Generally speaking in broad terms that cross most theories ownership of new or previously undiscovered land arose from occupation. As a state or authority came into charge then frequently that authority assumed ownership and everyone else then obtained their slice from them.

As for what happened between discovery of unoccupied land and feudal ownership you are probably about right. Certainly in Maori Land Law, Take (claims or titles) to land are usually listed as being obtained by:

whenua raupatu – claim by conquest
take tupuna – claim by ancestry
taunaha whenua – claim by discovery
takahi whenua – claim by travelling over land regularly
take tuku – gifted land

But even then, Maori concept of title was not like ours. In addition to their concept of ownership not looking much our concept of exclusive ownership and enjoyment limited only by <span>t</span><span>axation</span>, eminent domain, police power, escheat or whatever encumbrances or conditions might be registered against the title, in Maori law you could lose your title if you did not maintain ahi kaa, if you failed to "keep your home fires burning." If you left the land for a long time or you stopped using your path over someone else's land to go to your fishing ground or you stopped planting your crops in a particular area then your claim ended because you were no longer in relationship or connected to the land.

In Maori times there was no state so things like jurisdiction and immigration were set by each tribe. Most cultures had some methods of dealing with or determining these things.

Obviously jurisdiction and state control of land in our context arose from conquest of England and then conquest of New Zealand. Those making the conquests got to set them once they had subdued the population and gained control – there is a heap of literature on how and when a state gains legitimacy – Kelsen's "Grundnorm", HLA Hart's "Rule of Recognition" are two theories that spring to mind as starting points if you want to read further.

What is the basis of ownership of land? Did we all kill each other in wars centuries ago, then 'owned' lands from those days, and then slowly people just stop killing each other and instead buy and sell?

Or some group found empty lands and from there on the group own the land?

What is the basis for jurisdiction, immigration law, land ownership … ?

And why be SO OBSESSED with taking things to their logical conclusion.  I may believe something about owning mountains and the air – but not believe the same about owning a toothbrush say.Its not so black and white -all or nothing as you think.

The ironic thing is that the English have fought long and hard for centuries to try to get access to land "owned" by the landed gentry, and yet in New Zealand we are creating another group of exclusive land owners. 

All privately owned land is "exclusively owned" thats part of what privately owned means. Simply allowing Maori to argue that a piece of land is theirs is no more problematic than allowing two pakehas who have a boundary disagreement to argue in court.

I personally think this is a ridiculous concept – that because of the luck of one's birth they and not someone else has the "right" to walk where their feet carry them – whereas other are "trespassing"

So yes – legally you are right… but morally wrong. The ironic thing is that the English have fought long and hard for centuries to try to get access to land "owned" by the landed gentry, and yet in New Zealand we are creating another group of exclusive land owners.

And if you think that the average bro' is going to get anything out of it you are deluded.

Recent blog post: Fisking Margaret Mayman: The Flawed Moral Theology on the Smacking Referendum

Recent blog post: Live Blogging from the Mount

It is because people are unaware of their liberties and value them too poorly.

It is bread and circuses my dear, bread and circuses.

Recent blog post: Why doesn't the Bible address X?

…no..it doesn't. Legally maybe,but not morally.