Denmark can’t prevent Greenland from becoming part of the US: Commentary
Discussion about a potential sale of Greenland to the US has resurfaced. Both Greenland’s Premier Múte B. Egede and Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen have dismissed the notion that Greenland is for sale.
Several members of the Danish Parliament have also rejected the idea of voting for Greenlandic independence, as required by the [Danish] Self-Government Act of 2009. Such rejection not only reflects a colonial mindset, but also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Greenlanders’ right to self-determination. This right stems not from Danish but international law, meaning Danish politicians cannot prevent Greenland’s independence.
Historical precedents for the sale of territories
The sale of territories has occurred multiple times throughout history. Denmark, for instance, sold the Danish West Indies to the US in 1917 and the US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867.
However, these precedents are no longer relevant, partly because the Danish West Indies were a colony and because the sale of territories was regulated by different rules at the time.
Although Denmark governed Greenland as a colony there has historically been reluctance to acknowledge it as such. Nonetheless, Greenland was legally a colony until 1953, when it was integrated into the Danish Realm.
Subsequently, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Denmark—the legal term for Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands—which, from an international law perspective, constitutes one state.
A more relevant precedent than the sale of the Danish West Indies is that of other overseas territories integrated into metropolitan states and later gaining independence.
An example is Algeria, which gained independence from France in 1962. There are other examples of the division of states, such as South Sudan’s independence from Sudan in 2011 and Bougainville’s 2019 vote to leave Papua New Guinea. Bougainville’s independence, however, has been delayed due to a lack of parliamentary approval.
Two paths to independence
While both Egede and Frederiksen have ruled out Greenland being sold, this does not mean it cannot become part of the US. In his New Year’s speech, Egede highlighted that the Greenlandic government is working to make “our country more independent.”
If Egede were to seek closer ties with the US, one option would be for Greenland to first become an independent state and then integrate with the US. Greenland could potentially become a federal state, as Alaska did in 1959.
Alternatively, Greenland could have looser ties with the US, akin to Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, or the US Virgin Islands—the current name for the Danish West Indies. Greenland could also negotiate an entirely new relationship.
Greenland could achieve independence in two ways: either through secession or negotiated independence.
Secession is a process whereby a group unilaterally seeks to separate from the state to which it belongs, creating a new state on part of the former state’s territory. This is a one-sided process that, in Greenland’s case, would not require the involvement of the Danish government or Parliament.
Negotiated independence, by contrast, is a consensus-based process in which a state grants independence to a territory and its people through negotiation, as occurred with South Sudan. Negotiated independence would require the involvement of the Danish government and Parliament, as stipulated in the Self-Government Act.
Negotiated independence is always preferable as it is more organised and less risky. One risk of secession is that a declaration of independence might not be recognised by other states. This occurred, for example, with Catalonia in 2017.
Greenland’s right to self-determination
Unlike Catalonians, Greenlanders have an international right to self-determination, which applies to the people of former colonies.
As a result, other countries have generally been less reluctant to recognise their secession. Although Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, there is no doubt that the Greenlandic people have a right to self-determination. This is confirmed in the Self-Government Act.
The Act states that the decision regarding Greenland’s independence rests with the Greenlandic people. However, independence requires an agreement between Naalakkersuisut (Greenland’s government) and the Danish government, to be approved by a referendum in Greenland and by a vote in the Danish Parliament.
The Self-Government Act thus assumes a negotiated independence, though this is not a requirement under international law.
A unilateral declaration of independence by Greenland would likely be recognised by the US and possibly other states.
International treaties and institutional agreements
After a potential division of the Kingdom, there would be both a new state and a continuator state comprising the remaining kingdom, i.e., Denmark and the Faroe Islands.
In nearly all cases the continuing state is the entity that retains the majority of the original state’s population and territory.
In the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland constitutes 98 per cent of the territory, while Greenland’s population accounts for less than one per cent of the total population. It is unusual for a continuing state to be smaller than the new state, but it is not impossible.
An important question for identifying the continuing state is whether its identity is challenged by the seceding state, other states, or UN bodies.
When the Soviet Union dissolved, several countries claimed to be the continuator state. Russia was recognised because it took over most of the Soviet Union’s territory and population. This allowed Russia to remain in international organisations, such as the UN, without reapplying for membership.
Closer ties with the US without parliamentary approval
An independent Greenland would need to address many questions, such as accession to international treaties in which the Kingdom of Denmark currently participates and which would automatically pass to the continuator state.
Even if Greenland opts for secession, negotiations will still be required on numerous institutional matters currently covering the entire Kingdom. When Czechoslovakia dissolved in 1992, over 30 treaties and several thousand agreements were negotiated.
Greenland has already assumed certain competencies, but there remain many new areas to take over.
The United Kingdom (UK) faced similar challenges before the Scottish referendum in 2014. Scotland sought to retain the currency, head of state, and EU membership, but these matters were beyond Scotland’s control. Ultimately, Scots voted to remain part of the UK.
Despite clear rejections of sale or independence, options for Greenland’s future remain open. Closer ties can be established with the US without the Danish Parliament’s consent.
Regardless of the path chosen, the process will be complex, involving significant political and legal challenges. While Danish politicians can complicate the process, they cannot prevent independence if that is the wish of the Greenlandic people.
Jacques Hartmann is professor of international law and human rights at Dundee University Law School. He has extensive experience teaching, researching and practicing international and human rights law. He holds a PhD from Cambridge University, where he also worked as Research Associate at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. Dr Hartmann is a generalist international lawyer, and his work reflects the breadth of the discipline, from issues concerning the law of the sea to international humanitarian law.
