EJIL

Unpacking Donald Trump’s Statements – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

by
Unpacking Donald Trump’s Statements – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

On January 8, 2025, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump questioned Denmark’s legal rights to Greenland, stating, “people don’t really know if Denmark has any legal rights to [Greenland].” While the specific concerns behind his remarks remain unclear, they likely touch on two interrelated issues: Denmark’s historical establishment of sovereignty over Greenland, despite limited effective occupation initially, and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.

This post examines the legal foundations of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland and addresses the Greenlandic people recognized right to self-determination within international law. It concludes that Greenland’s legal status within the Kingdom of Denmark is firmly established. Denmark’s sovereignty is supported by historical legal developments, continuous and peaceful exercise of authority, and the absence of unresolved challenges from other States under international law. Should Greenland choose independence in the future, it would be a matter of political will exercised through democratic processes, not a legal deficiency in Denmark’s title.

Read more

The ICC Prosecutor’s Slavery Crimes Policy and Practice Between Conviction and Convenience – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

by
Unpacking Donald Trump’s Statements – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

In December 2024, the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor (‘OTP’ or ‘Prosecutor’) adopted a Slavery Crimes Policy (‘Policy’). The Policy communicates the Prosecutor’s commitment to prioritizing investigations concerning contemporary slavery. It envisions a role for the Prosecutor in curbing slavery crimes through the pursuit of criminal accountability for the crimes within the Court’s … Read more

Progress through disruption? What role for the ICJ in the Advisory Opinion on Climate Change – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

by
Unpacking Donald Trump’s Statements – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

In the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory procedure on international obligations of states in respect of climate change the US government raises the concern that the ICJ could disrupt the cooperative legal system that states have established under the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement (PA) through its interpretation of customary law (written … Read more

A Range of Principles but Few Concrete Prospects – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

by
Unpacking Donald Trump’s Statements – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

As the public hearings on the request for an advisory opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change drew to a close on 13 December, the Court began its deliberation with much material to reflect on. The request introduced by the United Nations General Assembly in April 2023 – even if not … Read more

An International Law Perspective on Trump v. United States – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

by
Unpacking Donald Trump’s Statements – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

In July 2024, the US Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 ruling, that former President Donald Trump enjoys absolute immunity for acts he committed within his constitutional powers as President, even though they were unlawful under US law. The decision has sparked debate over potential implications for rogue presidents who may wish to subvert the law (here), and US foreign policy (here, here, here). Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, observed that this “new official-acts immunity now ‘lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation”.

The Supreme Court conferred immunity under domestic law. But as the arrest warrants against President Putin and Prime Minister Netanyahu demonstrate, Heads of State are in the spotlight of international law just as much as domestic law. In fact, it could be said that their role engages international law more than any other official in government. Therefore, in this post, we explore the US Supreme Court’s ruling from the viewpoint of international law.

Read more

x