The article mentions aspirations to acquire Greenland in the 1800s and 1900s but skips over an important detail. In 1916, America agreed to recognize Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland as part of the treaty and deal to acquire the Virgin Islands. Prior history doesn’t matter and later interest doesn’t matter - a treaty is binding. Not to mention, military aggression in the modern era is unacceptable and will quickly lead to a decoupling away from America.
Your reliance on the 1916 treaty ignores how that deal was actually reached. The treaty was finalized only after US Secretary Lansing issued a "plain spoken threat"[1] to seize the islands if Denmark refused to sell. Thus the agreement is not proof sovereignty is inviolable, but rather a precedent that the United States is willing to use coercion when it perceives an existential threat. Same as the US feared Germany then, fears of Russia and China today could lead the current administration to again pull a page out of Lansing’s book and use similar pressure to secure Greenland
Reserving judgment on the particular case at hand, rebus sic stantibus (fundamental change of circumstances) as well as self-preservation/national security are well-worn avenues for modifying treaties or adherence thereto.
International courts almost always reject these arguments because they want treaties to be stable, but when a state (like the US or the USSR/Russia) has the power to back up their argument, they can be successful
Isn’t that basically grounds for no country to respect the international order or laws or stability? Why would anyone care when the biggest powers can choose to abandon it at will. Laws for everyone but not for America (or Russia or China)?
You misquote. The article says that the islands may be seized if they were transferred to another European power, and especially if transferred to Germany. The article does not that they would have simply been seized regardless.
It's clear that the threat of Denmark falling into the hands/influence of another power, not the fall itself, was enough. In case it wasn't clear, Lansing writes "the possible consequence of absorption," not, "the absorption of Denmark."
The US position was that Denmark was too small and weak to remain neutral or defend the islands. Therefore, as long as the islands remained Danish, they were a security risk to the US.
The article mentions aspirations to acquire Greenland in the 1800s and 1900s but skips over an important detail. In 1916, America agreed to recognize Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland as part of the treaty and deal to acquire the Virgin Islands. Prior history doesn’t matter and later interest doesn’t matter - a treaty is binding. Not to mention, military aggression in the modern era is unacceptable and will quickly lead to a decoupling away from America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi...
Your reliance on the 1916 treaty ignores how that deal was actually reached. The treaty was finalized only after US Secretary Lansing issued a "plain spoken threat"[1] to seize the islands if Denmark refused to sell. Thus the agreement is not proof sovereignty is inviolable, but rather a precedent that the United States is willing to use coercion when it perceives an existential threat. Same as the US feared Germany then, fears of Russia and China today could lead the current administration to again pull a page out of Lansing’s book and use similar pressure to secure Greenland
[1]https://www.execfunctions.org/p/the-danish-west-indies-prece...
Do you believe it’s justified? What’s the point of treaties if the agreement isn’t inviolable?
Reserving judgment on the particular case at hand, rebus sic stantibus (fundamental change of circumstances) as well as self-preservation/national security are well-worn avenues for modifying treaties or adherence thereto.
International courts almost always reject these arguments because they want treaties to be stable, but when a state (like the US or the USSR/Russia) has the power to back up their argument, they can be successful
Isn’t that basically grounds for no country to respect the international order or laws or stability? Why would anyone care when the biggest powers can choose to abandon it at will. Laws for everyone but not for America (or Russia or China)?
Why do you think NATO exists, or has a need to exist?
You misquote. The article says that the islands may be seized if they were transferred to another European power, and especially if transferred to Germany. The article does not that they would have simply been seized regardless.
Go to the primary source. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1914-20v02...
It's clear that the threat of Denmark falling into the hands/influence of another power, not the fall itself, was enough. In case it wasn't clear, Lansing writes "the possible consequence of absorption," not, "the absorption of Denmark."
The US position was that Denmark was too small and weak to remain neutral or defend the islands. Therefore, as long as the islands remained Danish, they were a security risk to the US.
[flagged]
Like Alaska, I find it curious it didn't end up in the hands of Canada. Maybe the Alaska purchase is the main inspiration for all this.