The courts do not yet recognise the arguments behind the Lockean proviso

Property rights, in particular land rights can be arranged by consensus so that we do not rely on disputes being settled among and between the adversaries. If there is a property dispute, this will mean that one party is of the view that another is trespassing. Rather than take action themselves, in defence as they see it, if they are only an individual entity and not the upholding authority, they will (can) refer this complaint to the courts who will find for one or the other side.

In the case of excessive land claims, the complainant (the instigator) is able (we presume) to occupy the land and later await the decision of the tribunal. If the courts do not eject the trespassers (squatters) then the land changes hands and ownership will transfer to the new occupants.

If there is a property dispute, it is rightly referred to the judicial authority. If land claims are unpopular then to test them in court, we must first occupy the land, perhaps.

Alternatively, we might seek permission (beforehand) to occupy the land and request an opinion on the merits of the claim. The courts should take into consideration the limited nature of land, and that we do not make it ourselves; it is here before us, when making their deliberations on property claims. Presently, the courts do not generally give consideration to the issues raised by the Lockean proviso.