Abstract
Sovereignty acquired by occupation entails “recognize[d] title based on discovery,” “a reasonable period [of] … effective occupation of the region claimed to be discovered” and “the continuous and peaceful display of State authority.” Only terra nullius is subject to occupation. A territory inhabited by indigenous groups that sustain social and political organization may impede an occupying power because the terra nullius requirement fails. While sovereignty over thinly populated areas are often lax, case law requires less public involvement in these sparsely inhabited areas. This study reveals that the Dano-Norwegian Kings regarded the Inuit as “our subjects.” The Kings’ pretention of absolutum dominium and jurisdiction involved both the Norse and Inuit ethnic groups and “bygð ok ubygð” (settled and unsettled) land. The exodus of the Norse peoples in 1450 AD for 200 years did not undermine the acquired sovereignty of the Dano-Norwegian Crown, which as a result, spoiled the 1931 Norwegian pretentions to legally occupy East-Greenland. Denmark’s triumph in the 1933-East Greenland case resulted from a “zero-sum principle.” More than a 100 years earlier, the Danish Kingdom lost a succession of countries and dependencies. The 1814 Kiel Treaty transferred mainland Norway to Sweden, but explicitly states that none of the ancient Norwegian dependencies, Greenland, Iceland and Faroe Islands would follow suit. Thus, these territories remained part of the Kingdom of Denmark.(Published: May 2016)Citation: P. T. Ørebech. “Terra nullius, Inuit Habitation and Norse Occupation – With Special Emphasis on the 1933 East Greenland Case.” Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2016, pp. 20–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v7.262
Highlights
Sovereignty acquired by occupation entails ‘‘recognize[d] title based on discovery,’’ ‘‘a reasonable period [of] . . . effective occupation of the region claimed to be discovered’’ and ‘‘the continuous and peaceful display of State authority.’’ Only terra nullius is subject to occupation
To circumvent Inuit habitation and justify occupation, Norway had adjusted the borders of the occupied area, declaring that the ‘‘rest of the coast [beyond latitude 738N] and the interior of East Greenland has always been considered terra nullius.’’15 The ‘‘Norwegian Government [. . .] found it imperative to occupy the territory in East Greenland which, on account of Norwegian economic interests there, ought naturally to be under Norwegian jurisdiction.’’16 Norway stated that the ‘‘East Greenland Treaty of 1924 is not affected by the occupation.’’17 this position gained little support (Section 3)
Valid occupation provokes lex temporae and Áterrae issues. ‘‘[A]s from the tenth to the sixteenth centuries, if thinly populated or unsettled territory are considered, a less rigid test would be required to establish legal title to terra nullius than would be necessary were such acts attempted in a more recent period and in a heavily settled area.’’80 The PCIJ verify this legal paradigm: ‘‘This special position can only have been derived from the sovereign rights which accrued to the King of Norway from the submission made to him by the early Nordic settlers and which descended to the Danish-Norwegian kings.’’81 The Court underlined that the non-codified principles of sovereignty are case law based
Summary
No right of self-determination is recognized in international law where it clashes with the world system of state sovereignty.[9]. To circumvent Inuit habitation and justify occupation, Norway had adjusted the borders of the occupied area, declaring that the ‘‘rest of the coast [beyond latitude 738N] and the interior of East Greenland has always been considered terra nullius.’’15 The ‘‘Norwegian Government [. Norway claimed that the Norse occupation of 986 AD was limited: ‘‘It was only the two settlements in West Greenland that came under Norwegian sovereignty with the Greenlander’s 1261-submission under the Norwegian King.’’23 Norway concluded that areas in the northern part of West-Greenland and parts of EastGreenland beyond Inuit habitation were never part of the Norwegian kingdom. The Danish position in the 1920s Denmark claimed that the Norwegian position on East-Greenland occupation was contradictory. Since Norwegian fishing took place on the East coast, where there were no Inuit, Norway could have argued that Denmark had fabricated this threat. Denmark declared sovereignty over all of Greenland.[33] the Norwegian 1931-annexation of East-Greenland imperiled Danish territorial integrity.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
