The Legal Status of Greenland Under International Law

The Legal Status of Greenland under International Law

By Debra DeLaet (Executive Director, Iowa United Nations Association)

This blog is an updated version of an article published in the May 2025 edition of Advocacy News.

In August 2019, President Trump confirmed discussions within his administration about buying Greenland, an autonomous territory within Denmark. He emphasized Greenland’s potential strategic value to the United States. This plan was denounced by both Greenland’s government and Mette Frederiksen, the Danish Prime Minister, who stated bluntly that “Greenland is not for sale.”

President Trump has escalated his rhetoric about Greenland since the beginning of his second administration. In January 2025, he reiterated his interest in buying Greenland on the grounds that U.S. “ownership” of Greenland would serve both U.S. economic and national security interests. Greenland is an island with rich with national resources, including oil and gas, and rare minerals used to produce electric cars, wind turbines, and military equipment.

The melting of ice in the Arctic region also signals the potential of future opportunities for additional minerals and natural resources. Bordering the Northwest Passage shipping lane, the region also is a critical corridor in global trade. Russia’s increased military presence in the Arctic also drives the Trump Administration’s preoccupation with Greenland. In response to ongoing resistance to Trump’s insistence that the U.S. in Greenland and Denmark, President Trump declined to rule out the use of military force to annex Greenland. In his June 12 testimony to the House committee on the defense budget, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth intimated that the Trump administration has contingency plans to take Greenland (as well as Panama) by military force  if necessary.

Greenland’s colonial history sheds light on its complex legal status under international law. The Kingdom of Denmark colonized Greenland in 1721. The 1814 Treaty of Kiel, ending hostilities between Denmark and Sweden during the Napoleonic Wars, affirmed Denmark’s control over Greenland. Greenland remained a Danish colony until 1953 when Denmark fully incorporated Greenland into its territory through a constitutional amendment. The predominantly Inuit indigenous population of Greenland continued to resist Danish rule and called for decolonization and self-determination. In response, the Danish government eventually granted Greenland a form of autonomy through the Home Rule Act of 1979. Under this legislation, Greenland legally remained part of Denmark but was granted the right to establish its own parliament and limited authority to govern itself in domestic matters, including education, health, and housing. The 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government further advanced self-determination for the people of Greenland by allowing for a referendum on the question of independence and calling for negotiations between the governments of Greenland and Denmark should a majority of Greenlanders vote for independence in such a referendum.

Two key legal principles—state sovereignty and self-determination—provide a framework for understanding Greenland’s status under international law. State sovereignty is a foundational principle of international law. Article 2 of the UN Charter specifies that the organization is based on the sovereign equality of all of its members and that member states are obligated to refrain from the threat or use of force in their relations with each other. Greenland currently remains a part of Denmark. Any threat to the territorial integrity or political independence of Greenland remains a threat to the state sovereignty of Denmark.

The principle of self-determination, enshrined in Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, affirms that all peoples have the right to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.” Under international law, the right to self-determination can be fulfilled by autonomous self-governance within a sovereign state. Thus, the current governance framework, allowing Greenland a degree of autonomy within Denmark, fulfill the basic requirements of self-determination. Furthermore, the fact that Denmark, under the 2009 Greenland Self-Government Act, has authorized Greenland to hold a referendum to determine if a majority of Greenlanders want to pursue independence also advances the right to self-determination.

The international legal principles of state sovereignty and self-determination have clear implications for the Trump Administration’s recent pronouncements on Greenland. As long as Greenland formally remains a part of Denmark, the United States cannot buy Greenland unless Denmark agrees to sell it. Denmark has emphatically and consistently stated that Greenland is not for sale. The Trump Administration’s indication that it will not rule out the use of force to annex Greenland represents a clear assault on the concept of state sovereignty and prohibitions against intervention against sovereign states under the UN Charter. Should Greenland become independent in the future, the political terrain would shift, but the legal principles would remain the same. Upon any future independence, Greenland would become a sovereign state with which the United States would have to negotiate the terms of their relationship. The United States could not buy Greenland unless Greenland was willing to sell itself. And the United States could not use military force against Greenland without violating international law.