were founded there which in the XIII century became tributary to the King of Norway, but disappeared before 1500. It goes on to recall that this disappearance did not put an end to the pretentions of the King-who had meantime become King of Denmark and Norway-to the sovereignty over Greenland and to describe how, more especially in the XVII century, these pretentions were acted upon and, to some extent, recognised. Lastly the Court recalls how, in 1721, Hans Egede founded new colonies in Greenland and how, subsequently, the King promulgated a series of decrees and granted several successive concessions in respect either of the colonies founded on the west coast of Greenland or of the country without any specification of limits.

"Under the Treaty of Kiel of 1814, the King of Denmark ceded to Sweden the kingdom of Norway excluding however Greenland, the Faroe Isles and Iceland.

"2) After the beginning of the XIX century, Greenland was entirely explored; the Court alludes to the part played by Denmark in these discoveries.

"It also recalls that during the XIX century, a fresh Danish colony was founded on the east coast (Angmagssalik)-in 1925 a settlement was also established further to the north on the same coast (Scoresby Sund)-and that at the beginning of the XX century Denmark enacted legislation covering the whole of Greenland. Again, in the same connection, the Court recalls that, since the beginning of the XIX century, it has been the practice of the Danish Government to insert in treaties concluded by it a stipulation excepting Greenland from the operation of the treaty.

"Some data regarding Danish and Norwegian hunting operations, in the territory, in dispute at the beginning of the XX century conclude this part of the statement of facts.

"3) At the beginning of the next part it is recalled that whilst the Danish Government acted on the assumption that Danish sovereignty extended to the whole of Greenland, private persons sometimes expressed a fear that some foreign State might permanently occupy territories in Greenland which Denmark had not effectively occupied. It is in the light of these conflicting views that the Court considers the steps taken by the Danish Government between 1915 and 1921 to obtain recognition of its sovereignty over all Greenland by the interested Powers.

"The Danish Government first approached the United States who, in 1916, gave a favourable answer. In 1919 a verbal request to the same effect was addressed to Mr. Ihlen, the Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs: the answer made verbally by the latter-this is the 'Thlen declaration' so often mentioned in this case-was favourable: 'the Norwegian Government would not make any difficulties in the settlement of this question'. In the following year Denmark approached the British, French, Italian and Japanese Governments: their replies satisfied the Danish Government; lastly, at the beginning of 1921, it approached the Swedish Government-which made no difficulty-and the Norwegian Government.

"The latter was not prepared to adopt the same attitude, unless it received certain safeguards for the liberty of hunting and fishing which Norwegians had enjoyed in Eastern Greenland. Confronted with this opposition, the Danish Government declared that it would

rest content with the 'Ihlen Declaration' and issued a decree closing the whole of Greenland. Diplomatic correspondence ensued which, in 1923, led to the appointment of delegations by both countries to negotiate on the question of Greenland.

These negotiations resulted in the conclusion of the Convention of July 9th, 1924, respecting the east coast; this Convention only deals with certain practical questions and by notes exchanged the same day the two Governments reserved their 'opinion on questions of principle concerning Greenland'-i.e. questions concerning the international status of the country (Danish sovereignty or terra nullius). By agreements concluded in 1925 between Denmark and France and Great Britain respectively, the advantages granted by the Convention to Norwegians were extended to French and British nationals.

"4) The last part of the statement of facts tells of the immediate origin of the conflict: the conferring of police powers in Eastern Greenland, in 1930, on certain Norwegian nationals; and the putting into execution, in the same year, of the Danish 'three years plan' for research in Eastern Greenland. The two countries at first inclined towards an amicable solution of the difficulties provoked by these measures; next, the possibility of submitting the dispute to the Court, by agreement, was considered; finally, the unofficial occupation of Eirik-Raudes-Land, proclaimed by M. Devold at the end of June 1931, followed, on July 10th, by the Norwegian Government's official proclamation of occupation, called forth the unilateral application by which the Danish Government, founding itself on the 'Optional Clause' of Article 36 of the Statute, submitted the question to the Court.

"C.-In its statement of the law, the Court begins by pointing out that the Danish submission is founded on the contention that the area occupied was, at the time of the occupation, subject to Danish sovereignty: that, as this area was part of Greenland, and as Danish sovereignty existed over all Greenland, the said area could not be occupied by another Power. In support of this contention, the Danish Government advances two main propositions: a) the uncontested enjoyment, for a long time past, of sovereignty over all Greenland; b) the recognition of that sovereignty by Norway. The Danish Government also relies on the Ihlen declaration, which it regards as debarring Norway from proceeding to any occupation of territory in Greenland, and on certain other undertakings by Norway.

"On the other hand, the Norwegian Government submits that, as the territory occupied in 1931 lies outside the limits of the Danish colonies in Greenland, it was a terra nullius; and that, in view of Denmark's overtures to the Powers in 1915-1921, she is now estopped from alleging a long-established sovereignty, extending over the whole country.

"1) The Court observes that the first of the main Danish arguments is not founded upon any particular act of occupation, but on an alleged title, resulting from the pacific and continuous display of State authority. In examining this contention, the Court makes a detailed analysis of the historic facts, from the very earliest times, including, in particular, the legislative acts of the XVIIIth century relating to Greenland, and certain international agreements of the same period, which speak of 'Greenland' in general. Norway had

alleged that this term only applied to the colonized area; the Court holds, however, that it was for Norway to establish her allegation, but that she has not succeeded in doing so. The Court has also taken into account the absence of all claim to sovereignty by any other Power, as also the arctic nature of the non-colonised regions. It is thus led to the conclusion that, prior to 1814, the King of Denmark and Norway had displayed his authority over Greenland to a degree sufficient to confer on him a valid title of sovereignty over the whole country. By the Treaty of Kiel, signed in 1814, Greenland, which had previously been a Norwegian possession, became a possession of Denmark.

"As regards the succeeding period (1814-1915), Denmark has founded her claim to have exercised sovereignty for a long time over all Greenland upon the international treaties concluded by Denmark, and containing a clause excluding Greenland. The Court holds that, to the extent that these treaties constitute evidence of the recognition of her sovereignty over Greenland in general, Denmark is entitled to rely on them; it further considers that they demonstrate the intention of Denmark to exercise sovereignty over Greenland; lastly, it finds that this sovereignty was also exercised in the non-colonised regions. And it concludes that, during this period also, Denmark displayed her authority over the region in question to a degree sufficient to give her a valid title to sovereignty.

"The Court does not consider that the conclusions which it has thus reached are invalidated by the overtures which Denmark made to the Powers from 1915-1921. According to Denmark, these overtures aimed at obtaining the recognition of an existing sovereignty; according to Norway, Denmark was endeavouring to persuade the Powers to agree to an extension of her sovereignty to territory which did not as yet belong to her.

"As a result of a detailed analysis of the relevant documents, and while recognising the contradictions and obscurities, from which they are not exempt, the Court concludes that the view upheld by the Danish Government is right. It considers that too much importance must not be attached to particular expressions used, but that the correspondence must be judged as a whole. Regarded thus, the correspondence shows that, whenever the Danish Government found itself obliged to set out a legal basis for its sovereignty over Greenland, it did so on lines similar to those which it has followed in the present case, affirming that Danish sovereignty has no need of any renewed recognition. The Court adds that, if that was the view which the Danish Government held before, during, and at the close of these applications to the Powers, its action in approaching them must have been intended to ensure that they should accept this point of view, and that they would not attempt themselves to take possession of any non-colonised part of Greenland; and the method of achieving this object was to get the Powers to recognise an existing state of fact. The Court, accordingly, considers that there can be no ground for holding that by the overtures in question, the Danish Government admitted that it possessed no sovereignty over the non-colonised region, nor for holding that it was estopped from claiming an old established sovereignty over all Greenland.

"The Court next proceeds to show that, even if the period 1921-31 is taken by itself, the conclusion reached-having regard to the legislative, administrative and scientific activity of Denmark during these

years in the non-colonised parts of Greenland-is that Denmark displayed and exercised her sovereign rights over the territory to an extent sufficient to constitute a valid title to sovereignty.

"It follows that the Court is satisfied that Denmark has succeeded in establishing that, on July 10th, 1931, the date of the Norwegian occupation, she possessed a valid title, which rendered that occupation unlawful and invalid.

"2) The second Danish argument is based on the alleged existence of undertakings by Norway which recognised Danish sovereignty over all Greenland. In three cases the Court considers that undertakings of this sort were given.

"a) In the first place, the Court holds that, on the occasion of the financial settlement which followed the dissolution of the DanishNorwegian Union in 1814, Norway undertook not to dispute Danish sovereignty over Greenland. In the course of the negotiations concerning this matter the restitution of the island had, at first, been demanded. This demand was, however, subsequently withdrawn, and in its stead a series of declarations of renunciation were made. The Convention of Liquidation of September 1st, 1819, in the view of the Court, finally confirmed the situation thus created. The Court holds that Norway thus recognised Danish sovereignty over the whole of Greenland.

"b) Secondly, the Court finds an undertaking to the same effect, and binding upon Norway, in various bilateral agreements concluded by Norway with Denmark, as also in various multilateral agreements, to which both Norway and Denmark were contracting parties: the agreements in question were concluded subsequently to 1826, and presume Danish sovereignty over Greenland.

"The Court considers that, in accepting these agreements as binding upon herself, Norway reaffirmed that she recognised the whole of Greenland as Danish.

"c) Thirdly and lastly, the Court examines the Ihlen Declaration. "In regard to this point, the Court rejects the Danish contention that the declaration in question was a recognition of an existing Danish sovereignty in Greenland. Nevertheless, it considers that the Declaration constitutes an engagement obliging Norway to refrain from occupying any part of Greenland.

"The Court reaches this conclusion as a result of an analysis of the terms of the relevant documents, in particular of Mr Ihlen's minute concerning the matter, and of documents preceding the overture which elicited the declaration.

"It overrules the Norwegian objection to the effect that the declaration was not binding upon the Norwegian Government, having regard to the circumstances in which it was made either because the Minister had no right to give it, or because he gave it without full knowledge of the facts.

"In regard to the latter point, Norway has relied on the closing of the whole country, which was decreed by Denmark in 1921, and which it is argued could not have been foreseen by Mr Ihlen in 1919, and therefore released Norway from the promise he had given. The Court points out, however, that Denmark had always shown herself willing to make arrangements to safeguard Norwegian subjects against any loss they might incur as a result of the Decree closing the

country. That was, for example, the purpose of the Convention of July 9th, 1924.

"The Court is therefore unable to regard the Ihlen Declaration otherwise than as unconditional and definitive: It follows, in the view of the Court, that the Declaration obliges Norway to refrain from contesting Danish sovereignty over Greenland as a whole, and, a fortiori, to refrain from occupying a part of Greenland.

"d) Furthermore, having regard to the notes exchanged on July 9th, 1924, the Court finds, contrary to the Danish contention, that neither Denmark nor Norway can derive support from the Convention for their fundamental standpoints.

"e) Finally, in view of the conclusion reached by it, the Court holds that there is no need to consider certain subsidiary arguments adduced by the parties.

"THE HAGUE, April 5, 1933."