Greenland entered international spotlight due to the strong interest of the United States expressed by the Trump II administration in acquiring it, after being on the periphery of international relations for millennia. Currently, the green lights of the Aurora Borealis are visible over the island, but so are the green flares of American territorial claims. The hasty greenlighting of possible military action incentivized many countries on a global scale to have their say on the matter and some even to mobilize their military forces to protect against an American intrusion in their sphere of influence. Legally speaking, however, the narrower issue is about self-determination, which this paper will touch upon.

Historically and geographically, it has been difficult to establish larger settlements on the island or to integrate Greenland into great trade roads. Global warming has begun to change these circumstances, as the Arctic region has become more accessible, and the interest in the whole region is increasing for a multitude of geopolitical an economic reasons. Recently, several perspectives have been analysed regarding Greenland, including those of international law, human rights, the economy, military strategy.[1] Another important dimension of the issue is concerns the people of Greenland themselves. Do they have the power to exercise self-determination? Greenlandic identity is also shaped by the indigenous status of the majority of the population. Therefore, questions regarding the rights and self-determination of the indigenous people also should be part of the debates.

The Status of Greenland

Greenland has been on a long and peaceful path toward independence for decades. Examining the historical background, Benedikte Brinckner describes how Inuit settlers have lived on the island for millennia. Later, Europeans arrived, and Greenland became a colony of Denmark in the eighteenth century, then it was incorporated as a county of Denmark in 1953. The steps toward sovereignty were taken gradually but steadily, as an increasing level of competences were transferred to the Greenlandic authorities. According to Article 21 of the 2009 Act of Self-Government, “[t]he decision regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland.” These steps of gaining more independence were further reinforced through referenda as pointed out by Ackrén in 2019. Today, executive, legislative and judiciary powers are exercised independently.

It can be argued that Greenland has become a partially independent territory (PIT), only a few steps away from full sovereignty. The concept of partially independent territory is associated with David A. Rezvani, who defines such entities situated between fully sovereign and fully dependent territories, characterized by a specific set of attributes.[2]

Greenland’s aspiration to become an independent state must comply with the established standards of statehood. According to the Montevideo Convention: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory (c) government and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.”

When analysing these conditions in the case of Greenland, the following observations can be made: the world’s largest island has a clearly defined territory, and an independent government, the Naalakkersuisut. (cf. Act on Self-Government, above) Over the decades, Greenland’s capacity in foreign affairs has gradually expanded, and they are actively developing the skills necessary to operate independently in the field of international relations.[3] Greenland clearly satisfies the standards of statehood, so the claim for the independence of the territory could be based on the conditions of the Montevideo Convention.

Until recently, the only remaining question appeared to concern the timing of a referendum on Greenland’s sovereignty, and the subsequent process of independence. However, recent American actions seem to have altered this trajectory. The situation has become increasingly tense, and even the future cohesion of the NATO has been called into question. The decisions of President Trump appear to signal a strong will to acquire the island. Thus, the people of Greenland are agitated, driven by fears of potential military action against the island.

People of Greenland

Greenland has often been viewed as being on a gradual path toward greater political autonomy and possibly independence. As the constitutional and political ties with Denmark have lessened over the decades, it became clear that Greenland could become the first independent state where indigenous people form a majority of the population.

Currently, the people of Greenland form a distinct, semi-independent group within the Danish Realm, of a population that is approximately 55,000 people. Without engaging in the theoretical definitions of ‘the people’ and ‘the nation’, Greenlandic distinctiveness is reflected in their identity and ethnic origin, as well as in physical characteristics shaped by the territory’s unique geographical conditions.

More than 80% of the residents identify as Inuit, which makes Greenland the only territory with a majority of indigenous people in the Arctic. Inuit populations form minorities within Canada, Russia and the United States in this region. Overall, approximately 180,000 Inuit live across the Arctic region.

The status of indigenous people in the region is stronger than in many other parts of the world, as they have a voice in the regional councils such as the Arctic Council. Their organisations, including the Inuit Circumpolar Council, have the power to articulate their perspectives on decisions shaping the region, and their views are usually taken into consideration.[4]

Even official documents concerning the status of the Inuit people demonstrate the strength of their voice in the Arctic. As A Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Sovereignty in the Arctic states: “The inextricable linkages between issues of sovereignty and sovereign rights in the Arctic and Inuit self-determination and other rights require states to accept the presence and role of Inuit as partners in the conduct of international relations in the Arctic.”

This reflects a clear will among the indigenous peoples to participate in decisions affecting their future. The successful case of an independent Greenland could have served as a prime example of the just treatment of an indigenous group. However, the current situation demonstrates that the power dynamics of great powers can easily override the rights and interests of the small powers.

If the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are taken into consideration, several articles can be used to analyse the current situation in Greenland. Article 4 declares the right of indigenous people to autonomy or self-government. Article 18 defines their right to “participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights”, while Article 26 describes their rights to their lands.

As the Declaration is not legally binding, it is not obligatory either for the United States or Denmark. A greater willingness to listen to the voice of the indigenous peoples would represent a welcome development in international relations. However, current events indicate a different path.

One of the main ideas behind the independence movement in Greenland has been the indigenous identity of its population. Nevertheless, “In some ways, the political situation in Greenland, with its deep-seated aspiration for independence, corresponds more to the overseas colonies of Asia and Africa that gained independence in the 1960s and 1970s than other Indigenous peoples.”[5]

Thus, the question of indigeneity is not the primary argument used in the rhetoric surrounding Greenland. Nevertheless, it could have been invoked more frequently in these disputes, as indigenous rights are clearly relevant to the situation. However, they do not constitute a central element of the Greenlandic reasoning; instead, Greenlandic actors predominantly rely on the classical theory of self-determination and nation-building, as argued by Kuokkanen in the context of “indigenous Westphalian sovereignty”.

Would it be useful to rely on the rhetoric indigenous peoples’ rights? From this perspective, the fact that an indigenous group’s self-determination is under strain should be explicitly addressed in debates about the future of Greenland.

In the current situation, all five political parties represented in the Greenlandic Parliament, the Inatsisartut declared in a joint statement that “We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danish (…)”.This reflects a strong desire among Greenlanders to determine their own future. At the same time, they remain aligned with Denmark as a reason of current political uncertainties. Denmark remains strongly committed maintaining Greenland as a part of the Danish realm, as its status and access to resources as an Arctic power are related to the island.

The slow and prudent development of Greenlandic independence could have been a success story. However, changes in the current international climate have altered this course, and Greenland’s present aim is to maintain the status quo. The Greenlandic people, who gained increasing recognition at both regional and international level as an independent political entity,[6]  now face the prospect of stepping back or risking the achievements they have already secured.

As the title of Greenland’s Foreign, Security and Defense Policy for 2024-2033 suggests: “Nothing about us without us”. Hopefully, this principle remains valid, allowing the Greenlandic people to retain their right to decide about the future of their territory, as they should and be able to continue enjoying the green Northern lights on their own terms instead of fearing the green light given by the United States to go ahead with recently floated military and economic plans.

---

Zsuzsa Szakály graduated from the University of Szeged in 2012 with a law degree. She began her doctoral studies in the same year. She completed the Basics of Common Law and English Legal Translation programme in 2015. She received her PhD degree in 2018; the title of the dissertation was ‘The Guarantees of Constitutional Stability’. She is a senior lecturer at the University of Szeged, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, within the Institute of Public Law. Her current research focuses on microstates and partially independent micro territories.

---

[1] Gehring, Markus; Hadjigeorgiou, Nasia: Why US Sovereign Bases in Greenland Would Violate International Law, VerfBlog, 2026/2/04, https://verfassungsblog.de/why-us-sovereign-bases-in-greenland-would-violate-international-law/, DOI: 10.17176/20260204-153109-0.

Neergard, Ulla: European Solidarity and Union Citizens in Greenland: From Words to Action, VerfBlog, 2026/1/13, https://verfassungsblog.de/union-citizens-greenland/, DOI: 10.17176/20260113-172304-0.

Yola Verbruggen: Greenland crisis to have significant implications for international order https://www.ibanet.org/Greenland-crisis-to-have-significant-implications-for-international-order

Andreas Østhagen: Trump & Greenland: Is There Logic in the Chaos? https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/trump-greenland-logic-chaos/

law Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen: Wary of US investors, Greenland lawmakers push to pass foreign investment screening https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wary-us-investors-greenland-lawmakers-push-pass-foreign-investment-screening-law-2026-02-26/

[2] David A. Rezvani: Surpassing the sovereign state: the wealth, self-rule, and security advantages of partially independent territories. Oxford University Press, 2014. 89.

[3] Sara Olsvig: Greenland’s ambiguous action space: testing internal and external limitations between US and Danish Arctic interests. The Polar Journal, 12:2, 2022. 215-239.

[4] Jacobsen, Marc – Gad, Ulrik Pram: Setting the scene in Nuuk: Introducing the cast of characters in Greenlandic foreign policy narratives, in: Greenland and the International Politics of a Changing Arctic: Postcolonial Paradiplomacy between High and Low Politics (ed: Kristian Søby Kristensen, Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen) Routledge, 2017, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162645;

[5] Rauna Kuokkanen: Indigenous Westphalian Sovereignty? Decolonization, secession, and Indigenous rights in Greenland, in Pamela Stern (ed.): The Inuit World. Routledge, 2021., 315.

[6] Sara Olsvig: Greenland’s ambiguous action space: testing internal and external limitations between US and Danish Arctic interests, The Polar Journal, 12:2, 2022, 215-239, DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137085 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137085