Greenland and the principle of ‘Self-Determination’

Just over a hundred years ago, at the Paris Peace Talks that produced the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the Great War, American President Woodrow Wilson raised a very important principle regarding national boundaries: ‘self-determination‘.  It was something that had already been discussed for decades and he had raised in an address to Congress on 11th February 1918.

Wilson said:

“National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. ‘Self determination’ is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of actions which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.”

It essentially means the people in a territory should be entitled to determine how they are governed.  After the Second World War, this principle was strengthened by its inclusion in the charter of the United Nations and its recognition as an international legal right.

So, for example, if the people of Bermuda, Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands say they want to be British, then British they should be.  And if those of India, Canada and Australia (and some 60 or so other nations) say they want independence, then independence they should get.

So somebody saying in 2026 that they think they should be allowed to buy or simply take another country by force, despite the opinion of the people living there, they are at risk of committing an international crime against the human rights of those people.

Currently, about 85% of Greenlanders oppose being taken over by the USA.  They do not want to be governed by the USA.  So they should not be.

Meanwhile, only 8% of Americans support using military force to take Greenland.  So it is either an individual’s personal desire, government policy or commercial interests that are pushing for the colonisation of Greenland.  It is not even a democratic desire of the US citizens.

It is also becoming clear why Donald Trump is opposed to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (the World Court) – they hinder his ambitions.  One can but hope President Wilson was right, and he ignores them “at his peril”.

ICC, ICJ and World Court confusion

I have seen comments saying Vladimir Putin should be taken to the World Court.  Individuals are not taken there, it is not that sort of court.  Instead it should be to the International Criminal Court (ICC). ‘World Court’ is the common name for the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The International Court of Justice is a United Nations organisation. It exists to settle questions of international law and give legal opinion on disputes between nations. It has said what Russia is doing in Ukraine is wrong. It is a panel of judges who give an opinion: any action has to be taken by nation states.

The International Criminal Court  is a very different body. Although it is an intergovernmental organisation, it is not part of the United Nations. It exists to prosecute individuals for matters such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It can issue arrest warrants, try people and has a detention centre.

It issued an arrest warrant for Putin on 17th March 2023 for the situation in Ukraine.

Confusingly, both are based in The Hague, Netherlands.

Press release about Putin’s arrest warrant.