## Facts

- On 10 July 1931 Norway published a royal proclamation declaring occupation and sovereignty over a large area of Eastern Greenland known as “Erik Raudes Land.”
- Denmark filed an application on 12 July 1931 instituting contentious proceedings before the Permanent Court of International Justice, asking the Court to declare Norway’s occupation proclamation and related steps unlawful and invalid because the area was already under Danish sovereignty.
- Denmark asserted that its title extended to Greenland as a whole (not only the colonized west coast) and that it had long exercised State authority there in a manner suited to Greenland’s conditions, including administration, regulation of trade, and other governmental acts.
- Denmark relied on international dealings and recognition as supporting its claim, including diplomatic efforts from 1915 onward to obtain acknowledgment of Danish sovereignty over all Greenland.
- Denmark also relied on Norway’s earlier conduct and assurances, especially the 22 July 1919 statement by the Norwegian Foreign Minister (the “Ihlen Declaration”) indicating that Danish plans regarding sovereignty over all Greenland would meet with no difficulties from Norway.
- Norway argued that the disputed area was not subject to Danish authority and that, at the time of the 1931 proclamation, it was open to occupation; Norway also challenged the binding force and legal effect of the Ihlen Declaration.
- The Court examined the historical and legal record bearing on Denmark’s title, the meaning of “Greenland” in treaties and diplomatic practice, and Norway’s prior commitments and conduct toward Denmark’s claim.
- The case culminated in a judgment on 5 April 1933 determining whether Denmark possessed sovereignty over the whole island and whether Norway’s proclamation contradicted the existing legal situation.

## Issues

1. Whether Denmark possessed territorial sovereignty over Greenland as a whole, including the area claimed by Norway in Eastern Greenland, as of 10 July 1931.  
2. Whether Norway was bound by its prior conduct—especially the 1919 Ihlen Declaration—not to oppose Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland or to occupy territory there.  
3. Whether Norway’s 10 July 1931 proclamation of occupation, and steps taken pursuant to it, violated the existing legal situation and were therefore unlawful and invalid.

## Decision

- The Court found for Denmark and held, by 12 votes to 2, that Denmark had a valid title to sovereignty over all Greenland, including Eastern Greenland, based on a continuous and peaceful exercise of State authority.
- The Court treated Norway’s Ihlen Declaration as creating a binding engagement toward Denmark, supporting Denmark’s position and barring Norway from acting inconsistently with that undertaking.
- The Court held that the Norwegian proclamation of 10 July 1931 and any steps taken in furtherance of the occupation were contrary to the existing legal situation and were accordingly unlawful and invalid.

## Legal Principles

- Territorial sovereignty may be established and maintained through a continuous and peaceful exercise of State authority, assessed through evidence of intent to act as sovereign and actual displays of authority.
- The level and form of State activity required to show authority depend on the character of the territory; in remote and sparsely inhabited areas, relatively limited but consistent governmental acts may suffice.
- Treaty practice, diplomatic correspondence, and State conduct may confirm the scope of a territorial claim, including whether references to a territory (here, “Greenland”) are understood as the whole territory rather than only settled or administered portions.
- A clear assurance made by a foreign minister within the field of foreign affairs may create international legal obligations for the State and may operate as a binding engagement in relations with the other State.
- A State’s prior commitments and consistent conduct may preclude it from later asserting a conflicting claim, particularly where the other State relied on those commitments in managing its affairs concerning the territory.
- When evaluating historic title and effectivités, the Court assesses acts and legal standards in light of the law and practice applicable at the relevant times.

## Conclusion

The PCIJ concluded that Denmark had acquired and maintained sovereignty over Greenland as a whole through continuous and peaceful State authority and that Norway, having engaged itself by conduct and the Ihlen Declaration, could not lawfully claim Eastern Greenland by occupation; Norway’s 1931 occupation proclamation and related acts were therefore unlawful and invalid.


Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den. v. Nor.), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 53