Indigenous Self‑Determination and Greenland
Greenland’s predominantly Inuit population is recognized as an Indigenous People with a corresponding right to self‑determination under international law. Any external attempt to alter Greenland’s sovereignty – including annexation by the United States – would violate that right and therefore cannot be lawful without the freely expressed will of the Greenlandic people.
Continue reading >>
Greenland and the Spectre of Dispossession
When it came to grabbing territory, the British had effective techniques by the 1960s. Morning-tea at Downing Street could accomplish what a U.S President’s incontinent media posts have been threatening to do with much froth and fury since 2019: The dispossession of the Chagossians was sealed during one morning in 1965, and should now serve as a cautionary tale for Greenland. Like the Chagos Archipelago, Greenland might find itself dismembered and carved up to serve the security interests of Europe. The path to dispossession is being built on the fallacy that the Arctic zone presents a security threat to the U.S and Europe. The true peril, however, comes from the interconnected vulnerabilities of climate destruction and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Continue reading >>
„Die NATO wäre tot“
Alles andere als eine US-Kontrolle über Grönland sei „inakzeptabel“. Mit diesen Worten hat Donald Trump diese Woche Sorgen vor einer US-Annexion Grönlands weiter geschürt. Während europäische Regierungen Dänemark ihre Unterstützung und Solidarität versichern, ist schon jetzt eines klar: Sollten die USA Grönland tatsächlich annektieren, wäre nichts mehr wie zuvor. Wir haben mit Marko Milanović darüber gesprochen, wie das Völkerrecht auf ein solches Szenario reagieren könnte – und was eine Annexion Grönlands für die Zukunft der NATO bedeuten würde.
Continue reading >>“NATO Would Be Dead”
“Anything less” than U.S. control of Greenland is “unacceptable.” With those words this week, President Donald Trump reignited fears that a U.S. annexation of Greenland could move from rhetoric to reality. As European governments move to reassure Denmark of their support and solidarity, one thing is already clear: if the Greenland annexation scenario were to materialize, nothing would be the same again. We spoke with Marko Milanović about how international law would respond to such a scenario – and what a Greenland annexation would mean for the future of NATO.
Continue reading >>
“It’s Geoeconomics, Stupid”
“It’s the economy, stupid”, the famous catchphrase in the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, emphasized the importance of economic growth and stability for US voters. The economic argument was also decisive for Trump’s second win. While he promised the return of a US golden age, the US economy has so far been riding on a rollercoaster. As world economies remain interconnected – even in a postliberal view – the Greenland crisis puts geoeconomics centre stage, with the United States using economic and coercive instruments to achieve strategic geopolitical goals.
Continue reading >>
Grabbing Greenland
The US have doubled down on their threats to seize Greenland, oscillating between long-standing demands that Denmark sell the island to more recent allusions that force may be used if it doesn’t. Trump’s antics over Greenland have politically divided allies and left NATO and the EU de facto and de jure compromised. In this situation, willing, able and trusted states would be well advised to strengthen a European pillar which is complementary to NATO, i.e. one that can plug and play with the US in the Alliance where it can, and autonomously where it must.
Continue reading >>
European Solidarity and Union Citizens in Greenland
While the EU and its Member States have consistently signalled solidarity with Denmark and Greenland since Trump’s inauguration in early 2025, Europe’s strategy so far has been cautious and may no longer be sufficient. The current situation will test whether European solidarity can evolve beyond rhetoric into a form of “defence solidarity”, ultimately requiring Member States to share military burdens in defence of both Greenlandic Union citizens and European sovereignty.
Continue reading >>
Greenland and US Annexation Threats
Regardless of whether the US administration’s renewed threat to annex Greenland materializes, its multiple legal ramifications warrant serious analysis under public international law and within the EU legal order as mediated by Danish domestic law. President Trump has not only refused to rule out the use of military force to acquire Greenland but has also repeatedly doubled down on his annexation ambitions, transforming what might once have been dismissed as rhetorical provocation into a credible geopolitical scenario.
Continue reading >>International Law Under Pressure
In this blog post, we document and analyse the numerous apparent breaches of international law that have occurred within the first six weeks of the 2025 Trump administration. What began as an informal discussion at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law has evolved into this analytical overview. We believe this documentation serves both academic purposes and potentially supports future legal proceedings. While defenders of these actions will undoubtedly offer justifications for what we identify as clear breaches of international law, our analysis aims to provide an assessment based on established international legal principles.
Continue reading >>