The question poised asks whether the United States government will issue an official statement, or pass a legal formality to indicate the formal inclusion of Greenland as a territory (or state) of the United States by or before 31st December 2030.
Both the US and Danish governments, their official spokespersons, or an internationally recognized body such as the United Nations must officially communicate annexation, in order for the prediction to be valid.
1,000
3.00Will probably never be a military annexation, but Trump can apply pressure in different ways. Embargo, sanctions, revoke defense guarantee for Denmark. Make it more costly for Denmark to keep Greenland (Greenland is already subsidized by/dependent on Denmark) than to relinquish it to the US.
@MalachiteEagle The EU is entirely dependent on the US in both trade and security. If the US says it’s us or Denmark, no one is siding with Denmark.
@BrunoParga Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the spirit of the question is whether the US will have international recognition of governing Greenland, likely through purchase. Thanks for the clarification. This is my first manifold question- is it bad practice to amend the question after users have already bet?
@hemocrates welcome! Good job with an interesting question.
I think it's best to err on the side of caution and just add a clarification in the question description (not the title) that any legal term - annexation, cession, purchase, transfer, accession or anything like that - is valid, so long as America instead of the Kingdom of Denmark is the sovereign state ruling Greenland.
I'd probably also make it explicit whether consent from the Greenlandic autonomous government is required or not for this question to resolve YES.
@hemocrates sovereignty isn't a binary thing though. There's different levels of military sovereignty, countries can also have an independent foreign policy or not, can make trade deals or not, independent immigration/border policy or not, etc
@hemocrates it's better to choose a clear criteria which clarifies these points, and explain it in the description
@hemocrates you can always say something like "3 of the following must be true"
US has control over Greenland's defence
US decides Greenland's border and immigration policy
Greenland cannot make trade deals with other countries
Greenland cannot run an independent foreign policy
@MalachiteEagle I am a former diplomat. Sovereignty is binary. Countries that choose not to have a military exercise their sovereignty in doing so. Every sovereign country can have an independent foreign policy, although very small ones might delegate most of the actual conduct of their foreign business to a larger, friendly neighbor. Countries in e.g. the Schengen area exercise their sovereignty in joining the Schengen agreement. Sovereign states like Palau, FS Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Cook Islands and Niue exercise their sovereignty in entering free association compacts with the US or New Zealand.
This is crystal clear in international law, and the changes you propose make the question considerably worse.
Do you have examples of what you consider "multiple-level sovereignty" so that I can help clear your confusion?
@BrunoParga I am a former meat popsicle. Thank you for engaging in this conversation. You’ve stated that sovereignty is binary, but in practice, there are numerous arrangements that blur the boundaries you describe:
1. Hong Kong and “One Country, Two Systems”
Hong Kong is under the People’s Republic of China but exercises its own legal framework, currency, immigration policy, and certain international trade practices. Although Beijing holds ultimate authority, Hong Kong has historically operated with a degree of autonomy that doesn’t fit neatly into “sovereign” or “not sovereign.”
2. Partially Recognized States
Entities like Kosovo, Palestine, or Taiwan demonstrate how sovereignty can be contested or recognized by some nations but not others. Each maintains functional governance, external relations, and autonomy, yet their “sovereign” status is subject to debate in international law—hardly a binary matter.
3. Dependent Territories with Varying Degrees of Autonomy
Aruba is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands but has its own constitution, parliament, and autonomy in most internal affairs. The Netherlands remains responsible for defense and foreign affairs, yet Aruba can participate in international organizations as a separate entity, contradicting any purely yes-or-no notion of sovereignty.
I appreciate your references to a few small states to argue for a strictly binary model, but those examples don’t capture the broad spectrum of governance we see worldwide. Can you explain the thought process which caused you to fail to account for these more nuanced scenarios, so that I can help clear your confusion?"
@MalachiteEagle my source is actual professional experience, what is yours?
Hong Kong is unequivocally not sovereign. China exercised its sovereignty in signing the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which provided for the territory's special status.
Partial recognition of some states doesn't mean their status is "debated in international law"; it means some states make the binary decision to recognize and some don't, exercising their own sovereignty. The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, widely accepted as a source of customary international law even for non-Parties, makes it clear that recognition is not a precondition for statehood. Even if you were correct there, we'd still have a clear way to resolve the ambiguity of partially-recognized states: this is about the US, so what matters is recognition by the US - although I'd make a caveat to avoid the Crimea situation, in which, from the Russian point of view, the peninsula was a sovereign state for a few days between secession from Ukraine and admission into Russia. This issue can be obviated by @hemocrates by requiring both recognition from the parent state of the seceding state, and some reasonable period of them actually exercising their sovereignty.
Aruba participates in international organizations under the consent of the state with sovereignty over it, the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Many subnational entities have constitutions, legislatures and legislative competencies - federated states, for example. In some cases they can even make treaties in areas within their competence - the sovereign state conducts the formal process of treaty making, on behalf of the subnational entity. Quebec and New Brunswick are members of La Francophonie in their own right, apart from Canada's membership; doesn't make them sovereign in any way, shape or form.
In short, you're confidently wrong. Sovereignty is binary, states have no obligation to recognize any particular state, but that's not a matter for this question because what matters is the US. Things you think are restrictions in sovereignty are mere forms of exercising it; in fact, any treaty or customary international law is intrinsically a limitation of sovereign rights, which makes the idea that these limitations somehow make sovereignty non-binary absurd.
@MalachiteEagle as for the fact that I was indeed a diplomat, I propose you put your skin in the game: we'll arrange with the mods to ban you from the site if I post a picture with my old diplomatic passport when I'm back home, and they ban me if I don't. Sounds only fair to me, what do you think?
@MalachiteEagle and I do recognize you tried to recant some of what you said, but I don't see you editing out the challenge to the fact that I was a diplomat, so I do think you should either back down by editing it out or accept my escalation of the challenge, wagering our respective Manifold accounts.
@BrunoParga I am a former meat popsicle. Contrary to what you might assume, my unique perspective on thawing and freezing has taught me that few things in this world are strictly one way or the other—rather like how real-world sovereignty often exists along a continuum instead of being purely on or off.
You’ve invoked professional experience as if it alone confers an unimpeachable viewpoint on international law and governance. However, diplomacy and legal scholarship encompass a vast range of studies, historical precedents, and comparative analyses. Even extensive practical experience can’t capture every nuance in how political authority is negotiated and exercised around the world.
When you mention Hong Kong, you’re correct that it isn’t a fully independent state. Still, it operates with its own currency, legal framework, and distinct immigration policies—arrangements not mirrored by typical subnational units. Such a semi-autonomous structure sits somewhere between absolute subjugation and complete sovereignty, underscoring the fact that reality doesn’t always conform to a neat binary.
Your reference to the Montevideo Convention and partial recognition likewise supports the notion that sovereignty can be ambiguous. A territory can fulfill the Convention’s criteria, exercise effective self-governance, and forge external relations even without universal recognition. These instances don’t fit neatly into yes-or-no categories, despite the ultimate stance that any state may or may not “recognize” them. De facto governance and limited acceptance both contribute to gray areas where a place functions like a state, yet remains unacknowledged by some other actors.
Similarly, Aruba’s arrangement demonstrates how a high level of local self-rule can exist under a broader sovereign umbrella. Its parliament and constitution go well beyond the powers granted to a simple province. Even though Aruba’s foreign relations involve formal approval from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, that doesn’t wash away the very real autonomy it exercises internally, which again shows a spectrum of governance rather than an all-or-nothing approach.
Finally, dismissing counterexamples as “absurd” glosses over the intricate reality of treaties, associations, and administrative structures that shape how territories govern themselves. The fact that states can choose to bind themselves by international agreements or delegate powers to subnational entities doesn’t mean sovereignty is perfectly binary. On paper, one might say a state is “sovereign” by definition, but in actual practice—whether through negotiated treaties or partial self-rule—there’s clearly a great deal of variation that defies a simple yes-or-no classification.
I stand by the argument that these varied real-world arrangements demonstrate that sovereignty, while theoretically definable as on/off, frequently diverges from that clean distinction when we look closely. There’s much to be gained by acknowledging these gray zones—especially if we’re trying to predict whether some entity might come under another state’s control in a way that is recognizable but not necessarily the traditional “yes, it’s sovereign” or “no, it isn’t.”
@MalachiteEagle you don't seem to have a definition of what sovereignty is, and I'm done trying to educate you. I can only hope you'll stop trying to lower the quality of Manifold questions about topics you are Dunning-Krugered about.
@BrunoParga i think what you're experiencing there might be projection mate. Try turning down the aggression a bit next time, you don't have to let your territorial reflex fire that early in the conversation, makes for a terrible mess
@MalachiteEagle yes, I am aggressive with ignorant rubes talking out of their asses and refusing clarification coming from relevant professional experience. I think it's a very justifiable situation to be aggressive in, in a world of flat earthers and antivaxxers.
@hemocrates Say, for the sake of argument, that the US formally annexes part of Greenland, but not Greenland in its entirety. Would that be sufficient to resolve this market YES? Or does it need to be the entirety of Greenland, whole hog?