Commercial land investment contracts between governments and investors violating traditional tenure systems are a hot topic of debate. The distinction between territorial and resource rights, however, usually remains unattended. Territorial rights are a question of political authority that has the jurisdictional rights over resources and persons, while resource rights are mostly regarded as property rights. Based on Cara Nine’s approach of territorial and resource rights, the paper argues that particularly resource rights are disregarded within the context of large-scale land investments. In this regard the case study of Ethiopia exemplifies the three obstacles of resource rights: At first, the paper illustrates how domestic injustice can foster land grabbing and in turn violates collective resource rights, like access to pastures or water. Secondly, the disparity of cultural and political power over geographical territories and its resources, often an issue of (colonial) boundaries, undermines land claims of minorities and indigenous people. Finally, the recognition of the cultural and/or economic value of resources by locals, investors and the political elite alike seems to be a crucial precondition to prevent conflicts when it comes to changes in land use. Recapitulating the link between resource rights, political legitimacy in terms of territorial rights and the negative impact of land grabbing, the last part of the paper outlines potential approaches to strengthen not only equitable land tenure systems, but also to ensure political and cultural self-determination of concerned populations across borders.
