Greenland moves to negotiated independence while strengthening its ties with Denmark

7 April 2025.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called for increased Arctic defence collaboration with the United States during a visit to Greenland on 3 April 2025, and firmly dismissed the US desire to annex the semi-autonomous Danish territory. “This is not only about Greenland or Denmark, this is about the world order that we have built together across the Atlantic over generations. You cannot annex another country, not even with an argument about security,” she said [1]. President Donald Trump on 25 March 2025 doubled down on his suggestion that the U.S. should take over Greenland: “I think Greenland is going to be something that maybe is in our future,” Trump told reporters after a meeting with officials in his cabinet, saying it was important for U.S. national security [2].

The Greenlandic parties also reject annexation, but do not rule out partnership agreements with the US. “Greenland will never be a part of America … We want to trade. We want a strong partnership on national security, of course, but we want it in mutual respect. We will never be for sale and we will never be Americans,” said the leader of the winning party Democrats, Jens-Frederik Nielsen [3]. The suggestion of U.S. annexation of Greenland could be viewed as inconsistent with the principle of self-determination in international law. Such a move might also raise concerns regarding the unlawful acquisition of territory, as outlined in the United Nations Charter (Article 2(4)), which generally prohibits the use of force or coercion in altering territorial integrity.

The winning party’s manifesto states that independence is “a necessity” and that “[r]eal negotiations” should start with Denmark in order to establish a “roadmap to independence” [4]. “We are in the Kingdom of Denmark right now, and as long as we are in this construction, we need to build our relationship and build our partnership to get it stronger until the day we can be a sovereign nation,” Nielsen said [3]. Demokraatit believe that a “free association” model with another country could be suitable for a sovereign Greenland [4].

The second-placed party, Naleraq, also believes that establishing an association agreement with the US, Denmark “or another country” and signing a defence pact with the US are suitable options for achieving independence quickly: the party wants to hold a referendum within four years. The two big losers in the election, Inuit Ataqatigiit and Siumut—previously in government—have also favoured a gradual path to independence in practice, and both have made it clear that entering into permanent partnership agreements with other countries is an option to be considered [4].

The political discourse, as reflected in recent statements and election outcomes in Greenland, signals a clear aspiration toward eventual independence from Denmark. This process is framed not in confrontation, but in cooperation, with the aim of maintaining and even deepening Greenland’s partnership with Denmark throughout the transition. The emphasis on maintaining strong ties with Denmark suggests that the transition would aim for stability and continuity, possibly with Denmark providing assistance during the early stages of statehood, whether through economic support, defence arrangements, or technical cooperation. As such, the case presents a potential scenario of negotiated separation — a peaceful method of state creation, which is governed, at least in part, by the law of state succession.

This type of transition would likely engage several elements of the law of state succession, including:

Succession to Treaties: Greenland may decide whether to maintain continuity with selected international treaties to which Denmark is a party, or to enter into new ones;
Nationality: A transition to independence would require a determination of Greenlandic nationality, and potentially the management of dual nationality or renunciation of Danish nationality;
Public Property and Obligations: Greenland and Denmark would likely negotiate the distribution of assets, debts, and administrative records (governed by the 1983 Vienna Convention, though not universally ratified);
Membership in International Organizations: Greenland would not automatically inherit Denmark’s memberships and would need to apply as a new state, subject to recognition and admission procedures.

The anticipated move toward independence also carries important implications for transnational corporations and other major commercial actors operating in Greenland, particularly in the extractive industries, infrastructure, and logistics sectors. Existing contracts and concessions that were concluded under Danish legal authority may be subject to review, renegotiation, or re-authorization under new Greenlandic laws. While Greenland is expected to respect lawful contracts in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, investors may face a period of legal and regulatory adjustment.

The extent to which Greenland will offer investment protection through bilateral treaties remains uncertain. Should it not immediately succeed to Denmark’s investment treaties, foreign investors may temporarily find themselves without treaty-based safeguards. Greenland may eventually negotiate its own bilateral investment treaties or accede to regional investment frameworks, but there may be legal uncertainty in the interim. In addition, investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, such as those under ICSID, may not be immediately accessible unless Greenland takes deliberate steps to join or recognize such mechanisms.

Sources:

State Succession Index

7 April 2025.