The arguments presented by Morocco and Mauritania were essentially similar: that

either one had a sovereign right over the territory.

In the case of Morocco, the kingdom of Morocco claimed the allegiance of a variety
of tribes in surrounding territory.

In the case of Mauritania, there was no clearly defined state that existed at the time.
Instead, Mauritania argued that a similar entity existed which they called
"bilad Chinguetti".

Spain argued against Moroccan sovereignty, citing the relationship that Spanish
explorers and colonizers had established with the sultan, none of which ever
recognized his authority over the region. Algeria also defended the position that the
Sahrawis were a distinct people[citation needed], and not under the subjection of
Morocco or Mauritania.
In the Western Sahara Case,'

the question was whether Western Sahara, inhabited as it was by organized tribes, was
terra nullius.

The ICJ answered the question thus:

Whatever differences of opinion there may have been among jurists,

the State practice of the relevant period indicates that territories inhabited by tribes or
peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as terra nullius. It
shows that in the case of such territories the acquisition of sovereignty was not
generally considered as effected unilaterally through “occupation” of terra nullius by
original title but through agreements concluded with local rulers.

On occasion, it is true, the word “occupation” was used in a non-technical sense

denoting simply acquisition of sovereignty; but that did not signify that the acquisition
of sovereignty through such agreements with authorities of the country was regarded
as an “occupation” of a “terra nullius” in the proper sense of these terms.

On the contrary, such agreements with local rulers, whether or not considered as an
actual “cession” of the territory, were regarded as derivative roots of title, and not
original titles obtained by occupation of terra nullius. In the present instance, the
information furnished to the Court shows that at the time of colonization Western
Sahara was inhabited by peoples which, if nomadic, were socially and politically
organized into tribes and under chiefs competent to represent them. Discovery of terra
nullius, moreover, is not enough to establish sovereignty. It must be accompanied by
effective control.