Can the United States gain control on Greenland?
The strategic importance of Greenland is undeniable. With its abundance of natural resources and its crucial geostrategic location, its value has only grown, especially in light of the ongoing ice melt. Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration wasted no time in highlighting this fact, making yet another provocative move, while also recognizing the potential advantage it would give the U.S. in relation to Russia and China. However, in my view, it was little more than a bid for attention. This was far from the first such attempt by the United States —or by Trump, who made a similar move in 2019—. The first notable attempt occurred in the 1950s, when the U.S. tried to buy Greenland for around 100 million euros.
Currently, there are two potential avenues for asserting control over Greenland: the first is through military force, and the second is through legal means. To the best of my knowledge, neither option is viable, and we will see why. In other words, territorial expansion through violence or the violation of international norms is not an option, although such actions might have some practical consequences, they would not change the inherent illegality of the endeavor.
Starting with the framework, Greenland has historically been inhabited by indigenous peoples and has fought for its independence, having endured multiple waves of colonization. It was not until 1953 that Denmark consolidated its sovereignty over Greenland, integrating it into the Kingdom of Denmark while, administratively speaking, progressively granting the island a significant degree of autonomy.
At the heart of the matter, the United Nations issued Resolution 2625 in 1970, which states: “The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.”
In a similar vein, the more expansive text of the United Nations Charta, in Article 2.4, further underscores this principle: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
It would be a different case if Greenland were to voluntarily decide to secede from Denmark and exercise its right to self-determination —but that would make Greenlanders lose a lot of privileges—. However, in such a scenario, the US population would also need to consent to Greenland’s integration into US territorial sovereignty. Since Greenland would not be seeking full independence, but rather a union with another state, it would be most appropriate for the receiving state to make a formal declaration on the matter as well.
Meanwhile, since defense and foreign policy are not part of Greenland’s enhanced self-government—matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Denmark—it is Denmark that continues to represent Greenland on the international stage.
The roles of NATO and the European Union are no less significant in this context. Let us not forget that Greenland —while indirectly— is as much a member of the alliance as the United States, and that Denmark is a member of the European Union. Any attack would, in effect, be an assault on the sovereignty of a European country, even if Greenland itself is not directly a member of the club. Furthermore, since Greenland lies north of the Tropic of Cancer and is part of the geographical area defined in Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5 of the Treaty would be invoked. This article reads: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force […]”.
It seems almost absurd, doesn’t it? An attack between NATO members?
The European Union also has a provision addressing such situations. In Article 42.7 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it states: “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation […]”.
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reads: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Trump apparently wants to argue for such a territorial acquisition for reasons of international security, but, unless I am mistaken, no precept of public international law would allow such an operation. At most, a cession of territory by treaty, on a voluntary basis and with the consent of all parties involved.
This presents an even broader analysis, but, based on an initial assessment of the issue, Trump’s proposed “birthday gift” seems highly unlikely to materialize. Perhaps this is just a calculated wake-up call for Denmark to increase defense investment, as it did a few days ago.
Will we see a change of cards? Only time will tell, but if that time comes, it could be the end of respect for public international law.