The question of Greenland’s sovereignty has emerged as a critical flashpoint in international relations. As of early 2026, renewed pressure from the United States to acquire the territory—ranging from economic threats to the refusal to rule out military force—has created a diplomatic crisis within NATO and the United Nations.
To uphold the core principles of the UN Charter, the international community must take two decisive steps: first, a formal condemnation of any attempt by a foreign power to unilaterally annex or purchase Greenland; and second, a recommendation for Greenland’s full independence to finalize its long-standing journey toward self-determination.
I. The Imperative to Condemn Unilateral Annexation
The United Nations was founded on the bedrock of sovereign equality and the prohibition of the threat or use of force (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter). Any attempt by the U.S. to take Greenland—whether through “real estate” transactions without Danish consent or through coercive military posturing—violates these norms.
- The Illegality of Conquest: International law explicitly prohibits the acquisition of territory through force. A UN condemnation would reinforce that “might does not make right,” preventing a precedent where powerful nations can simply absorb the territories of smaller ones.
- Protection of the Rules-Based Order: Allowing a superpower to annex a territory of a fellow NATO ally would effectively signal the end of modern collective security. The UN must act as a shield for middle and small powers like Denmark to ensure territorial integrity remains a protected right, not a negotiable asset.
II. Independence as the Ultimate Self-Determination
While Greenland currently enjoys extensive autonomy under the 2009 Self-Government Act, it remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The UN originally removed Greenland from its list of “Non-Self-Governing Territories” in 1954 after it was integrated into the Danish Realm. However, the current geopolitical tug-of-war suggests that “integration” or “autonomy” may no longer be sufficient to protect the Greenlandic people from external pressure.
Why the UN Should Urge Independence
The UN should urge independence even if current polls show a desire to remain with Denmark. From a legalistic standpoint, this serves to “cleanse” the vestigial colonial ties and establish Greenland as a fully sovereign peer in the international community.
- Removing the “Target” of Sovereignty: As long as Greenland is a territory of Denmark, foreign powers may perceive it as a “transferable” asset. Full independence would transform Greenland into a sovereign state, making any attempt to “take” it a clear act of international aggression against a member state, rather than a bilateral dispute between the U.S. and Denmark.
- Absolute Self-Determination: By urging full independence, the UN would fulfill its mission to end all forms of modern dependency. It establishes a clear standard: a people recognized as a distinct national unit (as Greenlanders are under the 2009 Act) should possess the full legal apparatus of statehood to defend their own interests.
III. Comparing the Current and Proposed Status
The following table illustrates the shift in legal protection that full independence would provide compared to the current “Self-Government” model.
| Feature | Current | Proposed |
| Sovereignty | Held by the Kingdom of Denmark | Held by the People of Greenland |
| Foreign Policy | Managed by Copenhagen | Managed by Nuuk |
| Defense | Danish/NATO Responsibility | Sovereign Defense / UN Protection |
| Legal Status | Autonomous Territory | Sovereign UN Member State |
| Protection | Dependent on Danish Diplomacy | Protected by International Law as a State |
Conclusion
The UN stands at a crossroads. To remain relevant in an era of renewed imperialism, it must vocally oppose the idea that territory can be bought, sold, or seized against the will of its inhabitants. By condemning U.S. ambitions and guiding Greenland toward the final step of independence, the UN would reaffirm that the right of a people to govern themselves is a “peremptory norm”—a rule that cannot be broken by the wealth or power of any single nation.