Who Controls Greenland? Danish Sovereignty, Inuit Land Rights and US Expansionism

NUUK, GREENLAND — Greenland, the world’s largest island with a sparse population and a sweeping Arctic landscape, is at the centre of a geopolitical debate that has gripped global headlines. At stake are questions of sovereignty, land tenure and international law, as well as the broader implications for Greenlanders themselves amid renewed pressure from the United States over control of the territory.

Greenlanders live in communities shaped by centuries of Danish control and modern self-governance, amid the island’s vast Arctic terrain — beneath which lies fossil fuels and critical raw materials. (Photo: René Lorenz)

As of early 2026, Greenland is firmly under Danish sovereignty. It is a constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark, meaning Denmark retains ultimate authority over its foreign relations, defence and security, even as Greenland enjoys extensive self-government over domestic affairs.

So, who “owns” Greenland?

Greenland’s modern political status stems from a long and complex history. Indigenous Inuit peoples settled the island thousands of years ago, long before European colonisation. Danish influence began in the early 18th century, and by the 19th century Greenland was under formal Danish control. In 1953, it was incorporated into the Danish state.

Under Danish law, Greenland is part of the Danish Realm (Riget Danmark), an arrangement that also includes the Faroe Islands. In 1979, a referendum established home rule, granting Greenland its own parliament and control over many internal matters. This autonomy expanded significantly with the Act on Greenland Self-Government in 2009, which recognises Greenlanders’ “right to self-determination” and provides a clear constitutional route toward full independence.

However, from a land tenure and international law standpoint, Greenland remains Danish territory. Denmark represents Greenland on the world stage and exercises sovereign rights over its land and waters. International law, including the United Nations Charter, upholds the territorial integrity and political independence of states — principles that protect Denmark’s authority over Greenland.

The origins of Denmark’s claim (the “title” to the land)

The legal foundation of Danish sovereignty over Greenland is rooted in historical occupation and explicit international recognition. In the early 20th century, Denmark’s claim to the island was affirmed by international adjudication, including the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Eastern Greenland Case in 1933, which rejected competing claims (notably Norway’s).

Later, in 1951, Denmark and the United States signed the Greenland Defence Agreement. That treaty allowed the U.S. to establish and operate military bases in Greenland, but crucially it did not alter Danish sovereignty. The agreement permitted the U.S. to use defence areas within Greenland, provided Danish sovereignty was respected.

Greenland’s landscape, where Danish sovereignty is grounded in history and international law, U.S. military presence operates under agreement, and local self-government secures control over internal affairs and resources. (Photo: Peter Platou)

The 2009 self-government act further entrenched Greenland’s autonomy, codifying the local population’s rights over internal governance and natural resources — but it did not grant independence. Any shift in status, such as through secession or transfer of sovereignty, would require both Greenlandic consent via referendum and Danish constitutional approval.

U.S. interest and legal claims

In recent months, U.S. political rhetoric has revived long-standing strategic interest in Greenland, particularly its geographic position in the Arctic and potential resources beneath its ice and permafrost. President Donald Trump has repeatedly declared that “anything less than U.S. control of Greenland is unacceptable,” a stance that has drawn sharp rebukes from Danish and Greenlandic leaders.

Legally, the United States has no recognised right under domestic or international law to take control of Greenlandwithout Denmark’s consent and Greenlanders’ democratic approval. International law, particularly the UN Charter, prohibits acquisition of territory by force and requires respect for a state’s territorial sovereignty. Denmark’s position, reiterated publicly by Danish and Greenlandic officials, is that Greenland is not for sale and that any negotiation over its status must respect legal and constitutional processes.

The 1916 convention through which the U.S. acquired the Danish West Indies (today’s U.S. Virgin Islands) included a declaration that the U.S. would not object to Danish authority over Greenland — a recognition of existing sovereignty rather than a binding legal prohibition forever relinquishing U.S. claims. However, international practice and subsequent legal developments give significant weight to this historical recognition.

Any unilateral attempt by the United States to assert control, whether by treaty negotiated only with Denmark or by other means, would confront profound legal obstacles: the principles of territorial integrity, self-determination and non-acquisition by force that underpin international law, as well as Greenland’s own legal framework, which privileges local consent.

Possible implications for landholders in Greenland

Greenland’s landholders — predominantly Inuit residents with deep familial and cultural ties to the land — stand to be the most directly affected by any change in sovereignty. Currently, land tenure in Greenland is regulated under Greenlandic and Danish law, which combines statutory rules with customary practices. The Self-Government Act vests control over many natural resources and land governance functions with Greenland’s authorities, though Denmark still retains control over important areas such as defence and foreign affairs.

Should the United States somehow acquire sovereignty — a scenario widely regarded as legally and politically unlikely but discussed in U.S. strategic circles — the implications for Greenlandic landholders could be profound:

Landholding Implications	Details
Legal Uncertainty Over Property Rights	Existing land rights and resource concessions established under Greenlandic law could face review or revision under U.S. statutory frameworks. The United States has its own system of land tenure and federal land management that differs in significant respects from Danish or Greenlandic arrangements.
Environmental and Resource Extraction Pressures	U.S. governance might prioritise strategic mineral and energy projects, potentially accelerating development at the expense of traditional livelihoods. This could intensify land use conflicts and strain local decision-making.
Cultural & Social Impact	Beyond legal ownership, the symbolism of external control could undermine Greenlandic aspirations for self-determination. Many Greenlanders strongly prefer autonomy within the Danish realm or eventual full independence rather than incorporation into a distant superpower.

Greenlandic leaders have been unequivocal: they want to remain part of Denmark and resist any notion of transfer to U.S. control. In polls and official statements, the island’s government has reiterated its democratic values and the primacy of international law, even as it seeks cooperative defence arrangements through NATO rather than a pivot toward unilateral U.S. governance.

For now, Greenland’s land tenure — and indeed its political future — remains anchored in Danish sovereignty, international law and the principle of self-determination.

Despite strategic interest from the United States and heated rhetoric in Washington, there is no legal mechanism by which the United States can compel or unilaterally impose control over Greenland without respecting both international legal norms and the will of Greenland’s people. Any future change in status would require careful negotiation, constitutional processes and, importantly, democratic consent within Greenland itself.