I agree with other commenters' definitions of sovereignty. In Australia there are competing sovereignties. An imperial one -- "Australia", conquest, absolute power. And an Indigenous one -- spiritual connection, ancestry, sacred ties. In each of these sovereignties, the word "sovereignty" has a different definition and is deployed for a different purpose.

Indigenous sovereignty existed for 60 millennia, and then the British stole the land and denied that sovereignty in place of their own. The Australian state has the means to enforce its own sovereignty through things like laws, police, prison, disenfranchisement, poverty, but Indigenous sovereignty still exists. This is a fact. If I stole something from you and claimed it as my own with a threat of violence, it'd still be yours, even after thousands of years.

Under Australian sovereignty, you're certainly a citizen. Under Indigenous sovereignty, it's more complicated, and from what I understand Indigenous people have a variety of perspectives. I haven't heard anyone use the term 'guest', but I have heard 'invader'. It's an uncomfortable label, but it's entirely reasonable given the colonial history of Australia. Others have more inviting perspectives on this conflict between sovereignties.

Here's an article about it if you're interested: https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-s-indigenous-sovereignty-and-can-a-voice-extinguish-it-20230113-p5ccdk.html

The International “law” you’re pointing out is a non-binding agreement to which Australia is a signatory. Note the non-binding part.

The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not an "international law". I also alluded to the fact that it was non-binding by stating that Australia was committed to it "in principle". This is not the gotcha you thought it was, try again.

It also didn’t exist when these events took place and retroactively applying laws tends to be a non-starter.

Terra nullius and international law did exist during the period of Australia's colonisation. Are you really this ignorant of history?

Sovereignty as a concept has existed far longer than Colonial powers as I pointed out which you haven’t rebutted in the slightest.

I don't need to rebut it. You clearly described sovereignty under international law in your very first comment. Every attempt you have made to define Australia's sovereignty has been under those terms. Are you suggesting there is more than one form of sovereignty? Didn't you start off by claiming the complete opposite? You've backed yourself into a corner where the only option left is to admit that I am correct. Congratulations on completely playing yourself.

I can tell you that in Tiwi the disconnects between who deals with what crime is a constant source of conflict between elder leadership and federal police. Quite often the police said 'oh it's black on black violence, you lot sort it out.'

The talk of reconciliation is literally dealing with issues like this. Sovereignty. Traditional Law. Cultural Recognition. Until it's dealt with there can be no true reconciliation.

I totally get what you're saying with regards to the state's exclusive right to violence but in a lot of places this murkiness between what the law says and what people do is such a powder keg.

PS. I'm not downvoting you, or even trying to be rude or abrasive, just trying to lend you my own perspective and experiences.