A Danish professor of international law argues that Denmark defends legal rules firmly when Greenland is threatened, but turns vague on arms exports, deportation law and the attack on Iran.
The argument appears in an essay published on September 3 by Dagbladet Information, written by international law professor Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen. She writes that faulty or ambiguous legal reasoning damages Danish credibility and erodes international law itself.
The essay is a reworked version of a lecture she gave at the European Society of International Law annual conference in 2025. It examines four cases from the Danish debate, and finds only the first one satisfactory.
On Greenland, she finds the government clear. She cites statements from Donald Trump and his circle in January 2026, including a White House statement on January 6 that use of the US military is always an option. Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen described respect for the UN Charter as Denmark’s red line.
Her second example is arms exports under article 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty, which Denmark ratified in 2014. She writes that Danish authorities have shifted toward the British reading, which allows security interests to be weighed against the risk of war crimes. The Supreme Court ruled on March 18, 2026 that Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, Oxfam Danmark, Amnesty International and Al-Haq lacked legal standing to challenge export permits for F-35 fighter jet parts.
The deportation reform
Her third example is the government’s deportation reform, first presented on January 30, 2026, and reintroduced in a new bill on June 25, 2026. Both rest on a joint political declaration of December 10, 2025, backed by 27 of the Council of Europe’s 46 member states, and on the Chișinău Declaration, adopted unanimously by the Committee of Ministers on May 15, 2026.
According to reporting by Reimmigrazione, the reform is aimed at expelling more foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes and includes GPS ankle monitors. Kjeldgaard-Pedersen notes that neither declaration binds the European Court of Human Rights, yet Danish courts are told not to give decisive weight to the court’s existing case law.
Her fourth example is the American and Israeli attack on Iran that began on February 28, 2026, which she calls a breach of the prohibition on the use of force. She notes that Løkke told TV 2 the same day that he lacked the insight to judge whether the conditions for self-defense were met. Then defense minister Troels Lund Poulsen called the American decision wise and correct.
Kjeldgaard-Pedersen concludes that Danish firmness on international law depends heavily on the subject, and is weakest when Danish security interests are at stake. Her position is that consistent legal method matters more for the system’s durability than short term effectiveness.
