How does the 2009 Act on Greenland Self‑Government define Greenland’s powers over land and resource use relative to defense?
Executive summary
The 2009 Act on Greenland Self‑Government transfers primary authority over land, subsurface and mineral resources to Greenland’s own authorities—granting legislative and executive powers to Inatsisartut and Naalakkersuisut over resource licensing, land use and environmental regulation—while explicitly reserving defence, foreign affairs and security policy to the Kingdom of Denmark [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Act therefore creates a sharp legal distinction: broad internal control over resources and territory versus continued Danish competence for external security and defence matters [5] [6].
1. The legal architecture: who controls what on paper
The Act establishes a tripartite division of power in Greenland—legislative power with Inatsisartut, executive with Naalakkersuisut and judicial power with the courts—and declares that Greenland Self‑Government authorities shall exercise legislative and executive power in fields they have assumed, explicitly including mineral resources and related land and subsurface governance [1] [7] [3]. Multiple sources repeat that the Self‑Government Act “granted Greenland power over its mineral resource activities” and that revenue from mineral extraction accrues to Greenlandic authorities, demonstrating that resource governance is a central, devolved competence [2] [5] [8].
2. Resource and land use powers: practical scope and instruments
Under the Act Greenland can legislate, regulate and administer licensing, environmental conditions and land‑use decisions tied to mineral and subsurface exploitation; explanatory notes and subsequent Greenlandic mineral laws were designed so the local government has legislative and executive powers in the mineral resource field [3] [9]. Commentators and policy summaries emphasize that the Self‑Government framework transferred “virtually all powers of governance” over internal affairs to Greenland—resource licensing, land tenure regimes and environmental oversight sit squarely with Greenlandic institutions, and the 2009 law even fixed financial mechanisms linking resource revenue to Greenland’s budgetary autonomy [6] [8].
3. Defence and security: an explicit Danish reservation
By contrast, the Act carves out defence, foreign affairs and security policy as reserved matters for Denmark; these remain areas of constitutional competence for the Kingdom and are excluded from the fields Greenland may assume under the Self‑Government Act [5] [4]. Analyses of legal limits stress that although Greenland can conclude agreements "which exclusively concern Greenland and entirely relate to fields of responsibility taken over," matters touching national defence or international security fall outside that remit—meaning Greenland cannot independently commit to treaty arrangements that have defence implications [1] [5].
4. Friction points: overlapping ambiguities between resources and defence
Tension arises where resource control intersects with strategic military interests—new mining, infrastructure or foreign investment in Greenlandic territory can have defence and geopolitical consequences even if legally managed by Greenlandic authorities. Scholars and policy briefs note this friction: Denmark retains responsibility for defence, but Greenland’s authority over resource licensing and land use would matter to any foreign military access or security arrangements, creating practical bargaining spaces—examples include discussions over US bases or proposed compacts where defence demands may press on Greenlandic regulatory control [10] [11] [12].
5. Political and legal safeguards: paths and limits to changing the status quo
The Act also recognizes Greenlanders as a people with a right to self‑determination and sets a constitutional route toward independence via local decision and negotiation, which would change who controls defence and resources if acted upon; until such a political transition occurs, however, Danish sovereignty and its defence prerogatives remain operative [9] [11] [13]. Commentaries caution that any transfer of defence competence or territorial sovereignty would require sovereign Danish consent and formal legal processes under both domestic and international law [11].
Conclusion
Legally, the 2009 Self‑Government Act gives Greenland robust, primary authority over land, subsurface and mineral resource use—legislative and executive powers over licensing, environmental standards and revenue—while clearly retaining defence, security and core foreign‑policy competences with Denmark; the practical boundary between these realms becomes most contested where resource development carries strategic, geopolitical or military implications [3] [5] [10].