Eastern Greenland Case (Denmark v.

Norway)

Norway occupied Eastern Greenland by Royal Proclamation, claiming that it was terra nullius. Denmark
also claimed this territory and applied to the court to declare the occupation promulgated by the
Norwegian Government is a violation of the existing legal situation and are unlawful and invalid.

The court decided the Eastern Greenland was under the sovereignty of Denmark. Court further held that
a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title but merely upon continued display of
authority, involves two elements which must be shown to exist:
1. Intention to act as sovereign
 actual display of sovereignty must be accompanied by an intention to act as sovereign
 If extensive display of authority is not possible, State must make clear its sovereign
intentions by other means, e.g. publication of notices of sovereignty in various journals(b)
peaceful and continuous display of state authority

2. Peaceful display of State authority: it is not challenged by other states. Must be continuous

Facts:
The agreement not to obstruct Danish (P) plans with regard to Greenland was what Denmark wanted to
obtain from Norway (D). To this request, a declaration on behalf of the Norwegian government (D) was
made by its Minister for Foreign Affairs that Norway (D) would not make any difficulty in the settlement
of the question.

Issue:
Is a country bound by the reply given on its behalf by its Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Ruling:
Yes. A country is bound by the reply given on its behalf by its Minister of Foreign Affairs. Therefore in
this case, the response by the diplomatic representative of a foreign power is binding upon the country
the Minister represents.

The main source of international law on treaties is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The
Convention was ratified by 35 countries but not by the United States. Unilateral statements may also be
binding on states.