The Inuit of Greenland and International Law: A Historical Perspective on Colonization, Self-Determination, and Resource Governance
Autor: Sophia Clark
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Realm of Denmark, possessing its own parliament and limited self-government. Historically, Greenland was home to two main indigenous groups from the East and North, but today, they are collectively known as the Inuit, who make up 88% of the island’s population (Johnstone, 2020). Over the centuries, a series of significant historical events and international legal developments have shaped the Inuit people’s current political and economic status.
In order to understand the impact international law has on the Greenlandic indigenous peoples Inuit it is cardinal to look at the past. It was only recently when they were first recognized as indigenous people and given the rights of such minorities under international law. By studying the history of Greenland, one can discern their current situation in regard to uncertainty on governance of natural resources and self-determination of their territory.
The earliest human presence in Greenland dates back approximately 4,000 years (Carnegy, 1996). Various groups, including the Saqqaq, Independence I and II, and Dorset cultures, migrated from Asia through Siberia, Alaska, and Canada before settling in Greenland (Johnstone, 2020). Around the 980s, Norse settlers from Iceland colonized the island for the first time (Brown, 2000). Greenland later came under the control of the Kalmar Union—a union of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark—from the late 10th century until the 15th century (Booras, 2002). By the end of the 15th century, the Norse settlers had left Greenland, and the territory remained uncolonized until Danish missionaries returned in 1721 (Johnstone, 2020).
During the absence of settlers, the territory and resources were kept under remained under Norwegian-Danish control. However, due to political shifts within the Kalmar Union, Denmark officially assumed control over Greenland in 1814 (Manning, 2017). This period saw extensive resource exploitation, with Denmark profiting from Greenland’s copper, zinc, coal, cryolite, lead, rare earth metals, and diamonds (Johnstone, 2020). These resources were extracted for Denmark’s benefit, often leaving Greenland itself resource-poor.
In 1849, Denmark established a modern democracy, but did not include human rights for the citizens living in Greenland (Pelaudeix, Basse, & Loukacheva, 2017). Further, in 1933, the International Court of Justice officially declared Denmark’s sovereignty over all of Greenland. This resulted in multiple occasions where consolidation of Danish sovereignty over Greenland was made at the expense of human rights, up until recent history.
During and after WWII, Greenland was beneficial to the Allies; especially to the United States, during the Cold War, due to the locality and “being the ’front-line’ between the two superpowers” (Johnstone, 2020). The U.S. has even tried to buy Greenland multiple times but was rejected. Although these offers were rejected, Denmark allowed the United States to establish military installations there since 1941, including the Thule Air Base, which remains operational today (Johnstone, 2020). However, the agreement was made without consulting the Inuit inhabitants, who were forcibly relocated under harsh conditions (Pelaudeix, Basse, & Loukacheva, 2017). People were required to live in cold weather conditions and in tents for months, ultimately representing an event where the Inuit people have had their human rights violated. It is a case that has been revisited various times by the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Danish Supreme Court, and the European Court of Human Rights (Hingitaq 53 v. Denmark, 2003).
Following World War II, Denmark joined the United Nations in 1945 and became subject to decolonization pressures. Denmark became “obligated under the UN Charter to promote self-government and to help prepare the people to govern their own affairs according to their aspirations” (UN Charter, 1945). In response to this international pressure, Denmark allowed Greenland to become a self-governing country within the Danish Realm in 1953 (Carnegy, 1996). As such, this meant that Greenlanders were no longer colonized and were equal Danish citizens. but did not extend decision-making power over their natural resources. Despite international legal developments such as UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 and 1541 (which supported decolonization) and Resolution 1803 (which emphasized sovereignty over natural resources), Denmark continued to control Greenland’s resources and the Greenlandic parliament (Johnstone, 2020).
A major breakthrough occurred in 1996 when Greenlandic people were officially recognized as an indigenous population under the ILO Convention 169 of 1989 (Johnstone, 2020). While this recognition granted them greater rights over natural resources and hunting practices, it did not provide them full sovereignty. Instead, Denmark was only required to consult the Inuit on resource exploitation but was not obligated to obtain their consent (Johnstone, 2020). This distinction prevented Greenland from attaining full control over its economic assets, a limitation highlighted by the UN General Assembly in 1962 (Johnstone, 2020).
The pursuit of equality continued in 2009 when Denmark and Greenland established a more balanced relationship through the Danish Act on Greenlandic Self-Government. However, despite this progress, Denmark retained significant influence through the use of royal decrees, allowing the Danish government to apply Danish laws to Greenland without local input (Pelaudeix, Basse, & Loukacheva, 2017). This legal mechanism continued to grant Denmark control over mining and hunting regulations, sparking debates about the limitations of Greenland’s autonomy.
This situation raises questions regarding the compliance with international law, particularly under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees indigenous peoples the right to “enjoy their culture.” Thus, the State has a responsibility to safeguard Inuit access to hunting and fishing. Any hindrance to this access during the mining process would constitute a violation of indigenous rights (Manning, 2017). Furthermore, international law grants the people of Greenland the right to self-determination (Cambou, 2020), meaning that the territory has the legal authority to secede from Denmark. Despite this right, many Inuit people believe that their current relationship with Denmark is mutually beneficial and do not wish to separate. Greenland relies on a substantial annual subsidy of $600 million from Denmark (Manning, 2017), while Denmark envisions future profits from the territory’s resources, making it a complex relationship.
While this arrangement reflects somewhat cooperative relationship, it is also rooted in a history of dependency shaped by Danish policies. Examining the development of welfare programs and modernization efforts reveals a more complex dynamic—one that has often come at the expense of Inuit traditions. Forced relocations, educational reforms, and cultural assimilation policies significantly altered Greenlandic society. The imposition of Danish-language education, for example, severed many younger Inuit from their traditional heritage (Johnstone, 2020). These disruptions not only reshaped daily life but also contributed to lingering resentment and tension in the relationship between Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark.
Yet, in the present context, Denmark’s decisions have been guided by well-intentioned goals focused on environmental preservation and public safety. Denmark opposes uranium extraction due to environmental and public health concerns. However, this situation presents another dilemma, where a clash arises between the two perspectives. While many Inuit view mining as a potential economic opportunity (Manning, 2017), the environmental risks remain significant. These risks include toxic spills, contamination of water sources, and long-term ecological damage, which could pose serious health threats to the population (Manning, 2017).
However, under Article 1.2 of the ICCPR and Article 15 of the ILO Convention 169, indigenous peoples have the right to manage and utilize their natural resources. Both sides of the argument are understandable. This complex dilemma highlights the tension between economic aspirations and environmental protections, underscored by the legal framework.
Manning (2017) underlines the severe environmental consequences of uranium mining, particularly its harm to the local ecosystem. Toxic spills are an unavoidable consequence of mining, posing grave health risks, including the potential for cancer, premature aging, and various genetic and hereditary diseases. Furthermore, extractive mining jeopardizes food safety due to environmental degradation (Manning, 2017). Once mining sites are depleted, they remain hazardous for thousands of years, creating long-term concerns.
While Denmark’s opposition to uranium mining stems from its commitment to safeguarding public health, this well-intentioned stance inadvertently encroaches upon the cultural rights of the Inuit. This dilemma underscores the complexity of balancing public safety with the autonomy of indigenous communities. Guided by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP), the paramount concern lies in preserving the well-being of indigenous communities. The history of decisions made without the involvement of the Inuit people highlights the importance of their autonomy in shaping not only their future but also the fate of their land.
In support of this autonomy, Article 1.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) affirms the authority of indigenous peoples to govern their natural resources, emphasizing that “all peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.” Similarly, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 of 1989, Article 15, further establishes the rights of indigenous people to engage in the utilization, management, and preservation of these resources. This reinforces the argument that indigenous communities’ means of survival—whether through mining, hunting, or fishing—should not be arbitrarily restricted.
A substantial portion of the Inuit population perceives mining as a potential avenue to achieve greater economic stability, reduce crime, lower alcohol consumption, and encourage locals to remain in the region. Moreover, it could pave the way for Greenland’s complete independence and self-governance. However, this desire for mining must be weighed against the potential hazards it poses to Inuit lives, especially concerning international law’s obligations to protect minorities. The division in opinions on this topic remains profound, and determining what’s best for Greenland remains unclear, given the considerable disparity between local and Danish perspectives. While Denmark’s intentions may be generally positive, the Greenlandic people need the autonomy to make decisions regarding their resources, whether it involves mining, fishing, or hunting.
Fishing and hunting are important components of Inuit culture passed down through generations and hold substantial significance. Fishing is their primary source of income, alongside welfare from Denmark, providing employment, sustenance, and income from the export of animal skins. Nonetheless, many individuals have abandoned these traditional trades due to declining work opportunities, exacerbated by the European Union’s ban on seal pelts (Johnstone, 2020). This development is perceived as a threat to Inuit culture. The evolving global norms and standards have impacted their traditional way of life. Western Greenpeace activists have launched a campaign, criticizing Greenland for seal hunting, causing disruptions in local markets and income streams (Carnegy, 1996). This adds to the challenge of preserving Inuit indigenous culture while embracing environmental consciousness.
In recent years, Denmark has recognized the need for greater inclusion of Inuit perspectives, particularly in the governance of natural resources. Under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), Denmark is obligated to respect and support the rights of indigenous peoples to “use, own, develop, and control their land and resources” (Johnstone, 2020). This commitment underscores Denmark’s responsibility to recognize the Inuit as rightful stewards of their land and culture.
Additionally under international law and through Greenland’s referendum process, the people have the legal right to choose independence from Denmark if they collectively desire it. However, the debate on self-determination remains divisive in both Denmark and Greenland. Some fear that independence, coupled with increased mining, could bring an influx of foreigners and further Westernization, threatening the unique Greenlandic way of life. With only about 55,000 Greenlandic people (Manning, 2017), there is concern about the economic viability of an independent Greenland. Others, however, argue that the relationship with Denmark is mutually beneficial, particularly in terms of financial and resource support. The Danish welfare system remains crucial for much of Greenland’s population, who benefit from improved healthcare and education systems. Consequently, while some see self-determination as a step toward progress, many still see value in maintaining the ties with Denmark.
The historical relationship between Greenland and Denmark has been fraught with tension, from colonization to modern-day complexities. Despite Denmark’s efforts to modernize Greenland while preserving traditional Inuit practices, fears and resentments linger, rooted in the history of colonization and resource exploitation. These issues are further complicated by mixed feelings among the Inuit themselves regarding self-determination and resource governance. While Greenland enjoys the right to determine its future, it remains uncertain whether it can sustain itself financially without continued support from Denmark. For Denmark, aiding Greenland serves as an investment in future profits, particularly with the increasing accessibility of valuable natural resources due to melting ice (Dorothee, 2020). This relationship, while rooted in mutual benefit, prioritizes the safety and well-being of the people.
As it stands today, significant strides have been made in recognizing the rights of the Inuit within the framework of international law. The increasing global recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights and the formal acknowledgment of the Inuit as such have afforded them greater autonomy in preserving their traditional way of life, encompassing diverse hunting and fishing practices. Moreover, their right to self-determination provides them the freedom to shape their future according to their own needs and aspirations. With continued financial support from Denmark and the potential benefits of new resource access, Greenland’s future outlook appears promising.
Lista de Referencias
- Carnegy, H. (1996, September 28). Greenland grapples with modern life: Colonisation has been traumatic for the inuits, but they are learning to cope, finds hugh carnegy: [london edition]. Financial Times Retrieved from http://200.91.89.195:2048/newspapers/greenland-grapples-with-modern-life-colonisation/ docview/248205815/se-2?accountid=28984
- Cambou, D.C. (2020). Disentangling the conundrum of self-determination and its implications in greenland. The Polar Record, 56 doi:http://ezproxy.upeace.org:2073/10.1017/S0032247420000169
- Hingitaq 53 v. Denmark. (2003). Supreme Court of Denmark, Decision of Nov. 28, 2003, in cases 489/1999 and 490/1999. See also European Court of Human Rights, First Section, Application No. 18584/04, 2006.
- Johnstone, R. L. (2020). The impact of international law on natural resource governance in greenland. The Polar Record, 56 doi:http://ezproxy.upeace.org:2073/10.1017/S0032247419000287
- Manning, L. (2017). MINING FOR COMPROMISE IN PASTORAL GREENLAND: PROMISE, PROGRESS, AND PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL LAWS’ RESPONSE TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. American University International Law Review, 32(4), 931-970. Retrieved from http://200.91.89.195:2048/scholarly-journals/mining-compromise-pastoral-greenland-pro mise/docview/1943264921/se-2?accountid=28984
- Pelaudeix, C., Basse, E. M., & Loukacheva, N. (2017). Openness, transparency and public participation in the governance of uranium mining in greenland: A legal and political track record. The Polar Record, 53(6), 603-616. doi:http://ezproxy.upeace.org:2073/10.1017/S0032247417000596
Author Short Bio
Sophia Clark was born in Ukraine and has lived in Denmark, Italy, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, shaping her global perspective. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology and International Relations and Global Studies from Portland State University and a Master’s degree in International Law and Diplomacy from the University for Peace.
With over a decade of experience in the non-profit sector, Sophia has focused on outreach and supporting refugees and newcomers in various countries. Her professional background includes work with private enterprises, non-governmental organizations, and governmental bodies in international settings.
