How does the 2023 Denmark–US Defence Cooperation Agreement update status‑of‑forces rules compared with the 1951 treaty?
Executive summary
The 2023 Denmark–US Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) does not replace the 1951 Greenland defense treaty or the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA); rather it builds a new, bilateral basing and operational framework for U.S. forces in Denmark proper that is more detailed about access, locations and day‑to‑day coordination than the older instruments while leaving Greenland and the Faroe Islands under their prior arrangements (and tied to the 1951 framework) [1] [2] [3]. Public debate focuses on sovereignty and jurisdiction, but the documentary record in the reporting shows the DCA mainly supplements NATO SOFA by granting specified access to three Danish air bases and fleshing out operational arrangements, with some media reports highlighting stronger U.S. legal autonomy as a political flashpoint [2] [1] [4].
1. What the 1951 treaty did: a NATO‑anchored Greenland security pledge
The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement is an implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty that gives the United States a durable legal basis for a military presence in Greenland tied explicitly to NATO planning, recognizes Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland and was conceived as open‑ended unless amended or terminated, creating longstanding U.S. basing rights in the Arctic under Danish parliamentary oversight [3] [5] [6]. That 1951 instrument is geographically focused on Greenland and framed as part of collective NATO defence rather than a bilateral, broad basing regime across the Danish realm [3] [5].
2. What the 2023 DCA changes: specified basing and operational detail in Denmark proper
The 2023 DCA signed between Denmark and the United States explicitly allows American personnel access to three named Danish air bases — Karup, Skrydstrup and Aalborg — and establishes a comprehensive bilateral framework for U.S. activities on Danish territory, subject to coordination with Danish armed forces and relevant authorities; it enters into force once both parties complete internal procedures and any necessary legislation [2] [7]. U.S. government communications describe the DCA as building on NATO SOFA but providing a more detailed, modern operational framework for cooperation, logistics and force posture in Denmark [1].
3. Jurisdiction and sovereignty: overhangs, ambiguities and political debate
News reporting and later commentary frame the DCA as raising questions about legal jurisdiction and Danish sovereignty: some outlets report that the deal grants U.S. forces substantial legal autonomy and even the ability to exercise exclusive control over certain areas in practice, a characterization that has become a key political concern in Denmark [4] [8]. At the same time, Danish defence statements emphasize that American presence will be closely coordinated with Danish authorities and that Greenland and the Faroe Islands are excluded from the 2023 DCA’s geographic scope — signalling the government’s intent to keep the 1951 Greenland framework distinct [2] [8].
4. How the DCA compares, legally and functionally, to NATO SOFA
Legally, the DCA is framed as complementary to the NATO SOFA rather than as a repeal: U.S. and Danish officials and State Department material state the 2023 agreement "builds on the provisions of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement," supplying a bilateral regimen tailored to Danish domestic requirements and site‑specific basing, while NATO SOFA remains the baseline for alliance‑wide status rules [9] [1]. Functionally, the DCA converts broad SOFA principles into concrete access rights, named facilities, and procedural arrangements for Denmark — a shift from general alliance rules to a granular bilateral implementation in peacetime basing and operations [1] [2].
5. Bottom line and limits of reporting
The practical update effected by the 2023 DCA is a move from the generalized, NATO‑centred legal canvas of 1951 toward a targeted bilateral basing agreement for Denmark that specifies locations, coordination mechanisms and operational scope, while leaving the 1951 Greenland arrangement and NATO SOFA intact as separate legal pillars [2] [3] [1]. Reporting documents political controversy about jurisdiction and "autonomous legal jurisdiction" for U.S. forces, but the available sources show both assertions and official denials; the full text of the DCA and implementing legislation — and subsequent parliamentary ratification steps — are needed to settle exact legal arrangements and any exceptions to Danish criminal or administrative law in practice [2] [4].