What procedural steps would Denmark or Greenland have to take to modify or terminate the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement?
Executive summary
The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement is a bilateral treaty between Denmark and the United States that was enacted with Danish parliamentary approval and is expressly tied to NATO collective-defense obligations, lacking a fixed expiry and thus remaining in force indefinitely unless the parties agree to amend or terminate it [1] [2]. Modifying or ending the pact would require formal intergovernmental action—primarily Danish parliamentary steps and bilateral negotiations with the United States—while Greenland’s home-rule institutions have consultative rights under later arrangements but do not hold treaty-making authority over defense reserved to Denmark [1] [3] [4].
1. Legal status and duration: treaty bound, NATO–linked, no sunset
The agreement is a treaty that explicitly came into force upon parliamentary approval in Denmark and was framed as “in implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty,” meaning its legal purpose is embedded in NATO collective-defense planning rather than a standalone temporary arrangement [1]. Contemporary legal summaries and parliamentary material emphasize that the pact contains no fixed expiration date and therefore remains effective until amended or terminated by the parties, and its practical rationale is tied to NATO obligations [2] [5].
2. Who legally controls change: Denmark as contracting party, the U.S. as counterparty
Because the 1951 text is an international agreement between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States, any formal amendment or termination must be effected between those two sovereign parties; Denmark’s internal ratification was a precondition for the treaty’s entry into force, so Danish parliamentary processes will again be central to any valid change [1] [6]. The United States, as the other contracting party, would have to consent to modifications or accept termination under standard treaty practice reflected in the historical documents [1] [6].
3. Formal procedural steps Denmark must take to amend or terminate
Practically, Denmark would need to initiate bilateral negotiations with the U.S. government and reach an agreed amendment or termination instrument, followed by the domestic steps required under Danish constitutional practice—most notably parliamentary approval to effect the change, since the original treaty required parliamentary ratification [1] [6]. Internationally, the agreed change would then be communicated to the United States and registered or notified per customary treaty procedures; the 1951 agreement’s linkage to NATO might also necessitate consultations within NATO planning channels given its purpose [1] [2].
4. Greenland’s role: consultative rights, not treaty authority
Greenland’s self-government transferred broad internal powers but left defence and foreign policy with Denmark, meaning Greenland cannot unilaterally rewrite or terminate the 1951 treaty; however, later arrangements—such as the Igaliku understandings and institutionalized Permanent Committees—create obligations to consult Greenlandic authorities and to inform them about changes affecting defense areas and environmental standards [3] [7] [4]. In short, Greenland would be an indispensable political stakeholder and bargaining partner in practice but lacks the legal standing to sign or revoke the 1951 treaty on its own [4] [3].
5. Practical and political obstacles; alternative pathways
Beyond legal steps, termination or major amendment faces entrenched operational, strategic, and political barriers: the agreement grants the U.S. broad access to establish and operate defense areas in Greenland (as documented in the technical schedules and historical accounts), and U.S. strategic interest—especially under NATO auspices—creates strong resistance to unilateral change [8] [9]. Some analysts argue the pact effectively gives the U.S. sweeping military access that can be adjusted without sovereignty transfer, a reality that complicates negotiations [9] [10]. Alternatives to outright termination include renegotiation of specific technical schedules, greater Greenlandic consultation guarantees, or parallel domestic legislation clarifying environmental and civil oversight—each requiring Denmark–U.S. agreement and sensitive political maneuvering [8] [3].
6. Bottom line: legal path is bilateral and parliamentary; politics will decide the rest
Legally, Denmark must negotiate with the United States and secure parliamentary approval to amend or terminate the 1951 Agreement, while Greenland’s institutions can press for stronger consultation and local conditions but cannot unilaterally change the treaty; practically, NATO linkage, U.S. strategic priorities, and domestic political dynamics in Copenhagen, Nuuk, and Washington will determine whether a negotiated change is feasible [1] [2] [3].