You are on page 1of 3

THE LEGAL STATUS OF EASTERN GREENLAND CASE Norway brought parts of the EASTCOAST which had not yet

e EASTCOAST which had not yet been


occupied under DANISH GOVT in the condition of TERRAE
Dispute between DENMARK and NORWAY NULLIUS and subsequently pass under NORWEGIAN sovereignty.

Regarding: sovereignty over territory in EASTERN GREENLAND DENMARK – refer the question to PCIJ

Greenland" inhabited by indigenous Eskimos, was first discovered by Norway issued a ROYAL proclamation: Occupation in the Eastern
Scandinavian explorers circa 900 A.D. Norwegian origin. Greenland is officially confirmed and is placed under Norwegian
sovereignty.
2 SETTLEMENTS (Eystribygd and Vestribygd) were founded at the
southern end of the western coast and became tributary to Norway. Denmark wanted the proclamation to be declared in violation of
existing legal situation.
1380 – 1814 – KINGDOMS of Denmark and Norway were united
under the same crown. DANISH ASSERTION – Norwegian occupation was INVALID. 3
bases:
1. Denmark had enjoyed and had peacefully and continuously
Hans Edge – established the first permanent colony in 1721
exercised an uncontested sovereignty over Greenland for a
long time.
Trading concessions and monopolies were granted and regulations 2. Norway had recognized DANISH sovereignty over the
were enacted. whole Greenland
3. Norway was estopped by QUID PRO QUO, a promise
Article 4, Treaty of Kiel  Denmark was forced to cede the given by the Norwegian foreign minister to desert
Kingdom of Norway to Sweden (excluding Greenland) occupying any territory in Greenland.

AREA OF GREENLAND: 2,175,600 sq/kms [5/6 covered my Inland NORWAY: DANISH in Greenland was restricted to areas of its
Ice) colonies and DENMARK was estopped from claiming that she
possessed such a pre-existing sovereignty.
East coast remained virtually inaccessible by land or sea until the
EXPEDITIONS OF THE 19th century. IHLEN DECLARATION – minister
th
19 century – discovered that Greenland was in fact an island, not
COURT: Accepted the Danish contentions and DENIED that
connected by land.
Denmark was estopepd from claiming sovereignty.
Scottish whaler Scoresby  fist landing on the EASTERN COAST
Hoped that Norway would make NO DIFFICULTY with regard to
Danish settlement at Angmagsslik  1st settlement on the same coast the Danish claim to Eastern Greenland
- Hunt
- Between scoresby Sound and Germanishavn IHLEN DECLARATION – NORWAY would be under an obligation
to refrain from contesting Danish sovereignty over Greenland
1915 – Denmark began to seek explicit recognition of her potential
claims to the EASTERN COAST OF GREENLAND COURT: Evidently did not regard IHLEN as belonging to the
category of estoppel
a. 1st – United States – context of CESSION OF THE It concluded that a Minister of Foreign Affairs, acting within the
DANISH ANTILLES scope of his Country by a declaration or statement made to the
b. 2nd – Norway – context of Norwegian claims to Spitzbergen representative of a foreign State.
at Vesailles Peace Conference
c. 3rd – United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan DISSENTING OPINION: (JUDGE ANZILOTTI)
d. 4th – Sweden and Norway
- Thought it must be recognised that the Minister for Foreign
THIS RECOGNITION WAS GIVEB BY ALL THOSE ASKED  Affairs- the direct agent of the chief of the state- with
EXCEPT: NORWAY. authority to make statements or current affairs to foreign
- Norway – assurances for Norwegian hunting and fishing diplomatic representatives, and in particular, to inform
interests on the East coast. them as to the attitude which the government, in whose
name he speaks, will adopt is a given question can make
Denmark was unwilling to give such assurances declarations of such a kind which are binding upon the
state.
Denmark relied on the verbal undertaking given by the - No rule of inter- national law requiring that agreements of
NORWEGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: this kind must necessarily e in writing, in order to be valid'
- Should have done was to decide whether the Danish re uest
“Know all men that DANISH TRADING, MISSION AND of 1919 and the subsequent Ihlen declaration constituted as
HUNTING STATIONS have been established on the East and West valid agreement between the two Governmcnts.
coasts of Greenland with the result that the whole of that country is - No mistake as to the declaration by NFM
henceforth linked up with DANISH colonies and stations under the o One can scarcely believe that a Government
Authority of the DANISH ADMIN OF GREENLAND.” could be ignorant of the legitimate consequences
following upon an e tension of sovereignty
Diplomatic negotiations resulted in SIGNING of a CONVENTION
IN 1924. (hunting and fishing) ARGUMENT: July 10, 1931  critical date for the establishment of
DANISH SOVEREIGNTY
PIL – Greenland Case 1
PALMAS CASE: The Court defined very broadly the basic putting forward any claim to territorial sovereignty in Green- land,
requirements for the establishment of such a title: and in the absence of any competing claim the King's pretensions to
be the sovereign of Greenland subsisted.
a. There must be the intention and will to act as sovereign,
and some actual exercise or display of such authority The Court nevertheless relied legislation in general terms referring to
(although very little actual exercise of authority was Greenland as evidence of an exercise of sovereignty beyond the
necessary, especially in thinly populated or unsettled areas) settlement
and
b. There must be no competing or stronger claim to - Legislation is one of the most obvious forms of the exercise
sovereignty. of sovereign power, and it is clear that the operation of
these enactments was not restricted to the limits of the
SAVIGNY: colonies. It therefore follows that the sovereign rights in
virtue of which the enactments were issued cannot have
2 ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION: been restricted to the limits of the colonies.

1. Physical control (corpus) COURT: period from the founding of the colonies by Hans Egede in
2. Intention to possess (animus possidendi) 1721 up to 1814 his authority to an extent sufficient to give his
a. Not merely to exclude others country a valid claim to sovereignty, and his rights over Greenland
b. Intention to exclude were not limited to the colonized area.
c. Intention to hold as owner (animums domini)
d. a claim to sovereignty based not upon some This is not surprising in view of the indeterminate concept of
particular act or title such as a treaty of cession "Greenland" before its coasts had been thoroughly explored. Even if
but merely upon continued display of authority the intentional had been present to exercise sovereignty over the
whole of the area, there was an obvious disproportion between
EACH COUNTRY’S CLAIM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A Corpus and animus.
WHOLE, IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTRY WHOSE CLAIM IS
STRONGER. JUDGE SCHUCKING AND WANG – there were historic DANISH
claims by Denmark and had not been seriously disputed by other
Up to 1931 – States. BUT – the exact significance of the documents which should
demonstrate the exercise of this sovereignty remains somewhat
a. There was no claim by any power other than DENMARK uncertain.
to the sovereignty of Greenland
b. No power disputed the DANISH claim GREENLAND – used as referred to the geographical meaning of the
term as shown in the maps. POINT CONCERNING the burden of
The way of he actual exercise of sovereign rights provided that the proof lies on NORWAY. Greenland not in its strict sense (colonies)
other state could not make out a superior claim.
NORWAY ARGUED  admin and legislative acts, Greenland was
Palmas and Greenland case: Whether concepts drawn from two not used in the geographical sense, but only meant those colonized
awards relating to relatively small islands were applicable in all areas on the West Coast. Did not include East Coast, because it was
aspects to a big island. unknown.

The Court did 110t therefore give any indication of how the COURT – it was already known in the 17th and 18th centuries.
settlements should be regarded a ' under Norwegian sovereignty at
that date. DENMARK DISPLAYED VALID TITLE TO THE SOVERIGNTY

It had been contended on behalf uf Norway that with the BASIS: AJ Tayler – concession granted to him to have exclusive
disappearance of the two nordic settlements of Eystribygd and rights to establish stations on the East coast for trading, hunting,
Vestribygd during the 14th century, Norwegian sovereignty was lost mining etc which stations was to be placed under the sovereignty of
and the whole of Greenland converted to terra nullius. the DANISH CROWN.

CONQUEST or VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT Difficult to see how a concession which existed merely on paper was
never carried out, could affect this position.
- On one hand, the Court held that sovereignty had been lost
neither by conquest nor by voluntary abandonment. CONCESSIONS – manifestations of the exercise of sovereign
- CONQUEST - Only operates as a cause of loss of' authority
sovereignty when there is a war between two States and by
reason of the defeat of one of them sovereignty over SURVEY – eastern to western coast
territory passes from the loser to the victorious State.
- Destruction of a settlement cannot fail to have an effect on The effect of all the documents connected with he grant of the
tide. concession is to show that the King of Denmark was in a position to
- The Court held that there was nothing to show any definite grant a valid monopoly on the East coast because his sovereign rights
renunciation on the part of NORWAY entitled him to do so, and that the concessionaires in England
regarded the grant of monopoly as essential to the success of their
ISSUE: WON Sovereignty had been lost projects and had no doubt as to the validity of the rights conferred

DISAPPEARANCE OF THE 1st COLONIES: No other Power was 1921 – 1931  there was GREATER DANISH legislative activity
PIL – Greenland Case 2
with regard to the East Coast. i. Holst declaration (Mister of Foreign
Affairs)
Kind of Denmark did not hesitate to act as sovereigns of Greenland ii. Bilateral and multilateral agreements
when opportunity offered itself. (COLONY)
iii. Ihlen Declaration (Norway debarred
CLAIM TO SOVEREIGNTY v. EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF herself or under obligation to refrain
THAT SOVEREIGNTY from contesting a historic DAHNISH
sovereignty
It has been shown that "Green- land" is a geographical area as
denoted on maps unless proved otherwise by Norway.

TITLE TO SOVEREIGNTY EXISTED INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS


EXERCISE.

JUDGE ANZILLOTI’S VIEW: Greenland in 1721 was a terra nullius


and acts of occupation subsequent to that date must be judged
according to contemporary requirements

DECISION OF THE COURT: the principles of recognition of


territorial claims and estoppel in particular, merit further attention.

1. RECOGNITION
a. The concept of recognition played a part in this
case in two ways:
i. first, the effect of recognition of Danish
sovereignty over Greenland by third
states was considered, both in the form
of incidental 'recognition' in treaties
dealing with other matters and in the
more direct form of responses to the
explicit request for recognition made by
Denmark between 1915 and 1921;
ii. second, the effect of recognition by
Norway of Denmark's claims to the
whole area of Greenland was also
considered.
b. France, Japan, Italy, Great Britain and Sweden
show that they agreed to recognise that the
Danish sovereignty extended to the whole of
Greenland
c. If it does Dot confer title, recognition affords at
least in- direct or circumstantial evidence of a
situation of fact, i.e. that a particular state is,
because it is regarded by other states as
administering, in fact administering a certain
territory.
d. Evidence of the exercise of sovereign rights
e. Denmark possesses sovereignty over Greenland
as a whole [and] to the extent that these treaties
constitute evidence of recognition of her
sovereignty over Greenland in general Denmark
is entitled to rely upon them.

2. ESTOPPEL
a. In theory either recognition is 'constitutive' or
'declaratory in territorial disputes it may then be
regarded as constitutive of title or declaratory of a
pre-existing title.
b. In the context of any individual disputes
'recognition' is perhaps best regarded not as
having of itself substantive legal consequences
but as evidence of a factual situation or as
creating an estoppel.
c. Until 1931 there was no claim by ANY STATE
other than Denmark to Greenland
d. Norwegian government as undertakings which
recognized DANISH over all GREENLAND
PIL – Greenland Case 3

You might also like