The Eastern Greenland Case brief

The Eastern Greenland Case (Denmark/Norway; PCIJ 1969; p. 81)

• Denmark wanted a judgment saying that Norway’s proclamation (claiming that it had proceeded to occupy eastern Greenland) and steps taken in regards to it were unlawful and invalid. Danes had been trying to get sovereignty over Greenland for yrs. Norway guy told them that its govt “wld not make any difficulties in the settlement of the question” (Ihlen Declaration).
• Ct says the Ihlen cldn’t have meant (or be understood to mean) that it recognized Danish sovereignty over Greenland. But the statement did mean that Norway wld refrain from contesting Danish sovereignty over Greenland as a whole and (thus to refrain from occupying it.)
• The Ihlen statement is binding, unconditional, and definitive.
• The court reasoned by looking at the activities of Norway both before and after the remark—including other of Ihlen’s remarks.
• Art. 2, Vienna Convention (p. 868) says treaties must be written. There was an unwritten agreement in this case. Since it wasn’t an agreement, cld it be a K? Could have been. Though the ct seems to say this was an unwritten treaty. See p. 85, n. 1.
• Did this case say essentially that statements by foreign ministers could be binding on a country? According to intl law, it is irrelevant whether domestic law has been violated or whether a country is bound by domestic law. The party is still bound by intl law.
• Ct does say that there was a legal obligation btwn the coutnires and that good faith was enough to create a norm. The ct says that Norway is estopped based on Ihlen’s statement—even if the statement doesn’t constitute a treaty.
• What if the constitution of such countries requires that treaties be written and ratified? P. 85, n. 2.
• Could the Ihlen Declaration be instead the consummation of a Bargain btwn two parties instead of a treaty? Or a unilateral, but binding, promise in intl law?