Land is typically approached as a commodified, bounded, and alienable resource, often focused on private ownership and economic production. Conversely, territory is viewed as a holistic space integral to identity, encompassing spiritual, cultural, and political self-government for a collective group. For more than two decades, the territorial approach to rights discourse differs from a strictly “land rights” approach, as land is often fragmented into titles, while territory is an indivisible, comprehensive concept. 

The distinction is clearest in Indigenous Peoples’ and other territory-based communities’ relationship to land and territorial waters, as indigenous Cherokee elder Stan Rushworth has expressed: “…the difference between a Western settler mindset of ‘I have rights’ and an indigenous mindset of ‘I have an obligation.’  Instead of thinking that I am born with rights, I choose to think that I was born with obligations to serve past, present, and future generations, and the planet herself.”

Land, as a property-based approach, usually refers to the physical, measurable, and often-private property holding. It is defined by legal, administrative, and cartographic boundaries. It is often tied to legal, individual ownership, or, in some contexts, state-controlled, land-use, or agricultural reform programs. The focus is on usage, market value, and the rights to exploit or develop natural resources for their productive capacity and output. 

Territory, as a rights-based approach, considersthe total habitat, including land, water, air, and other resources, necessary for the survival, sustainability, cultural integrity and social reproduction of a community. It emphasizes indigenous or collective rights, self-determination, and the ability to self-govern that space. It often embraces ancestral, traditional, or customary areas that are not necessarily legally titled. The focus is on the spiritual, ancestral, and political connection, including the “right to exist” in a place as a distinct people or community. 

Key differences in approach

Regional differences:

North America: “Land” often refers to freehold tenure or formally (i.e., legally) recognized indigenous areas, while “territory” can refer to broader traditional, ancestral, or treaty areas.

Latin America: “Territory” is often used in legal terms to define expansive areas that include both privately held and communal land, alongside political rights, such as indigenous territorial entities in Colombia. 

In summary, the approach to land focuses on “using” the resource, while the approach to territory focuses on “living” within a traditional, autonomous, and sacred space. 

In his final report to the UN human Rights Council, Special Rapporteur on the right to food Michael Fakhri strongly encouraged states to use the right to land and territory as an overriding framework for the outcomes of the Conference, and for the issue of sharing territories and resolving disputes between communities and peoples to be on the agenda. He advised “States should also adopt a territorial approach to land, fisheries, forests and water governance, recognizing territories as living systems central to the realization of the right to food and the right to a clean, safe and sustainable environment.”