In putting the seminal advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Western Sahara in perspective, the Court's opinion should not be remembered essentially for its denial of local legal exceptionalism in the face of a universally accepted principle of international law (self-determination). Rather, it should stand out as a paradigm shift from a treaty-based approach to a domestic and administrative fact-finding determination of evidence of state sovereignty and territorial occupation. The Court's analysis of the Western Saharan tribes' relationships with Morocco, in particular, in light of its newly found positivism, is a vector of further evolution towards a self-contained definition of sovereignty whereby the international treaty body may no longer be seen as the sole authoritative source. The Court's approach ultimately points to the emergence of a principle that combines internal sovereignty (proof of effective display of state authority) and external sovereignty (based on recognition expressed in international treaties) as the basis for a determination of sovereignty, even though the Court upheld self-determination for Western Sahara. The Court's specific finding with regard to legal ties between Western Sahara and Morocco suggests a differentiated approach to a future political status of the Western Sahara's northern and southern region and to a settlement of the still alive dispute: neither partition, nor independence, or integration with Morocco, but a political dispensation that could accommodate the Court's finding of legal ties of allegiance to Morocco with regard to some northern tribes. The Court's conclusion that self-determination remains the overarching principle for any future determination of the political status of Western Sahara assigns an essentially flawed decolonisation practice and process, as defined by the United Nations. The indigenous peoples of the Atlantic seaboard of the Sahara desert exemplify a unique preservation of nomadic life and organisational structure that defies classification and integration by neighbouring, emerging states and Western liberal approaches alike. The genesis and legacy of the advisory opinion offer a rare insight into a three-dimensional civilisation clash of legal and political conceptions of space, borders and power, which has much bearing on key issues impinging on the now unfolding right of indigenous peoples.