Land ownership is not as easy as it might look from the outside, in simple form of description, ownership is based on giving and taking. A reward and a return in favor that would have sealed the transaction through legal forms. The aforesaid scenario concerns properties that are within our hands and control, those are the lands that we can simply own through financial exchange and by legal documents that officiate it.
However, when speaking of sovereign states and owning their lands through financial transactions, then questions will be raised and legal actions along with international intervention will take place as a result. From a legal point of view, if and when a state is sovereign, they have the full power and authority to decide and enforce laws that are based on their domestic laws and regulations that they govern through. And claiming ownership as an outsider is an acceptable act of law due to the official state and nature of authority and sovereignty.
International law requires the right to have ownership of one’s land and sovereign properties, as it is heavily protected through jurisdictions and articles that have been set for a very long time. And claiming ownership of any kind is just a breach of international law.
Greenland is one of the heavy topics that have been debated and discussed for a very long time. Its geographical proximity and location are major factors on why other countries are claiming to have full authority over it, and debating the need to serve and regulate within the country. Anything just to have them involved in Greenland.
And recently, President Trump have demanded and claimed that Greenland has to be protected by the U.S., where he projected and directly supported his jurisdiction of having full ownership over the lands. But due to regulatory constraints that are set by international law that bounds every signatory country to its limits, land ownership of states and counties have multiple hurdles and are often difficult to enforce and navigate.
From a legal and political point of view, there has to be a bold line that separates the word “sovereignty” from “colony”. In the context of academic definition of sovereignty, it refers to complete authority and jurisdiction of one state, one nation, and one system. Whereas colony is a state that shares its power and highly depends on foreign powers, either willingly or through the use of force as history has shown in the past.
Greenland’s territorial sovereignty is based on full autonomous sovereignty within the Kingdom of Denmark, no shared power with foreign states, and no territorial authority exists to govern and control. With that, President Trump’s allegations of taking control over Greenland and owning its geographical region, are based on assumptions that would never align with international law and international humanitarian law that concern the citizens of Greenland and protecting their right to decide and defend their country.
After becoming part of Denmark back in 1954, Greenland has been opted out of being part of a colony and a colonial ruling system, which gave them full sovereignty and authority over the land. Not only that, but signatory countries approved and recognized its independence that is now being considered to be divided among the basis of the international legal framework of international treaties and laws that do not exist.
As a sovereign nation with autonomy over their territories, Greenland has full jurisdiction over their own sovereignty. They get to decide among themselves and for themselves as to what suits them better. And just like every other country in the world, there are domestic divisions who are in favor of being part of a foreign power and others not. However, speaking of the majority, people of Greenland hold pride in their country and their rights to defend its sovereignty against any kind of threats.
Which is why, the European Union formed a joint statement that condemns the actions suggested to be taken against Greenland, as it is a sovereign country with full authority of its own. Not only that, but as the American administration’s position on Greenland has become increasingly clear and unpopular among the international community, the European Union have made it clear that EU members will be ready to defend Greenland against any kind of threats. Which leaves the American administration in a very critical situation as to what the next steps would be.
Nonetheless, regardless of the what actions that might be taken as a result of the situation and the current escalations, as long as International Law and the International Courts authorize Greenland’s legal framework of sovereignty and territorial integrity, then no threat would justified and no action would ever go unrestricted and with no legal obligation to be taken into account.
And if one would bring land ownership into question, the answer would always be faced by and through legal reforms and jurisdictions that have been passed by the courts in the past decades. Which leaves no doubt and room for any justification and argument about owning what does not belong.
Original article
Comments