The Force Ban: Why Military Threats Trigger International Law Alarms
UN Charter Article 2(4) is the cornerstone of modern international law. When the President says "all options are on the table" regarding a NATO ally's territory, this provision is exactly what legal scholars are thinking about.
Deep Dive: UN CharterUpdated Jan 2026Full Legal Citations
TL;DRThe Bottom Line
▶
UN Charter Article 2(4) prohibits not just the use of force, but the threat of force against any state's territorial integrity. When President Trump states that military options remain "on the table" regarding Greenland (Danish territory), this language directly implicates Article 2(4). Denmark is a UN member state. Greenland is Danish territory. Threatening force to change this status - even rhetorically - violates the most fundamental norm of post-WWII international order. The prohibition is absolute: there is no exception for "really wanting" the territory or for "national security interests."
The Full Text of Article 2(4)
UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2(4)
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Every phrase in Article 2(4) matters for the Greenland situation:
"All Members" - Both the United States and Denmark are founding members of the UN (1945). This obligation applies to both.
"shall refrain" - This is mandatory, not precatory. It's a binding legal obligation, not a suggestion.
"in their international relations" - This covers state-to-state interactions, which is exactly what US-Denmark relations over Greenland represent.
"from the threat or use of force" - Note the disjunction: threat OR use. The prohibition covers threats even without actual force.
"against the territorial integrity" - Acquiring territory from an unwilling state is the paradigm case of violating territorial integrity.
"or political independence" - Coercing a state to give up territory also implicates this prong.
"of any state" - Denmark is a sovereign state. Greenland is part of the Danish Realm.
What Counts as "Threat of Force"?
Clear Cases: Military Threats
The clearest violations of Article 2(4) involve explicit or implied military threats. In the Greenland context, statements like:
"We're not ruling out military force" - Direct implication of potential armed action
"All options are on the table" - Diplomatic code that universally includes military options
"It might be something you'll have to do" (regarding military use) - Explicit acknowledgment of force as possibility
These statements, made by official US government representatives regarding Danish territory, constitute exactly the kind of "threat of force" that Article 2(4) prohibits.
The Economic Coercion Debate
Article 2(4) explicitly covers "force," and the drafting history shows this was understood primarily as armed force. However, the scope of prohibited coercion has been debated:
The Coercion Spectrum
Clearly LawfulContestedClearly Unlawful
Generally Permitted
Diplomatic pressure Trade negotiations Incentive offers Public criticism
Legally Contested
Targeted tariffs Sanctions on allies Economic ultimatums Aid conditionality
Generally Prohibited
Military threats Troop movements Naval blockades Armed coercion
The Line: Where Does Economic Pressure Become Unlawful?
The legal consensus is that Article 2(4) itself covers primarily armed force. However, economic coercion may violate other international law principles:
UN Charter Article 2(1) - Principle of sovereign equality
1970 Friendly Relations Declaration - States cannot use economic measures to coerce another state regarding exercise of sovereign rights
Vienna Convention on Treaties - Treaties procured by coercion are void (Article 52)
When tariffs are explicitly threatened as leverage to force territorial concessions, the combined effect of military rhetoric plus economic pressure creates a coercion package that implicates multiple international law violations.
Self-Determination vs. Territorial Integrity
Two principles often come into tension in territorial disputes. Click each tab to understand how they apply to Greenland:
The Right to Self-Determination
Self-determination is the principle that peoples have the right to determine their own political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.
How it applies to Greenland:
Greenlanders (primarily Inuit) are recognized as a "people" with self-determination rights
Denmark's 2009 Self-Government Act recognizes Greenland's right to pursue independence
Any decision about Greenland's future requires Greenlandic consent through democratic process
Self-determination means Greenlanders decide - not Denmark alone, not the US
What it does NOT mean:
Another state cannot "liberate" a people without their consent
External intervention to "help" self-determination is not permitted
Force or coercion cannot be used to accelerate or influence the process
The Principle of Territorial Integrity
Territorial integrity protects states from having their borders changed by external force or coercion. It's a cornerstone of the post-WWII international order.
How it applies to Greenland:
Greenland is part of the Danish Realm - Danish sovereign territory
Denmark's territorial integrity is protected under the UN Charter
No state may use force or threats to change Danish borders
Even willing transfers require proper legal process and consent
The key distinction:
Internal self-determination (Greenland choosing independence) is permitted
External coercion (US forcing a transfer) is prohibited
The choice must come from within, not be imposed from outside
Historical Enforcement: Key Precedents
Click each case to see how it relates to the Greenland situation:
ICJNicaragua v. United States
1986▶
The International Court of Justice found the United States violated Article 2(4) through its support for Contra rebels and mining of Nicaraguan harbors. The Court held that the prohibition on the use of force was part of customary international law binding on all states.
Relevance to Greenland: The ICJ confirmed that Article 2(4) reflects customary international law, meaning the prohibition applies universally and cannot be unilaterally reinterpreted. The US cannot claim a special exemption.
UNSCIraq Invasion of Kuwait
1990▶
When Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait, the Security Council immediately condemned the action as a violation of Article 2(4) and authorized collective action to reverse it (Resolution 678). Iraq's claim that Kuwait was historically Iraqi territory was rejected.
Relevance to Greenland: Historical claims to territory do not override the prohibition on force. The international community responded with unified condemnation and action. Any US attempt to take Danish territory by force would face similar international response.
UNGARussia's Annexation of Crimea
2014▶
The UN General Assembly passed Resolution 68/262 affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity and declaring the Crimean referendum invalid. Over 100 states voted in favor. The annexation has never been internationally recognized.
Relevance to Greenland: Even when justified by claims of local population preference, territorial acquisition without proper consent violates international law. The US has consistently condemned Crimea's annexation - applying different standards to Greenland would destroy US credibility.
ICJArmed Activities (DRC v. Uganda)
2005▶
The ICJ found Uganda violated Article 2(4) through its military operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Court rejected Uganda's claims of self-defense and consent, emphasizing that force requires clear legal justification.
Relevance to Greenland: The narrow exceptions to Article 2(4) - self-defense or Security Council authorization - clearly do not apply to acquiring allied territory for strategic reasons. There is no legal basis for US force against Denmark.
Security Council and General Assembly Responses
The pattern from these cases shows:
Immediate condemnation - Violations of Article 2(4) trigger rapid international response
Non-recognition - Territorial changes achieved by force are not recognized
Potential sanctions - Economic and diplomatic consequences follow
Long-term isolation - Violators face sustained international pressure
Application to the Greenland Scenario
US
Trump's "Military Option" Statements
President Trump has made several statements declining to rule out military force regarding Greenland:
January 7, 2025: "I'm not going to commit to that. It might be that you'll have to do something." (when asked about ruling out military force)
December 2024: References to Greenland being "essential" for national security with "all options" available
Ongoing: Refusal to categorically exclude military action
Legal Analysis: These statements constitute exactly the kind of "threat of force" that Article 2(4) prohibits. The target is Danish territory. The speaker is the US President. The context is clearly coercive - designed to pressure Denmark into a territorial transfer it has rejected.
$
Tariff Threats Analysis
The administration has threatened tariffs on Denmark specifically tied to the Greenland issue:
Direct statements linking trade measures to Greenland negotiations
Threats to impose significant tariffs if Denmark does not "cooperate"
Economic pressure explicitly designed to coerce territorial concessions
Legal Analysis: While tariffs alone may not violate Article 2(4) (which focuses on armed force), tariffs explicitly tied to territorial coercion implicate:
The 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration prohibition on economic coercion
The principle that treaties obtained through coercion are void
Combined with military threat rhetoric, economic pressure becomes part of an overall coercion strategy that violates international law.
DK
Denmark as UN Member State
Critical legal facts about Denmark's status:
Founding UN member (1945) - Full protection under the Charter
Founding NATO member (1949) - Additional alliance protections (see NATO Problem)
EU member state - European solidarity mechanisms
Rule-of-law democracy - Strong international legal standing
Denmark is not an isolated state that can be pressured without consequences. Threatening a founding NATO ally implicates the entire Western alliance architecture.
Consequences of Violation
!
What Happens If the US Violates Article 2(4)?
International Isolation: The US would face unified condemnation from allies and adversaries alike. Threatening or using force against a NATO ally would be unprecedented in the alliance's history.
Potential Sanctions: While Security Council sanctions against the US are impossible (US veto), individual states and the EU could impose their own measures. Economic retaliation from Europe would be significant.
Loss of Moral Authority: The US has condemned Russia's Crimea annexation, China's South China Sea claims, and other territorial aggression. Using force against Denmark would eliminate any US credibility on these issues.
Illegitimacy of Any Outcome: Even if force "succeeded," the resulting territorial change would never be internationally recognized. It would be the 21st century equivalent of conquest - universally condemned since 1945.
Domestic Legal Challenges: Using military force without Congressional authorization could face legal challenges. The War Powers Resolution and constitutional questions about executive authority would be implicated.
Self-Determination Principles: UN Charter Chapter XI
Beyond the force prohibition, UN Charter Chapter XI addresses non-self-governing territories and establishes the principle of self-determination:
UN Charter, Chapter XI, Article 73
"Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount..."
Greenland represents a unique case under self-determination principles:
Recognized as a "people" - The Greenlandic Inuit population has recognized rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Self-Government Act (2009) - Denmark has formally recognized Greenland's right to pursue independence through democratic process
Pathway to independence exists - Greenland can become independent if its population chooses through referendum
Current status: Autonomous territory - Greenland has extensive self-governance but remains part of the Danish Realm
The key point: Self-determination means Greenlanders decide their future - not Denmark alone, and certainly not the United States. Any pathway that ignores Greenlandic consent violates self-determination principles, regardless of what Denmark might agree to.
What Self-Determination Does NOT Mean
It does not mean another state can "liberate" a people without their consent
It does not justify external intervention to "help" self-determination
It does not permit bypassing democratic processes with force or coercion
It does not allow treating people as assets to be acquired in a transaction
Key Takeaways
Article 2(4) prohibits threats, not just use: "All options on the table" rhetoric regarding Danish territory is itself a violation
No national security exception exists: Strategic importance does not create a right to threaten or use force
Historical precedent is clear: The international community has consistently rejected territorial changes achieved by force or threat
Consequences would be severe: International isolation, loss of credibility, potential sanctions, and permanent illegitimacy of any outcome
Self-determination belongs to Greenlanders: Neither the US nor Denmark can decide Greenland's future without Greenlandic consent