When, on January 14, 2026, the Conference of Presidents at the European Parliament released a joint statement calling for respect for the rules-based international order in response to US President Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, commentators like myself reacted with disbelief. Only a few days earlier, Brussels had all but actively endorsed Trump’s invasion of Venezuela. Respect for international law and the rules-based system did not appear to matter then, but with European interests threatened, appeals to the sanctity of the UN Charter resurfaced with renewed conviction. The hypocrisy of the EU’s selective invocation of international law becomes even more contentious when one considers Denmark’s ongoing colonial relationship with Greenland. This is the central point of this article: to raise fundamental questions about how and when international law is mobilised.  By interrogating this relationship between international law and power, the aim is to engender a much-needed discussion about how Greenland exposes the persistence of European colonial structures, even as European states mobilise international law against external challengers. Ultimately, Greenland exposes the persistence of European colonial structures even as European states invoke international law against external challengers, revealing how international law continues to mediate political struggles shaped by empire, race, and hierarchy.

Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the President of the European Council Charles Michel and the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, quickly condemned the deployment of Russian troops to Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts as “illegal and unacceptable”. The European Union (EU) released a statement denouncing this in the “strongest possible terms”, accusing Russia of violating Article 1 of the United Nations Charter. EU Officials have repeatedly highlighted that Russia’s military intervention in Russia also violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Since this invasion, the European Union has preceded to take a wide range of punitive measures against Russia, ranging from travel bans and asset freezes for top Russian officials and oligarchs, financial and economic restrictions on the Russian energy and banking sector, trade and technological controls, as well as military and financial assistance to Ukraine totaling €193.3 billion. As of 2025, the EU bloc has agreed on seventeen major sanctions packages against Russia.

Following the deadly Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 – strongly condemned by the EU – and the subsequent Israeli onslaught on Gaza which has led to the death of about seventy thousand Palestinians, the Union has repeatedly failed to condemn Israel in equally strong terms. Despite, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stating in January 2024 that the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza risk irreparable harm to Palestinians to be protected from genocide, and in a later advisory opinion in July 2024 declaring Israel’s decades-long presence in Palestinian territory as an illegal occupation under international law, EU member states have failed to impose similar sanctions or suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The same EU leaders have all but openly endorsed the United States’ invasion of Venezuela and the abduction of Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela. Notably, the EU bloc has declined to condemn what constitutes a blatant breach of Venezuela’s sovereignty, opting instead for vague calls for the respect of international law. At the same time, the EU has echoed claims by US President Donald Trump – that Maduro lacks political legitimacy, that his removal is necessary to combat transnational organised crime and drug trafficking, and that this action represents an “opportunity for democratic transition” for the Venezuelan people.

Following the US unlawful intervention in Venezuela and abduction of Maduro, Trump turned his sights on the Arctic territory of Greenland. Claiming that acquiring Greenland was vital for US national security, Trump threatened sanctions on Denmark and on other European allies – including Norway, Sweden, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland, if they did not agree to US demands. He refused to rule out more aggressive actions including the use of military force, although following the World Economic Forum in Davos, he later changed tune, saying the US will not use force and instead announced ongoing negotiations with Denmark for a mutually beneficial deal over the strategic territory of Greenland.

Nonetheless, before Davos, EU officials raised alarms over what they considered to be aggressive actions by the United States over Greenland. In response, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, pushed back against Trump, saying it made “absolutely no sense” for the US to talk about needing Greenland. She insisted that the US had “no right annex any of the three countries of the Danish Kingdom,” strongly urging Trump to stop the threats. In support of Denmark, group leaders at the European Parliament unequivocally condemned the statements by Trump claiming that the attempt “to undermine........

© E-International