State legal systems in common law countries adopt a range of different models for recognizing Indigenous territorial control. In many cases, Indigenous territorial control is predicated on Indigenous property interests in land. Where this approach is adopted, the collective authority of the Indigenous group only extends to lands in which the Indigenous group or its members hold a recognized property interest. However, there are also prominent instances in which the state legal system recognizes Indigenous territorial jurisdiction that is independent of land tenure. This chapter compares four models that are used to delineate the jurisdiction of Indigenous groups in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Those models are: 1) territorial jurisdiction independent of land tenure with political participation based on residency; 2) territorial jurisdiction independent of land tenure with political participation limited to members of the Indigenous group; 3) territorial control based on property interests, with supplementary regulatory powers linked to land tenure; and 4) territorial control based solely or primarily on property interests. The chapter argues that there are potential advantages and disadvantages associated with each model. How these tradeoffs are viewed will depend in large part on the values and circumstances of particular Indigenous communities.