What specific powers did the 2009 Self-Government Act transfer to Greenland and what remains with Denmark?
Executive summary
The 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government transferred substantial domestic powers—legislative, executive and many judicial competences—in enumerated fields to Greenland’s institutions and gave Greenland control over its subsoil mineral resources and related legislation, while Denmark retained sovereign responsibilities such as the constitution, foreign affairs, defence and certain high-level judicial and nationality matters [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Act also formalized mechanisms and schedules for further transfers, fixed an annual Danish subsidy and set a legal path toward possible independence that requires Greenlandic referendum and Danish approval [5] [2] [6].
1. What the Act explicitly transferred: domestic legislative, executive and judicial authority
The Self-Government Act makes the tripartite separation of power explicit for Greenland: legislative authority with Inatsisartut (the Greenland Parliament), executive authority with Naalakkersuisut (the Greenland Government) and judicial power with the courts for fields that are transferred to Greenlandic competence, meaning Greenland can make and execute its own laws in those enumerated areas [1] [7] [8]. The Act created two lists (List I and List II) in a schedule that set out fields that could be taken over immediately or after negotiation, thereby operationalizing a staged transfer of policy areas from Copenhagen to Nuuk [2] [9].
2. Mineral resources, language, representation and practical powers taken over
Among the clearest and politically consequential transfers was control over mineral resource activities and the right to utilise subsoil resources; Greenland’s government decided to assume that responsibility effective 1 January 2010, and the Act empowers Greenland to legislate and regulate mining and related economic activity [3] [6] [2]. The Act also recognized Greenlandic as the official language, granted Greenland representation on Danish diplomatic missions for matters within Greenlandic competence (with provisos on costs), and expanded Greenland’s control over many internal matters such as policing, courts in transferred areas and everyday public administration that had previously been run from Denmark [6] [10] [11].
3. What remains the prerogative of Denmark: sovereignty, foreign policy, defence and overarching institutions
Denmark retained core elements of sovereignty: the Danish Constitution and the Kingdom’s foreign policy and defence responsibilities remain with Copenhagen; matters that affect Denmark’s international obligations or membership in international organisations stay with the Danish state [1] [4] [3]. Key central functions—supreme judicial review (the Supreme Court of Denmark), nationality law, and monetary and exchange rate policy—were explicitly excluded from transfer under the Act [4] [1].
4. Mechanism, limits and the pathway toward independence
Transfers happen according to the schedule annexed to the Act: some areas are taken over immediately if Greenland decides, others require negotiations and timings fixed by agreement, and all transfers must be exercised within the framework of the Danish Constitution and existing international commitments [2] [7]. The Act uniquely recognizes Greenlanders as “a people” with a right to self-determination and sets a legal route to full independence—subject to an internal Greenlandic referendum and approval by the Danish Parliament—while stopping short of delegating Denmark’s constitutional authority over the realm [12] [6].
5. Political implications, debates and limits to the “transfer” narrative
Scholars note the Act embodies a gradualist, path‑dependent model—Greenland takes on more competence when it wishes and can afford it—rather than an immediate break, and political actors in Greenland vary from cautious gradualists to parties pushing faster moves toward full sovereignty, which colors interpretation of what “transfer” really means in practice [13] [9]. The Act increases Greenlandic autonomy in economically and symbolically important areas (mining, language, courts in transferred fields) but Denmark’s retention of defence, foreign policy and supreme judicial authority means ultimate sovereign prerogatives and international representation remain Danish, a balance that leaves unresolved legal and political questions about full statehood and third‑party territorial transfers [12] [4].