There is no such thing as "international law", and never has been. Land belongs to people who can control it, and always has.
And I don't think there are many people that would prefer to live under 'might is right'.
Or at least they'd find out pretty quick that it's not exactly what they thought it might be.
that's all "the law" is in the first place - Power making rules and enforcing them through threat of exercising said power.
And yet: https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA...
The new doctrine of native title replaced a seventeenth century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished.
I don't think there is any country which explicitly mentions that international law would supersede their law.
* " Land belongs to people who can control it, and always has."
* @watwut asserted: "Nazi says that, yes."
* @YetAnotherNick expanded on that "Communist say that too as do socialist as do almost all ideology."
* @YetAnotherNick then "asked" (perhaps rhetorically) "Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity."
* @defrost provided an example of a legal doctrine that returned significant areas of land to original first inhabitants after that land had been claimed by others with crown troops.
Now that land belongs to people that lack force to control it, and it was given to them by people that considered it their land by colonisation.
If you're interested in the answer to the question you posed "Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity." (which isn't entirely well posed) then perhaps the reasoning of the judges in the Mabo case might give you some insight into their thinking.
Can you specify which part are you disagreeing with rather than give AI powered summary of thread.
All EU countries agree on the supremacy of EU law, so that's not quite correct.
Exactly as it is for Trump.
Communists seen themselves in ideological fight and communist leadership was also about giving power to "politically motivated entity".