Can security concerns legitimize annexation?
In de media
Legal experts, including Jens Iverson, a lecturer in international law, warned in Le Soir that any attempt by US president Donald Trump to annex Greenland would violate international law. They argue despite diplomatic discussions and security arguments raised in recent negotiations.
Legal scholars stress that annexation by conquest is, by definition, an illegal act under modern international law. Iverson explains that sovereignty over territory can only be transferred through consensual agreements between states. ‘Given the illegal threat or use of force, the Trump administration cannot lawfully annex Greenland’, Iverson adds that ‘any use of force would constitute a crime of aggression.’
Iverson notes that while expanded US military presence on the island may be politically sensitive, it is not necessarily unlawful. ‘I don’t think the establishment of military bases in Greenland is illegal under these circumstances’, pointing to existing treaties that already allow American forces there. However, Iverson emphasised that such arrangements ‘do not amount to a transfer of sovereignty’, rejecting claims that security concerns could legitimize annexation.