The Legal Debate Surrounding Greenland and Denmark: Unpacking Donald Trump’s Statements

On January 8, 2025, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump questioned Denmark’s authorized rights to Greenland, stating, “individuals don’t actually know if Denmark has any authorized rights to [Greenland].” Whereas the precise issues behind his remarks stay unclear, they probably contact on two interrelated points: Denmark’s historic institution of sovereignty over Greenland, regardless of restricted efficient occupation initially, and the Greenlandic individuals’s proper to self-determination.

This put up examines the authorized foundations of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland and addresses the Greenlandic individuals acknowledged proper to self-determination inside worldwide regulation. It concludes that Greenland’s authorized standing throughout the Kingdom of Denmark is firmly established. Denmark’s sovereignty is supported by historic authorized developments, steady and peaceable train of authority, and the absence of unresolved challenges from different States underneath worldwide regulation. Ought to Greenland select independence sooner or later, it might be a matter of political will exercised by way of democratic processes, not a authorized deficiency in Denmark’s title.

The Evolution of Sovereignty within the Arctic: Conventional Land Acquisition Guidelines and Arctic Realities

The institution of sovereignty within the Arctic usually deviated from the standard guidelines of land acquisition, corresponding to discovery of terra nullius mixed with efficient occupation, prescription, cession, conquest (now not permissible underneath worldwide regulation), or accretion (p. 163). The standard system of discovery of terra nullius adopted by efficient occupation and notification to different nations was ill-suited for the Arctic realities as a result of area’s inaccessibility and harsh local weather that prevented institution of everlasting settlements coupled with efficient administrative management over the territory (p. 167). This created challenges for USSR, Canada, Denmark, and Norway in securing authorized claims over some Arctic territories. For instance, the declassified inner paperwork of the Canadian Authorities make clear Canada’s wrestle in establishing authorized grounds for asserting Arctic sovereignty and alter in authorized approaches to its land claims from 1905 to 1956.

Recognizing these distinctive challenges, by the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries worldwide regulation developed to decrease the edge for sovereignty claims over uninhabited and distant territories. Instances corresponding to Island of Palmas (1928), Clipperton Island (1931), and the Authorized Standing of Jap Greenland (1933) solidified the strategy that distant and hard-to-reach areas don’t require the identical degree of bodily presence of a sovereign as extra accessible areas if different powers couldn’t make out a superior declare.

Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland had been primarily based upon this strategy. For hundreds of years, Denmark peacefully and repeatedly displayed its authority over the island with out challenges from different nations till Norway’s competing declare arose in 1925 (para.72). This culminated in 1931 Norwegian proclamation of sovereignty and occupation of Jap Greenland, prompting the adjudication of the controversy within the Everlasting Courtroom of Worldwide Justice (PCIJ). The PCIJ held {that a} declare to sovereignty primarily based upon continued show of authority, includes two components every of which should be proven to exist: the intention and can to behave as sovereign, and a few precise train or show of such authority (para.96). As confirmed within the Jap Greenland case, Denmark has efficiently demonstrated each components.

Acquiescence by Different Nations

One other necessary ingredient that the PCIJ thought of was the acquiescence of different states to Denmark’s authority and the absence of a stronger declare to Greenland. In its 1933 choice, the PCIJ referenced state observe, together with Dutch, French and Swedish recognition of Danish sovereignty over Greenland (para. 25).  Notably, in 1916, the USA issued a declaration affirming that it might not object to Denmark extending its political and financial pursuits over the entire of Greenland (paras. 135-136). Since resolving the controversy with Norway, no different nation has formally challenged Denmark’s sovereignty over the island.

The US has persistently acknowledged Danish sovereignty, as evidenced by the Settlement Regarding the Protection of Greenland of 1941, the Protection of Greenland Settlement of 1951, and  Amending and Supplementing the 1951 Settlement of 2004.

More moderen instance contains Danish submission of data to the Fee on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in regard to the Greenland’s Northern continental shelf past 200 nautical miles in 2014: the U.S. didn’t object to the consideration of the submission by the CLCS and didn’t query the powers of Denmark. This longstanding U.S. acquiescence has authorized penalties underneath the doctrine of estoppel, precluding the USA from contesting Greenland’s standing as a part of Denmark.

Lastly, each the USA and Denmark are members of the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental discussion board fostering cooperation amongst Arctic States, Arctic Indigenous peoples, and different stakeholders. States or organizations within the Arctic affairs could request to hitch the Arctic Council as observers. The observer membership necessities embrace recognition of Arctic States’ sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction. So far, 13 non-Arctic States have joined the Arctic Council as observers, all confirming their recognition of Arctic States’ sovereignty. Importantly, the Arctic States themselves haven’t raised any sovereignty issues amongst one another throughout the Council.

Up to date Standing of Greenland and Proper to Self-Willpower

The difficulty of Arctic sovereignty is inextricably linked to the rights of Indigenous peoples, together with the Greenlandic Inuit. Traditionally, the principles of worldwide regulation on land acquisition ignored the pre-existing rights of Indigenous individuals as utilized to the institution of sovereignty. Somewhat, the management over native inhabitants was used as a authorized foundation for sovereignty of the occupying energy (p. 51). The appliance of those authorized rules to territories inhabited by Indigenous populations is now extensively criticized as a “continuation of colonialism.” As a response, occupying governments have more and more sought to enter into preparations with Indigenous communities to handle problems with self-governance and self-determination.

Greenland’s transition from a colony to a self-governing territory exemplifies this development. Its colonial standing was abolished in 1953 when it grew to become an integral a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. In 1979, Greenland was granted residence rule, which allowed for a higher diploma of autonomy. This self-governance was additional expanded in 2009 underneath the Act on Greenland Self-Authorities, granting Greenland management over key home issues, together with its pure assets. Denmark retained duty for international affairs, protection, and safety coverage, however Greenland’s authorities, Naalakkersuisut, gained the authority to interact in worldwide relations on issues solely regarding Greenland’s home jurisdiction, as outlined in Chapter 4 of the Act.

The Self-Authorities Act explicitly acknowledges Greenlanders as individuals with the suitable to self-determination underneath worldwide regulation. This authorized framework permits Greenland to pursue independence by way of a democratic course of if its individuals so select. Such a transition would require negotiations between the Danish Authorities and Naalakkersuisut, adopted by an settlement endorsed by the Greenlandic Parliament (Inatsisartut), a referendum in Greenland, and consent from the Danish Parliament (Folketing), as stipulated by Part 19 of the Danish Structure.

Whereas Greenland stays a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, there’s a rising independence motion. In response to Donald Trump’s remarks about Greenland, Naalakkersuisut issued a Press launch emphasizing that Greenland’s future should be outlined by its inhabitants whereas affirming a dedication to constructive cooperation with neighboring states, together with the USA, certainly one of Greenland’s closest companions.

Ought to Greenland pursue independence, a number of important points associated to Arctic affairs would require consideration. For example, Greenland would wish to resolve whether or not to determine its personal navy, presently absent, and whether or not to hunt membership in NATO and the Arctic Council. Additionally, Greenland would wish to handle how (and whether or not) it might assume different necessary tasks, corresponding to conducting Arctic search and rescue operations. Moreover, questions relating to the 2014 submission to the CLCS in respect to the Greenland’s Northern continental shelf past 200 nautical miles may come up, together with whether or not to develop the submission to incorporate the Alpha-Mendeleev Ridge advanced and the Chukchi Borderland (p. 399), and how one can strategy future delimitation of the prolonged continental cabinets within the Central Arctic Ocean with Canada and Russia (and presumably the U.S. ought to the submission develop to the Chukchi Borderland). These issues spotlight the complexities that may accompany Greenland’s potential transition to full independence.

Conclusion

At present, Greenland’s standing throughout the Kingdom of Denmark is firmly grounded in worldwide regulation. Denmark’s sovereignty over the island has been persistently upheld by way of peaceable and steady show of authority, acquiescence by different states, and recognition inside worldwide boards. President Trump’s remarks, whereas provocative, overlook the sturdy authorized foundations of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland.

Whereas the island enjoys important autonomy underneath the 2009 Self-Authorities Act, its proper to self-determination ensures that any transfer towards independence might be a democratic choice by the Greenlandic individuals. Such a change will reshape Arctic affairs and will considerably influence the political local weather of the Excessive North.