of whom claim sovereignty over the islands.

====Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone====
It was an area of {{cvt|7044|km2|sqmi ha acre}} on the border between [[Saudi Arabia]] and [[Ba'athist Iraq|Iraq]] within which the border between the two countries had not been settled. The neutral zone came into existence following the [[Uqair Protocol of 1922]] that defined the border between Iraq and the [[Sultanate of Nejd]] (Saudi Arabia's predecessor state). An agreement to partition the neutral zone was reached by Iraqi and Saudi representatives on 26 December 1981, and approved by the Iraqi National Assembly on 28 January 1982. The territory was divided on an unknown date between 28 January and 30 July 1982.<ref name=":0"/> Notice was given to the United Nations in June 1991.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T01017R000100470001-8.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120010225/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T01017R000100470001-8.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2017-01-20|title=Saudi Arabia/Iraq: Neutral Zone Partitioned|publisher=CIA Directorate of Intelligence|date=1986-02-28|access-date=2020-10-22}}</ref><ref name="arch">{{cite web|author=Schofield, Richard|title=Arabian Boundary disputes, Archive Editions|publisher=Archive Editions|url=http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/titledetails.asp?tid=34|access-date=29 January 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080423153144/http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/titledetails.asp?tid=34|archive-date=2008-04-23 |url-status=live }}</ref>
====Saudi–Kuwaiti neutral zone====
{{main|Saudi Arabian–Kuwaiti neutral zone}}The 1922 [[Uqair Protocol of 1922|Uqair Convention]] did not define a boundary between the Saudi Arabia's predecessor state, [[Sultanate of Nejd]], and Kuwait. This was due to the nomadic Bedouin tribes of the area, who largely didn't recognize national boundaries, and the limited economic potential of this area of desert. The discovery of oil in the area prompted the countries to negotiate a boundary. An initial agreement in 1965 was officially ratified in 1970, setting the current border.

====Scarborough Shoal (South China Sea)====
The [[China|People's Republic of China]], the [[Taiwan|Republic of China]] (Taiwan) and the [[Philippines]] claim [[Scarborough Shoal]], also known as Panatag Shoal or Huangyan Island ({{zh|s=黄岩岛|t=黃巖島|p=Huángyán Dǎo}}). The nearest landmass is the Philippine island of [[Luzon]] at 220&nbsp;km (119 nmi), located in the [[South China Sea]]. The Philippines claims it under the principle of ''terra nullius'' and the fact that it lies within its EEZ ([[exclusive economic zone]]). Meanwhile, both China and Taiwan claim the shoal based on historical records that Chinese fishermen had discovered and mapped the shoal since the 13th century.

Previously, the shoal was administered as part of [[Masinloc|Municipality of Masinloc]], [[Zambales|Province of Zambales]], by the Philippines. Since the [[Scarborough Shoal standoff]] in 2012, the shoal has been administered as part of [[Xisha District]], [[Sansha City]], [[Hainan Province]], by the People's Republic of China. Taiwan places the shoal under the administration of [[Cijin District]], [[Kaohsiung City]], but does not have control of the shoal.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lin |first=Cheng-yi |date=19 February 2008 |title=Taiwan's Spratly Initiative in the South China Sea |url=http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/3115.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514104457/http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/3115.html |archive-date=14 May 2011 |access-date=6 March 2023 |website=Association for Asia Research}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=7 July 2015 |website=[[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Taiwan)|Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs]] |title=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (Taiwan) reiterates its position on the South China Sea |url=https://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=1EADDCFD4C6EC567&s=EDEBCA08C7F51C98}}</ref>

The [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] (PCA) denied the lawfulness of China's claim in 2016;<ref name=Schofield-2016-CSEA-38-3-339>
{{cite journal
 |last=Schofield |first=Clive
 |year=2016
 |title=A landmark decision in the South China Sea: The scope and implications of the Arbitral Tribunal's award
 |journal=Contemporary Southeast Asia
 |volume=38 |issue=3 |pages=339–348
 |doi=10.1355/cs38-3a
 |jstor=24916757 |s2cid=157502728
 |issn=0129-797X
}}
</ref><ref name=PCoA-2016-case-2013-19>
{{cite web
 |title=Case nr. 2013-19
 |year=2016
 |publisher=Permanent Court of Arbitration
 |url=https://docs.pca-cpa.org/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf
}}
</ref><ref name=Johnson-2016-07-12-JT>
{{cite news
 |last=Johnson |first=Jesse
 |date=2016-07-12
 |title=Tribunal rejects Beijing's claims to South China Sea; Japan braces for reaction
 |newspaper=[[The Japan Times]]
 |language=en-US
 |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/12/asia-pacific/tribunal-rules-chinese-claims-south-china-sea/
 |access-date=2020-08-20
}}
</ref><ref name=Perlez-2016-07-12-NYT>
{{cite news
 |last=Perlez |first=Jane
 |date=2016-07-12
 |title=Tribunal rejects Beijing's claims in South China sea
 |language=en-US
 |place=New York, NY
 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]
 |issn=0362-4331
 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html
 |access-date=2020-08-20
}}
</ref><ref name=Lawfare-2016-07-12-ruling>
{{Cite web
 |title=Tribunal issues landmark ruling in South China Sea arbitration
 |date=2016-07-12
 |website=Lawfare
 |language=en
 |url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/tribunal-issues-landmark-ruling-south-china-sea-arbitration
 |access-date=2020-08-20
}}
</ref> China rejected the ruling, calling it "ill-founded".<ref name="BBC 2016">{{Cite news |date=12 July 2016 |title=South China Sea: Tribunal backs case against China brought by Philippines |publisher=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-36771749 |url-status=live |access-date=21 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180620040633/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-36771749 |archive-date=20 June 2018}}</ref> In 2019, Taiwan also rejected the ruling and has sent more naval vessels to the area.<ref>{{Cite news |author1=Jun Mai |author2=Shi Jiangtao |date=12 July 2016 |title=Taiwan-controlled Taiping Island is a rock, says international court in South China Sea ruling |work=South China Morning Post |url=http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1988990/taiwan-controlled-taiping-island-rock-says |url-status=live |access-date=2 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160715074244/http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1988990/taiwan-controlled-taiping-island-rock-says |archive-date=15 July 2016}}</ref>
<ref>{{Cite news |last=Chow |first=Jermyn |date=12 July 2016 |title=Taiwan rejects South China Sea ruling, says will deploy another navy vessel to Taiping |work=[[The Straits Times]] |url=http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/taiwan-rejects-south-china-sea-ruling-says-will-deploy-another-navy-vessel-to-itu-aba |url-status=live |access-date=2 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180617015244/https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/taiwan-rejects-south-china-sea-ruling-says-will-deploy-another-navy-vessel-to-itu-aba |archive-date=17 June 2018}}</ref>

It has been speculated that Scarborough Shoal is a prime location for the construction of an artificial island{{citation needed|date=October 2019}} and Chinese ships have been seen in the vicinity of the shoal. However, analysis of photos has concluded that the ships lack dredging equipment and therefore represent no imminent threat of reclamation work.<ref name=Mollman-2016-09-11-Qz>
{{cite news
 |last=Mollman |first=Steve
 |date=11 September 2016
 |title= The "strategic triangle" that would allow Beijing to control the South China Sea
 |newspaper=Quartz
 |language=en-US
 |url=http://qz.com/775382/all-eyes-are-on-the-scarborough-shoal-the-reef-rimmed-lagoon-that-would-allow-beijing-to-control-the-south-china-sea/
 |access-date= 27 October 2016
}}
</ref>