How has Greenland’s Home Rule / Self‑Government changed Denmark’s authority over defense and natural resources since 1979 and 2009?
Executive summary
Greenland’s Home Rule of 1979 moved most domestic governance out of Copenhagen’s hands but left Denmark firmly in charge of external affairs, defense and — at least initially — subsoil resources [1] [2]. The 2009 Self‑Government Act marked the decisive change over natural resources by legally transferring authority over mineral and subsoil exploitation to Greenland while explicitly leaving defense, monetary policy and foreign affairs with Denmark [3] [4] [5].
1. 1979 Home Rule: internal autonomy, external continuity
The Home Rule Act of 1979 created a Greenlandic parliament and handed Nuuk responsibility for a broad suite of internal social and administrative matters, but it did not uproot Copenhagen’s authority on external policy, security or natural‑resource sovereignty — the Danish Parliament retained “full control” over external policies, security and natural resources under the Home Rule settlement [1] [6] [2]. In practice this meant Greenland could run education, health and many local affairs while Denmark continued to represent and defend the island internationally and retained legal authority over exploitation of subsoil assets [7] [6].
2. 2009 Self‑Government Act: subsoil and the right to decide
The 2009 Act upgraded Greenland’s legal status, recognized Greenlanders as a people with a right to self‑determination, and explicitly transferred power over mineral resource activities in the subsoil to the Greenlandic authorities — a transfer implemented operationally from January 2010 [3] [5]. The Act thereby shifted fiscal control of extractive revenues to Greenland while embedding mechanisms linking those revenues to the Danish block grant [8] [3]. Importantly, however, the Act preserved Denmark’s formal responsibility for defense, foreign policy and monetary matters [4] [3].
3. Defense: what changed and what did not
Across both milestones, Denmark’s role in defense has shown continuity rather than retreat: the Self‑Government Act did not transfer defense competence to Nuuk, and Denmark retains formal responsibility for Greenland’s security and external representation [4] [5]. Existing defense arrangements, including the long‑standing 1951 Defense Agreement with the United States that recognizes Danish sovereignty over Greenland and allows U.S. military operations for NATO purposes, remain operational and underscore Copenhagen’s continuing strategic prerogative [4] [9].
4. Natural resources: legal transfer, conditional economics
The 2009 law gave Greenland the legislative and executive competence to authorize and profit from mineral and subsoil projects, reversing the Home Rule-era default that left such matters with Denmark [3] [6]. The Self‑Government Act also set financial guardrails: revenues from mineral exploitation accrue to Greenland but above defined thresholds those revenues reduce the Danish subsidy according to rules set out in the Act — a design that ties greater autonomy over resources to an incremental economic shedding of Danish financial support [8] [3].
5. Legal and political asymmetry: sovereignty, referendum and Danish veto
While self‑government marked significant devolution, the 2009 Act formalized an asymmetrical division: Greenland can hold a referendum and decide to pursue full independence, yet any change to the territory of the Kingdom requires negotiation and ultimately approval by the Danish parliament, which retains constitutional authority over state territory [4] [3]. Sources emphasize this duality: Greenland gained substantive control over resource policy and the right to self‑determination in law, but Denmark’s retained competencies — defense, external relations, and formal territorial sovereignty — remain key levers [4] [10].
6. Conclusion: shifting authority, persistent Danish anchors
Between 1979 and 2009 Copenhagen moved from colonial administrator toward partner: Home Rule removed many domestic levers from Denmark while Self‑Government legally ceded control of subsoil resources to Greenland and enshrined the islanders’ right to decide their constitutional future, yet Denmark kept the strategic anchors of defense, foreign policy and constitutional control over territory and currency [1] [3] [4]. That combination leaves Greenland far more able to exploit and profit from its natural wealth while Denmark remains the guarantor of security and the ultimate arbiter of international and territorial status — a deliberately calibrated sovereignty split codified in the 2009 Act and rooted in the 1979 settlement [8] [6].