Donald Trump wants to control Greenland. He already offered buying the island from Denmark during his first term. However, this violates the Greenlanders' right to self-determination, explains international law expert Matthias Goldmann.
Hier geht es zur deutschen Version des Interviews.
LTO: Professor Goldmann, the US President-elect Donald Trump wants to control Greenland. Once again, he proposed to buy Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark. What is the current status of Greenland under international law?
Prof. Dr. Matthias Goldmann: Greenland has been an autonomous part of Denmark in almost all matters since 1979. It has its own government, which has been given more and more powers except for defense and foreign policy.
Previously, Greenland’s status was unclear for a long time. There had been Danish settlements since the 19th century, which gave Denmark a territorial claim under international law at the time. This was confirmed by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1933. However, Denmark only began to build an infrastructure and establish state institutions in the 1950s – not always in the best interest of the Greenlanders. Conflicts with the Danish government led to a strong desire for autonomy. However, Greenland is still a part of Denmark and receives funds from Denmark.
"Only the Greenlanders themselves have control over Greenland"
Assuming Denmark agrees, can the US simply buy Greenland now?
No, especially not without the consent of the Greenlanders. Anything else would violate their right to self-determination. You can no longer sell off parts of a state territory. While the right to self-determination under international law is a more recent development, it goes back to the idea of popular sovereignty emerging during the Enlightenment. Accordingly, a monarch could no longer dispose of parts of his territory at will, even if this understanding was initially limited to European territory. The 20th century then saw the development of a general right to self-determination under international law, which is mentioned in the UN Charta and in the first article of both UN Human Rights Covenants. It provided the basis for decolonization during the postwar period. In 2019, the International Court of Justice reaffirmed its validity under customary international law in an advisory opinion on the Chagos Islands. The United Kingdom had detached the islands from Mauritius and, unlike Mauritius, refused to grant them independence.
The right to self-determination means that peoples can decide over their own political affiliation. However, the question of how to define peoples is as old as international law itself. In the first place, peoples comprise whoever is a citizen of a given state. However, the Danish people, which therefore also includes the Greenlanders, cannot simply decide to sell Greenland. Greenlanders themselves are a people with their own right to self-determination. Furthermore, indigenous peoples also have a right to self-determination as part of their collective human rights. Denmark is therefore not free to dispose of Greenland. Only the Greenlanders themselves have control over Greenland in this matter. In addition to international law, Greenland’s status is also enshrined in the Danish constitution, which needs to be respected. And both the Greenlanders and the Danes have already strongly objected to an acquisition by the United States.
In principle, international law does not recognize a right of secession for peoples within a state. However, the question is whether Denmark could resist the political pressure to hold an independence referendum in Greenland. Some voices in Greenland keep calling for this. The background to this desire for autonomy is the continuing tension with Denmark caused by the often forced modernization of Greenland in the 20th century. So far, the funding has kept Greenland tied to Denmark. However, Greenland has natural resources of its own that could potentially finance itself.
Donald Trump has offered to support Greenland instead of Denmark. Would that be an option?
I don’t think that Greenland would want to switch from one colonial situation to another. Joining the US as a state is also challenging because it requires a joint resolution of both chambers of Congress. There are territories that have not met these requirements, Puerto Rico for example. Greenland could also end up in this state of dependent independence.
"Economic pressure may also be prohibited"
Last Wednesday, Donald Trump did not rule out using economic pressure to gain control of Greenland. What limits does international law set here?
Here, the legal situation is a bit more ambiguous. In the course of decolonization, there were attempts by newly independent states to regard economic pressure as an intervention prohibited by international law. Several resolutions of the UN General Assembly stressed this view, but most of them were not passed by an overwhelming majority, so it is difficult to argue that there is customary law. The only clear case is when economic pressure has a coercive effect comparable to a military intervention. This is prohibited under international law.
Below this threshold, many states tolerate economic pressure and use it regularly in the form of sanctions. The US therefore has several options to exert economic pressure. Its actions might be in conflict with world trade law. However, there are exceptions for national security interests. Although their scope is also controversial, the US has often invoked them in the recent past.
"Trump’s push is a signal to conservative supporters"
Greenland is not the only country that Trump has his eye on. He also wants to control the Panama Canal has been joking for some time about Canada becoming the 51st state of the US. Where does this interest in territorial expansion come from?
There might be strategic interests analogous to those behind the proposed purchase of Greenland, such as access to resources and shipping routes. Moreover, the proposal to integrate Canada into the US sends a signal to Trump’s conservative supporters. It aims a group of mainly white voters who see their position of privilege in the US and in the world threatened and want to defend it. For them, Trump’s foreign policy corroborates a sense of White Supremacy. Now the difference between Canada and the US does not have racial connotations, but in many ways, Canada is a counter-model to the US and in particular to Trumpism. Canada has a better welfare state and is on better terms with the indigenous population. At the international level, Canada presents itself as a good global citizen, a defender of human rights and the environment, and takes in quite a number of refugees from crisis regions. In this respect, Trump’s condescension towards Canada is also condescension towards the liberal values it stands for, much to the pleasure of his supporters.
"It raises the fundamental question of the future of international law"
How could statements like these affect US diplomatic relations and the recognition of borders and international law in the long term?
That is potentially fatal. It raises the fundamental question of the future of international law. The international legal order after 1990 was to an important extent based on US military and economic hegemony – which is why the US could afford to refuse abiding by these rule in many situations. This is now a thing of the past and the question arises as to whether basic rules of international law such as the prohibition of the use of force or the right to self-determination will retain their significance. The US is no onger the only hegemonial power. There are now several other states that also believe they can break the rules. If this spreads, the order as a whole is threatened. Customary law in particular loses its validity if nobody abides by it.
I still have hope that Donald Trump's advisors can convince him that the US is harming itself if it throws existing rules of international law overboard. After all, what would then stop China from invading Taiwan? However, there is reason for hope. Some recent resolutions of the UN General Assembly, for example on the war in Ukraine or on Israel and Palestine, demonstrate that the vast majority of nations want to adhere to the foundations of international law and refuse to enter into an order with special rights for regional and global powers.
Thank you for the interview!
Professor Dr Matthias Goldmann holds the Chair of International Law at EBS University Wiesbaden and is a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.
This text is a translated and slightly revised version of the interview published in German on January 10, 2025.
Interview on Trump's Greenland Plan: . In: Legal Tribune Online, 17.01.2025 , https://www.lto.de/persistent/a_id/56354 (abgerufen am: 12.02.2025 )
Infos zum Zitiervorschlag