Spatial scope of validity of the legal order. One of the components of the State. In constitutional law, territory is understood as not necessarily the spatial unit. For this reason, the unit of “territory” is not a geographical unit. The territory may be composed of parts separated from each other by other territories, which may belong to different States or not belong to any State (in the strict sense of “territory”), such as the high seas. If all these geographically unconnected parts constitute a unitary whole, a single territory, it is due, solely and exclusively, to the fact that they are nothing other than the spatial scope of the validity of one and the same legal order. The identity of the territory of the State is nothing more than the entity of the legal order.[4]​.

For other authors it is the portion on the surface of the globe over which the state usually exercises its sovereignty. It constitutes the physical basis of the State, as well as the necessary element for the subsistence of the State, which is geographically individualized, by virtue of the permanence of a people on the ground. Furthermore, it constitutes the determination of the Imperium, since the validity of the legal order must be referred to limits of space. The State is distinguished from other entities by virtue of power and its territorial character.[5]​.

The importance of the administrative political decentralization of the sovereign geographic space of the State, together with the development of technological means to annotate maps in the context of web 2.0, has allowed the emergence of means of defining territories independently of the official, based on communal-social production and local experience. In this way, the territory is produced according to the meaning that people give to the place they live in. The territory thus defined is consolidated to the extent that this way of understanding the place becomes common and even massive. Both the social habitat, the daily experience, the attachment to the place, and the historical traces of the places make up a common sense called territory, in this way the territory is the result of adding a sense (meaning) to a place, and that this sense of the place is validated by a critical mass of people.[6]​.

The community definition of a territory can often be opposed to the definition that the State has of a geographical space, especially when large projects can attack territorially constituted ways. When geographical space is appropriated by a community sense, and by other senses such as environmentalism, landscaping can become significant opponents to large projects undertaken by the State, large companies or both in collusion. From there it emerges that the territory must be understood as subject to local definitions.

This problem has been understood as a disciplinary challenge for sociology, ethnography and human geography dedicated to knowing the senses of place that achieve the status of territories,[7]​ regardless of the official definitions, in this dynamic what can be called local micro-geopolitics is generated.[8]​ To understand these dynamics, the discipline of social geosemantics has emerged, proposed by the Chilean sociologist Diego Cerda Seguel, as the science in charge of knowing the territories as the result. of the community social production of geographical spaces, at the intersection between place and meaning.

The idea of ​​"territory" is a methodological conceptualization that is part of the geographical corpus in various senses: from the experience of space to the critical consideration of the concept and its application to the different sciences. However, it is important to remember that this concept can also be applied to culture.

In this sense, "territory" explains and describes the spatial development of social relationships established by human beings in the cultural, social, political or economic spheres.

It is composed of concatenations of symbolic expressions that allow appropriation of the environment. In this way, territory goes from being just a geographical point and becomes the lived space, in which experience and abstraction play an important role. Culturally speaking, territory is the interpretation of the ownership of a specific land surface, it is thinking of the territory as a social construction mediated by the worldview of the community, assuming it as part of oneself and one's identity.[9]​.

Spatial scope of validity of the legal order. One of the components of the State. In constitutional law, territory is understood as not necessarily the spatial unit. For this reason, the unit of “territory” is not a geographical unit. The territory may be composed of parts separated from each other by other territories, which may belong to different States or not belong to any State (in the strict sense of “territory”), such as the high seas. If all these geographically unconnected parts constitute a unitary whole, a single territory, it is due, solely and exclusively, to the fact that they are nothing other than the spatial scope of the validity of one and the same legal order. The identity of the territory of the State is nothing more than the entity of the legal order.[4]​.

For other authors it is the portion on the surface of the globe over which the state usually exercises its sovereignty. It constitutes the physical basis of the State, as well as the necessary element for the subsistence of the State, which is geographically individualized, by virtue of the permanence of a people on the ground. Furthermore, it constitutes the determination of the Imperium, since the validity of the legal order must be referred to limits of space. The State is distinguished from other entities by virtue of power and its territorial character.[5]​.

The importance of the administrative political decentralization of the sovereign geographic space of the State, together with the development of technological means to annotate maps in the context of web 2.0, has allowed the emergence of means of defining territories independently of the official, based on communal-social production and local experience. In this way, the territory is produced according to the meaning that people give to the place they live in. The territory thus defined is consolidated to the extent that this way of understanding the place becomes common and even massive. Both the social habitat, the daily experience, the attachment to the place, and the historical traces of the places make up a common sense called territory, in this way the territory is the result of adding a sense (meaning) to a place, and that this sense of the place is validated by a critical mass of people.[6]​.

The community definition of a territory can often be opposed to the definition that the State has of a geographical space, especially when large projects can attack territorially constituted ways. When geographical space is appropriated by a community sense, and by other senses such as environmentalism, landscaping can become significant opponents to large projects undertaken by the State, large companies or both in collusion. From there it emerges that the territory must be understood as subject to local definitions.

This problem has been understood as a disciplinary challenge for sociology, ethnography and human geography dedicated to knowing the senses of place that achieve the status of territories,[7]​ regardless of the official definitions, in this dynamic what can be called local micro-geopolitics is generated.[8]​ To understand these dynamics, the discipline of social geosemantics has emerged, proposed by the Chilean sociologist Diego Cerda Seguel, as the science in charge of knowing the territories as the result. of the community social production of geographical spaces, at the intersection between place and meaning.

The idea of ​​"territory" is a methodological conceptualization that is part of the geographical corpus in various senses: from the experience of space to the critical consideration of the concept and its application to the different sciences. However, it is important to remember that this concept can also be applied to culture.

In this sense, "territory" explains and describes the spatial development of social relationships established by human beings in the cultural, social, political or economic spheres.

It is composed of concatenations of symbolic expressions that allow appropriation of the environment. In this way, territory goes from being just a geographical point and becomes the lived space, in which experience and abstraction play an important role. Culturally speaking, territory is the interpretation of the ownership of a specific land surface, it is thinking of the territory as a social construction mediated by the worldview of the community, assuming it as part of oneself and one's identity.[9]​.