Autonomy Within the Danish Realm: A Comparative Study of the Faroe Islands and Greenland

Executive Summary

The Kingdom of Denmark is a single sovereign state made up of three parts: Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. Danish usage calls this arrangement Rigsfællesskabet, the Unity of the Realm. Both North Atlantic territories govern most of their own affairs, have their own parliaments and governments, stand outside the European Union, and send two members each to the Danish Folketing. Neither is sovereign. Copenhagen keeps the constitution, citizenship, the highest courts, and, above all, foreign, defence, and security policy for the realm as a whole.

The two territories reached their present status by different routes and at different speeds. The Faroe Islands obtained home rule in 1948 and have since taken over powers step by step while steadily reducing their financial dependence on Denmark. Greenland began as a colony, became a county of Denmark in 1953, gained home rule in 1979, and moved to a stronger “self-government” arrangement in 2009 that formally recognizes Greenlanders as a people with a right to independence. The paradox of the comparison is that the Faroes are further along economically, while Greenland is further along legally and has become far more prominent internationally.

On the question of other autonomous areas: there are none. No other part of the realm has legislative or governmental autonomy. A few places hold unusual administrative positions, and Denmark has a history of autonomous dependencies that left the realm, but the Faroes and Greenland are the only two self-governing territories today. Section 2 addresses this in detail.

The year 2026 has tested the arrangement more than any period in decades. Both territories took part in a Danish snap election in March in which their four seats carried unusual weight, the Faroes held their own snap election two days later, and Greenland signed a security agreement with Denmark and the United States in September after months of American pressure. These events show both how far the territories’ standing has grown and where the ceiling of autonomy still lies.

1. The Constitutional Frame: One State, Three Parts

The Danish Constitution of 1953 applies to the whole realm. It contains no detailed federal division of powers; autonomy for the two North Atlantic territories is instead delegated by ordinary Danish statute. Formally, the Folketing could repeal these statutes. In political practice, however, the home rule and self-government acts are treated as agreements between peoples, and no Danish government would alter them without the consent of the territory concerned. This gap between formal law and constitutional convention is the foundation of the whole system.

Several elements remain shared:

  • The monarch is head of state for the entire realm.
  • Citizenship is Danish. Faroese and Greenlanders are Danish citizens.
  • The Supreme Court in Copenhagen is the court of last instance.
  • Foreign, defence, and security policy belong to the realm and are conducted by the Danish government, with consultation and delegated exceptions discussed below.
  • The Folketing includes four members elected in the territories.

Each territory also has a Danish representative on site: a High Commissioner (Rigsombudsmand). In the Faroes, the High Commissioner sits in the Løgting with a right to speak on joint Danish–Faroese matters but no vote.

2. Are There Other Autonomous Areas?

There are no other autonomous areas in the Danish realm. Some places appear in discussion that can cause confusion, and it is worth stating clearly why none of them qualifies.

Christiansø. This small island group off Bornholm belongs to no municipality and is administered directly by the Danish Ministry of Defence. This makes it an administrative oddity, but its residents have no legislature or government of their own. It is a state-administered enclave, not an autonomous one.

Christiania. The Copenhagen commune founded by squatters in 1971 has long described itself as a “Freetown” and governed its internal affairs through community meetings. It has never had legal autonomy; Danish law applies there fully, and its residents’ foundation now owns most of the land under ordinary property arrangements. Its “autonomy” is a cultural claim, not a constitutional status.

Historical autonomous dependencies. The realm once held more such territories. Iceland received home rule in 1904, became a separate kingdom in personal union with Denmark under the 1918 Act of Union, and declared full independence in 1944. The Danish West Indies were sold to the United States in 1917. These cases matter to the present discussion because they are the precedents both Faroese and Greenlandic independence advocates cite: Danish history shows that territories can leave the realm peacefully.

The Nordic comparison. The closest outside analogue is Finland’s Åland Islands, which have had autonomy since 1921 and have their own legislature. Åland is useful for comparison but has nothing to do with Denmark.

The answer, then, is that the Faroes and Greenland are the realm’s only two self-governing parts.

3. The Faroe Islands: Gradual Accumulation

Path to autonomy

The Faroes have one of the oldest assemblies in the world. The Løgting has existed for over a thousand years and was the islands’ highest authority in the Viking age. Faroese distinctiveness declined after Denmark’s 1849 constitution ended the special status the islands had held within the kingdom, and the Løgting became the vehicle of the Faroese nationalist movement.

In 1946 a referendum produced a narrow majority for independence, but the result was disputed and set aside after new elections. The compromise was the Home Rule Act of 1948, under which the Faroes have governed themselves ever since.

Present powers

The Faroese model works by transfer. The Home Rule Act listed matters the Faroes could take over, and the 2005 Takeover Act allowed the Faroese authorities to assume nearly every field except those bound to the realm’s sovereignty. Over the decades the Faroes have taken over fisheries, natural resources, taxation, trade, education, health, social services, the church, and much more. Remaining with Denmark are the constitution, citizenship, the Supreme Court, foreign and security policy, and currency policy, along with some areas the Faroes have chosen not yet to assume, such as policing and the justice system.

The Faroes issue their own banknotes, the Faroese króna, which is pegged at par to the Danish krone. They have their own flag and anthem, their own national football association with FIFA and UEFA membership, and associate status in some international bodies.

Relationship to Europe

When Denmark joined the European Economic Community in 1973, the Faroes chose to stay out, chiefly to keep control of their fisheries. They have never been part of the EU and conduct their own trade agreements with it and with other states under delegated authority.

Politics in 2026

The Faroese party system divides less on left and right than on the union question: unionist parties favor the realm, while others seek independence. A snap Løgting election was held on March 26, 2026, two days after the Faroes voted in the Danish general election. The conservative People’s Party won, taking 26.8% of the vote and rising from five to nine seats. Beinir Johannesen of the People’s Party became prime minister on April 13, 2026. Despite their differences, most Faroese parties agree on advancing what one University of the Faroe Islands scholar calls state-building — preparing the Faroes as an independent state.

4. Greenland: From Colony to Self-Government

Path to autonomy

Greenland’s road was longer and more abrupt. Danish-Norwegian colonization began in 1721, and Greenland remained a colony until 1953, when the new Danish constitution made it an integral county of Denmark with seats in the Folketing. Integration brought heavy modernization and also painful policies, including the relocation of settlements and later revealed abuses. In 2025 Denmark issued a formal apology to victims of the forced contraception campaign carried out in Greenland.

Home rule came in 1979. Greenland had entered the European Economic Community in 1973 as part of Denmark despite a majority of Greenlanders voting against membership, and after a 1982 referendum it left in 1985. It is now associated with the EU as an Overseas Country and Territory.

The 2009 Self-Government Act

The Self-Government Act of 2009 changed Greenland’s status in two important ways. First, it recognized Greenlanders in its preamble as a people under international law, with a right to self-determination. Second, it set out a defined road to independence. Under section 21, if the Greenlandic people decide to seek independence, negotiations between Nuuk and Copenhagen must begin. Any independence agreement must then be approved by both parliaments and by a referendum in Greenland.

The act also transferred control of mineral resources to Greenland in 2010. Since 2009, only currency, the justice system, and foreign and security affairs have remained under Danish authority, along with the shared constitution and citizenship, though Greenland may take over additional areas.

Politics in 2026

Greenland’s present coalition government, which won 75% of the vote in the 2025 election, is pursuing a gradual plan for independence based on a draft constitution. A constitutional commission first presented its draft to Greenlandic politicians in 2023. Greenland’s prime minister is Jens-Frederik Nielsen of the Demokraatit party. Under pressure from Washington, the territory’s prime minister said that if forced to choose today between Denmark and the United States, Greenland would choose Denmark.

5. Comparative Overview

DimensionFaroe IslandsGreenland
Autonomy since1948 (home rule)1979 (home rule); 2009 (self-government)
Legal basisHome Rule Act 1948; Takeover Act 2005Self-Government Act 2009
Recognized as a people with right to independenceNot stated in statuteYes, in the 2009 act
Defined independence procedureNone in statuteSection 21 of the 2009 act
ParliamentLøgting, 33 seatsInatsisartut, 31 seats
Seats in the Folketing22
EU statusNever joinedLeft in 1985; now an Overseas Country and Territory
CurrencyFaroese króna, at par with the Danish kroneDanish krone
Natural resourcesFaroese controlGreenlandic control since 2010
Policing and justiceDanish (not yet taken over)Danish
Foreign and security policyDanish, with delegated powersDanish, with delegated powers
Annual Danish block grantJust under DKK 600 million (2025)Just over DKK 4.5 billion
PopulationAbout 55,000About 56,000

The table shows the central asymmetry. The two territories are roughly the same size in population, but the Faroes take less than one-seventh of the subsidy Greenland receives. Meanwhile, Greenland’s legal framework provides an explicit path out of the realm that the Faroese framework does not.

6. Money: The Block Grant as the Hinge of Autonomy

Financial dependence is the most practical measure of the limits of autonomy.

Greenland. Denmark has paid Greenland an annual block grant since home rule began in 1979. The grant is fixed by law at DKK 3,439.6 million in 2009 price and wage levels and adjusted each year, which brings it to just over DKK 4.5 billion today. About half of the Greenlandic government’s revenue comes from the annual Danish grant. In 2025, Copenhagen also set aside DKK 400 million a year from 2026 through 2029 for initiatives in Greenland, including a new runway at Ittoqqortoormiit and a deepwater port at Qaqortoq, and agreed to cover future costs of Greenlandic patients treated in Danish hospitals.

The 2009 act links money and independence directly. If Greenland earns mineral revenue above DKK 75 million in a year, the block grant falls by half of the excess. If the grant reaches zero, Nuuk and Copenhagen must negotiate their future economic relationship. In other words, the act anticipates that resource wealth will gradually replace Danish money and make independence affordable. That point has not been reached, and the mining sector remains far smaller than early hopes suggested. Polls show most Greenlanders expect payments to continue even after independence, a question Copenhagen has not answered.

The Faroes. After a 1987 reform, most Danish support to the Faroes became a general block grant, which has been reduced over time at the Faroes’ own request and stands just under DKK 600 million in 2025. A fishing-based economy, its own tax system, and a policy of voluntarily reducing the subsidy give the Faroes the stronger economic basis for independence, though they lack Greenland’s statutory route to it.

7. Representation in Copenhagen: The North Atlantic Mandates

The four seats elected in the territories, called the North Atlantic mandates, give the Faroes and Greenland a voice in the Danish parliament. Usually these seats matter little, but in close elections they can determine who governs.

The March 24, 2026 Danish election, a snap vote widely seen as an attempt by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen to capitalize on support for her firm stance on Greenland, was such a case. The Social Democrats finished first but posted their weakest result in more than 120 years, and neither bloc won a majority. In the Faroes, one seat went to each bloc. Greenland’s two seats went to Naaja Nathanielsen of the left-wing Inuit Ataqatigiit and Qarsoq Høegh-Dam of Naleraq, which favors fast independence. Nathanielsen stated that Greenland should be able to represent itself in foreign policy without Denmark also sitting at the table.

The North Atlantic seats show a particular feature of the realm. Members from the territories vote on Danish domestic legislation that, because of home rule, often does not apply in their own countries. This anomaly, comparable to the “West Lothian question” in the United Kingdom, has seldom caused trouble, but it becomes politically pointed when territorial members hold the balance of power.

8. Foreign and Security Policy: The Hard Ceiling

Foreign and security policy is where the limits of autonomy are clearest, and where 2025–2026 changed the most.

The formal framework

Under the Danish constitution, Copenhagen conducts foreign affairs for the whole realm, including Greenland, though the 2009 act requires cooperation with Greenland. Greenland’s government may also act alone in limited foreign policy matters that concern only Greenland. The Faroes hold parallel delegated powers under the 2005 Foreign Policy Powers Act. Both territories have representations in Brussels, Washington, and elsewhere, and both negotiate fisheries and trade agreements. Both remain covered by Denmark’s memberships in the UN, OECD, and NATO, while taking part in Nordic cooperation through the Nordic Council and Nordic Council of Ministers.

The delegated model has a logical boundary. The territories may make agreements on matters within their own competence, but not on defence, security, or anything binding the realm as a whole.

The 2026 Greenland security agreement

American pressure on Greenland tested this boundary. In January 2026, President Trump said the United States would acquire Greenland “one way or another” and did not rule out military force. The crisis eased as Washington joined talks with Denmark and Greenland on an Arctic security agreement.

The resulting agreement was signed at UN headquarters in New York on September 22, 2026, by President Trump, Prime Minister Frederiksen, and Greenlandic Prime Minister Nielsen. Its terms bear directly on the question of autonomy:

  • It explicitly recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.
  • It provides for additional defence facilities, with the final decision on U.S. basing made by the Danish government in consultation with Washington.
  • It allows the United States to modernize and expand activities at Pituffik Space Base.
  • It is meant to remain in force even if Greenland becomes independent.

Three readings of these terms are possible, and each says something about Greenland’s status. First, the presence of Greenland’s prime minister as a signatory alongside two heads of government is a marked rise in Greenland’s international standing. Second, the agreement’s basing decisions still rest formally with Copenhagen, confirming that security remains a realm competence. Third, the survival clause means a future independent Greenland would inherit binding security obligations it negotiated while still within the realm. This sets in advance one of the conditions of independence, a constraint without clear precedent in the Faroese case.

The Faroes face no comparable pressure, though their strategic location in the North Atlantic has drawn Danish defence investment. A 2025 partial defence agreement directed DKK 27.4 billion toward strengthening defence in Greenland and the Faroes, including patrol aircraft, ice-capable vessels, drones, and an undersea cable between Greenland and Denmark.

9. Independence Pathways Compared

The two territories’ routes to sovereignty differ in kind.

Greenland has a formal statutory road. Section 21 sets out the steps: a Greenlandic decision, negotiations, an agreement approved by both parliaments, and a referendum in Greenland. The legal procedure is clear; what is lacking is the economic base. The main open questions are the block grant, citizenship, the security arrangements now fixed by the 2026 agreement, and whether Greenland would seek some form of free association short of full separation.

The Faroes have no statutory road. Independence would require a political agreement with Denmark and, probably, constitutional measures in both countries. The Faroes have, however, gone further in actually exercising self-government and in reducing financial dependence. Their strategy has been to accumulate the substance of statehood first and settle the legal form later.

Both territories have in fact pursued state-building rather than immediate separation. The Faroese state-building consensus and Greenland’s gradual, constitution-based plan amount to the same strategy approached from opposite ends: the Faroes have the means without the procedure, and Greenland has the procedure without the means.

10. Assessment

Several conclusions follow from this comparison.

Autonomy in the realm rests on convention more than on constitutional text. The Danish constitution says almost nothing about the territories, yet their autonomy is secure because of a long political consensus in Copenhagen that their status changes only with their consent. The stability of the realm has depended on Danish restraint as much as on law.

The two models are converging. The Faroes began with practical autonomy and economic self-reliance; Greenland began with a stronger legal framework and recognition as a people. Each is now acquiring what the other already has. Greenland is seeking economic strength, and the Faroes are seeking clearer constitutional recognition.

Foreign and security policy remains the defining limit, but it is being stretched. The territories’ delegated foreign powers have grown steadily, and Greenland’s place as a co-signatory of a security agreement with a superpower in 2026 shows how far practice has moved from the formal rule. Greenlandic demands to represent the territory internationally without Danish participation will likely grow.

External pressure has strengthened the realm in the short run. American pressure on Greenland pushed Nuuk closer to Copenhagen, prompted new Danish funding and defence investment, and produced an agreement that reaffirms both Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic self-determination. Whether this closeness lasts once the pressure eases is an open question.

Money remains the decisive variable. For Greenland, the block grant is half of public revenue and the link between resource income and independence is written into law. For the Faroes, a smaller grant leaves them closer to self-sufficiency. Independence in either case will be decided less by legal procedure than by whether each territory can fund itself.

The Danish realm is therefore best understood not as a fixed federation but as a negotiated, evolving union of three peoples under one crown. Its two self-governing territories hold more power than most autonomous regions in the world, yet each stops short of statehood in ways that 2026 has made unusually visible.


Sources:

Unknown's avatar

About nathanalbright

I'm a person with diverse interests who loves to read. If you want to know something about me, just ask.
This entry was posted in History, International Relations and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply