How does the 2009 Greenland Self-Government Act affect Greenland’s legal authority over defence and natural resources?
Executive summary
The 2009 Greenland Self-Government Act carved out a significantly expanded domestic autonomy for Greenland while expressly keeping defence, foreign affairs and other core state functions under Danish control; at the same time it transferred legislative and executive authority over mineral and other subsurface resources to Greenland and made revenues from those resources a Greenlandic matter [1] [2] [3]. The Act therefore reassigns legal competence over natural resources to Greenlandic institutions but leaves defence squarely with the Danish state and preserves Danish sovereignty and international responsibilities [4] [1].
1. The constitutional boundary: what cannot be transferred
The Act draws a clear legal line: matters tied to the Unity of the Realm — notably the Constitution, nationality, the Supreme Court, foreign policy, defence and security policy, and monetary/exchange-rate policy — remain within the Danish central authorities and are not transferable to Greenlandic self-government under the Act [1] [2]. That limitation is neither rhetorical nor accidental: it is rooted in Danish constitutional arrangements and reiterated by the Prime Minister’s Office guidance and official explanations of the Self-Government Act [1].
2. Natural resources: legal control, revenue and regulatory power
Conversely, the Act creates a legal basis for Greenland to assume legislative and executive powers over natural resources in the subsoil — including the right to prospect, explore and exploit minerals and petroleum — and to receive the associated revenues under Greenlandic law [5] [3] [6]. Denmark explicitly set up the framework so Greenlandic authorities could take over the mineral-resource area (taken over from 1 January 2010) and defined that revenue from licenses and stakes in companies would count as Greenland revenue [1] [5]. Subsequent Greenland legislation and institutions (for example, the Mineral Resources Act and regulatory bodies) operationalised that transfer [6] [7].
3. Practical effects: autonomy without full sovereignty
In practice the Act gives Greenland broad autonomy to decide on mining policy, licensing and how to capture economic benefits, while Denmark retains control over defence and the conduct of foreign relations that affect the Realm as a whole [4] [1]. The result is a regime in which Greenland manages most domestic affairs and its natural wealth, but cannot on its own decide defence deployments, base rights, or treaty commitments that implicate Danish obligations [8] [9]. Academic and policy observers characterise this as a near-complete devolution of internal governance coupled with retained external sovereignty by Denmark [4] [10].
4. Money, leverage and the path to independence
The Act also fixed an annual Danish subsidy that underpins Greenland’s finances and tied future economic relations to negotiations if that subsidy were reduced; this financial architecture means resource revenue is politically potent but not an automatic ticket to sovereignty [3] [5]. The Act recognises Greenlanders as a people with a right to self-determination and lays out a constitutional path to change status via referendum and negotiation, but any change of territory or full independence would require Danish parliamentary approval and negotiation over outstanding matters including defence arrangements [4] [8].
5. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Public debate often frames the Act either as a handover of sovereignty or as an insufficient concession; both positions simplify the legal reality. Pro-autonomy voices emphasise that control of resources and domestic lawmaking are transformative for Greenland’s economic future [11] [7], while defenders of the Realm stress that strategic functions — notably defence and foreign policy — remain under Denmark, limiting Greenland’s international agency [1] [4]. Analysts and think-tanks also note geopolitical interests (e.g., US and NATO activity) that render defence a politically charged Danish competency even when military use of Greenland’s territory is subject to agreements under Danish sovereignty [9].
6. Bottom line: division of authority mapped by law
Legally, the Self-Government Act grants Greenland primary authority over its natural resources — including control of licensing, revenue entitlements and associated domestic regulation — but it does not transfer defence or external-state powers, which remain Danish responsibilities; the Act therefore expands Greenland’s sovereign-like capacities domestically while preserving Denmark’s control over international security and constitutional matters [5] [1] [4].