EASTERN GREENLAND CASE

A suit was instituted before the Permanent Court of International Justice (hereinafter PCIJ) by Royal
Danish Government against the Royal Norwegian Government over the legal status of certain territories
in Eastern Greenland. Cause of Action for the dispute arose when Norwegian Government on July 10th,
1931 proclaimed that it proceeded to occupy certain territories of Eastern Greenland which as contented
by Denmark are subject to sovereignty of Crown of Denmark.

In 1915, Denmark began to seek recognition of her potential claims to the eastern coast of Greenland
(from USA, Norway, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Sweden). Recognition was given by all those asked except
Norway. In a Peace conference involving claims to Spitzbergen, Denmark brought up its intention to claim
sovereignty over the whole of Greenland. On July 22, 1919, Norweigian Minister for Foreign Affairs
made a statement to the Danish Minister to the effect "that the Norwegian Government would not
make any difficulties in the settlement of this question" (i.e. the question raised by the Danish
Government re: Greenland). Denmark obtained a favorable response from the other States. However, it
appeared that Norway was not prepared to adopt the same position as the other countries unless it
received an undertaking from the Danish Government that the liberty of hunting and fishing on the East
coast, which Norwegians had previously enjoyed, should not be interfered with. This undertaking, the
Danish Government was unwilling to give. As soon as it became clear that the Norwegian Government
was unwilling to give the desired assurances, the Danish Government, in May 1921, instructed its
Minister at Christiania that no further application for recognition was to be made and said that it would rest
content with the verbal undertaking given by M. Ihlen in 1919.

In 1924, Denmark and Norway signed a Convention applicable to the whole eastern coast of Greenland
(except Angmagsallik). Simultaneously with the Convention, notes were signed by each Government to
the effect that it made reservations on questions concerning Greenland not dealt with in the Convention.
The following points were noted: the Danish contention that Denmark possessed full and entire
sovereignty over the whole of Greenland and that Norway had recognized that sovereignty, and the
Norwegian contention that all the parts of Greenland which had not been occupied in such a manner as to
bring them effectively under the administration of the Danish Government were in the condition of terræ
nullius, and that if they ceased to be terræ nullius they must pass under Norwegian sovereignty.

Since then, the Danish sovereignty over Eastern Greenland was not questioned until in July 10, 1931, a
royal decree by the Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Danish Minister stated that the
Occupation in the Eastern Greenland is officially confirmed and is placed under Norwegian sovereignty.

Denmark argued that the Norwegian occupation of part of the East coast of Greenland is invalid because
it has already claimed and exercised sovereign rights over Greenland as a whole for a long time and has
obtained thereby a valid title to sovereignty. Denmark’s argument is based on the Palmas Island decision
of the Permanent Court of Arbitration that there is a title "founded on the peaceful and continuous display
of State authority over the island". The Danish Government advances two propositions. The first is that
the sovereignty which Denmark now enjoys over Greenland has existed for a long time, has been
continuously and peacefully exercised and, until the present dispute, has not been contested by any
Power. The second proposition is that Norway has by treaty or otherwise herself recognized Danish
sovereignty over Greenland as a whole and therefore cannot now dispute it. It was maintained that the
promise which in 1919 the Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking on behalf of his Government,
gave to the diplomatic representative of the Danish Government precluded Norway from proceeding to
any occupation of territory in Greenland, even if she had not by other acts recognized an existing Danish
sovereignty there.
The Norwegian submissions are that Denmark possessed no sovereignty over the area which Norway
occupied on July 10th, 1931, and that at the time of the occupation the area was terra nullius. Her
contention is that the area lay outside the limits of the Danish colonies in Greenland and that Danish
sovereignty extended no further than the limits of these colonies.

ISSUE: To which territory does Greenland belong?

RULING:

DENMARK.

Denmark has succeeded in establishing her contention that at the time of occupation, on July 10th, 1931,
she possessed a valid title to the sovereignty over all Greenland. The court pronounced that a claim to
sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon
continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist : the
intention and will to act as sovcreign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.
Another circumstance which must be taken into account by any tribunal which has to adjudicate upon a
claim to sovereignty over a particular territory, is the extent to which the sovereignty is also claimed by
some other Power. In most of the cases involving claims to territorial sovereignty which have come before
an international tribunal, there have been two competing claims to the sovereignty, and the tribunal has
had to decide which of the two is the stronger. One of the peculiar features of the present case is that up
to 1931 there was no claim by any Power other than Denmark to the sovereignty over Greenland. Indeed,
up till 1931, no Power disputed the Danish claim to sovereignty.

Further, the Ihlen declaration, viz. the reply given by M. Ihlen, the Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs,
to the Danish Minister on July 22nd, 1919, must also be considered. This declaration by M. Ihlen has
been relied on by Counsel for Denmark as a recognition of an existing Danish sovereignty in Greenland.
The Court is unable to accept this point of view. A careful examination of the words used and of the
circumstances in which they were used, as well as of the subsequent developments, shows that M. Ihlen
cannot have meant to be giving then and there a definitive recognition of Danish sovereignty over
Greenland. Nevertheless, the point which must now be considered is whether the Ihlen declaration-even
if not constituting a definitive recognition of Danish sovereignty-did not constitute an engagement obliging
Norway to refrain from occupying any part of Greenland.

What Denmark desired to obtain from Norway was that the latter should do nothing to obstruct the Danish
plans in regard to Greenland. The declaration which the Minister for Foreign Affairs gave on July 22nd,
1919, on behalf of the Norwegian Government, was definitely affirmative: "I told the Danish Minister to-
day that the Norwegian Government would not make any difficulty in the settlement of this question." The
Court considers it beyond al1 dispute that a reply of this nature given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs
on behalf of his Government in response to a request by the diplomatic representative of a foreign Power,
in regard to a question falling within his province, is binding upon the country to which the Minister
belongs.