¹ The writer acknowledges the aid of Miss Herfrid Ramberg in translating from the Danish and Norwegian.

² It appears that a Norwegian, Eirik Baude, discovered Greenland about the year 982, returning with colonists from Iceland in 985. The Norse population is estimated to have attained the number of three to five thousand inhabitants. Cessation of communication with Norway was probably a consequence of the Black Death in Europe. See Hansen, Fr. C. C., “Homo Gardarensis,” American Scandinavian Review, July, 1931, p. 412 ff.;Google Scholar, Skeie, Jon, La question du Groenland, Paris, 1932 (translation of Grønlandssaken, Oslo, 1931), pp. 25–26 Google Scholar; V. Mogens, Norge—Danmark—Grønland, Oslo, 1931, pp. 8–9; Edv. Bull, “Grønland og Norge i Middelalderen,” in Det Norske Geografiske Selskabs Aarbok, 1919–1921, pp. 1–36; and Danish and Norwegian works cited by Rasmussen, “L’Accord dano-norvégien sur le Groenland Oriental et son historique,” 8 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1927), 294, note 1.

³ “det under Vort Rige Norge henhörende Land Grönland,” Royal letter of Feb. 5, 1723, “Dokumenter vedrørende østgrønlandsspørgsmaalet, 2 Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret (1931, Fase. 3), No. 1, p. 61. Cited hereafter as Tidsskrift.

⁴ On the second colonization of Greenland, the establishment of the mercantilists system, and Norwegian commerce with Greenland during the 18th century, see P. R. Sollied and O. Sollberg, “Grønlands gjenopdagelse og den anden kolonisation,” P. R. Sollied, “Monopolhandelen paa Grønland i det 18de aarhundrede,” and P. R. Sollied, “Den bergenske grønlandsfart i tiden efter Egede,” in Det Norske Geografiske Selskabs Aarbok, 1919–1921, pp. 37–71, 263–280, and 71–89, resp. Por the texte of the early royal decrees concerning trade with Greenland, see Tidsskrift, Nos. 2–5, pp. 61–65.

The colonies established dining the 18th century, all of which were on the west coast, were as follows: Godthaab (1721); Jakobshavn (1741); Frederikshaab (1742); Kristianshaab (1743); Klaushavn (1752); Fiskenaeeset (1754); Sukkertoppen (1755); Holstenborg (1759); Egedesminde (1759); Upernivik (1771); and Godhavn (1773). See Gustav Smedal, “Acquieition of Sovereignty over Polar Areas,” Skrifter om Svalbard og Ishavet, Nr. 36, Oslo, 1931, p. 77.

On the union between Denmark and Norway in 1376, see Knut Gjerset, History of the Norwegian People, II, pp. 29–33; Wolgast,, “Die dänischnorwegische Grönlandfrage,” 31 Zeitschrift für internationelles Recht (1923), p. 145, note 12Google Scholar; and Skeie, op. cit., pp. 7–8.

⁵ “Fornyet Anordning og Forbud mod uberettiget Handel i Grønland med videre” Tidsskrift, No. 6, pp. 65–67. Danish and German texts in 31 Zeitschriftfür internationales Recht (1923), pp. 153–156. French text in De Martens, Causes célèbres du droit des gens (2d ed., Leipzig, 1858), II, pp. 378–381.

⁶ Art. 4 provides: “S. M. le Roi de Danemarc, pour lui et ses successeurs, renonce irrévocablement et à jamais, en faveur de S. M. le Roi de Suède et de ses successeurs, à tous les droits et prétentions au royaume de Norvège… ainsi que leurs dépendances (le Groenland, et les îles de Ferroe et d’Islande exceptés)…” De Martens, , Nouveau recenti de traités, I, p. 666 Google Scholar; 1 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 194.

⁷ Art. 19 of the Kongeloven of 1665, the constitutional law of the Dano-Norwegian monarchy, provides that the two kingdoms, with all their dependencies, should remain undivided. See Castberg, “Le conflit entre le Danemark et la Norvège concernant le Groenland,” 5 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1924), p. 255. It is argued by Rasmussen (op. cit., p. 299) that this article was intended merely to forbid the partition of the territories of the common monarchy among the younger sons of the king.

It is also the Norwegian view that the union between Sweden and Norway (1814–1905) was based, not upon the Treaty of Kiel, but upon the Act of Union (Riksakten) of July, 1815. See Jens Bull, “La question de la souveraineté sur le Groenland Oriental,” 10 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1929), pp. 574–578.

For a detailed treatment of the negotiations of 1814–1819, with the texts of documents and diplomatic correspondence, see Chr. Brinchmann, “Grønlands overgang til Danmark,” Det Norske Geografiske Selskabs Aarbok, 1919–1921, pp. 88–189; Skeie, op. cit., pp. 1–23; and Report delivered to the Norwegian Storting July 3, 1923, by the Extraordinary Committee for Constitutional Affairs, concerning the Question of Greenland, pp. 5–11, cited hereafter as Report.

⁸ See 31 Zeitschrift für internationales Recht (1923), p. 147, note, and the literature cited there.

⁹ Jens Bull, op. cit., p. 574; Castberg, op. cit., p. 254; Report, p. 5. Contra, Rasmussen, op. cit., pp. 295–296.

¹⁰ Art. 9, De Martens, Nouveau recueil de traités, IV, p. 648; 7 Br. and Por. State Papers, p. 294.

¹¹ Art. 5, De Martens, Nouveau recueil de traités, VI, p. 1071; 13 Br. and For. State Papere, p. 1040.

Denmark had previously concluded similar treaties with Great Britain (June 16, 1824, Art. 6, De Martens, VI, p. 461) and the United States (April 26, 1826, Art. 6, ibid., p. 919). In both treaties Greenland was expressly excepted. For a further citation of treaties concerning Greenland, see Rasmussen, op. cit., pp. 656–661, and Rasmussen, “La souveraineté du Danemark sur le Groenland,” 12 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1931), p. 225, note 10.

¹² The protocol signed on Jan. 28, 1924, on the occasion of the negotiations for an agreement concerning East Greenland, contains the following statement: “The [Norwegian] Delegation has pointed out the injustice committed against Norway when in 1814 and in following years it was deprived, as the result of strong pressure, of its former tributary countries, and it has not failed to mention the opposition which, for historical and economic reasons, the policy of monopoly adopted by Denmark in Greenland has aroused in Norway.” See note 42, infra.

¹³ Proclamation of Oct. 10, 1894, concerning mission and trading stations established on the east coast of Greenland (Love og Anordninger 1894—96, p. 292), Tidsskrift, No. 15, p. 71; note from the Danish Minister at Stockholm to the Swedish-Norwegian Foreign Minister, Oct. 22, 1894, ibid., No. 16, pp. 71–72.

¹³ Notice to mariners in Davis Strait, March 8, 1905. English translation in 98 Br. and For. State Papers, pp. 630–632; note from the Danish Minister at Kristiania to the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Nov. 29, 1905, Tidsskrift, No. 17, p. 72.

This notice rests the policy of state monopoly, which was originally based upon mercantilistie motives, upon the necessity of protecting the native population. Cf. par. 6.

^14a Rasmussen (8 [3° sér.] Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1927), pp. 305–308) maintains that it results from the royal ordinances applied to Greenland from 1723–1814 that the Danish king considered that his sovereignty extended to all of Greenland, although the monopoly was restricted to the occupied areas. Even though this be true, it does not follow, as Rasmussen states (ibid., p. 306), that Denmark possessed such sovereignty by virtue of its unilateral act, and in the absence of effective occupation.

^14b Jens Bull, op. cit., pp. 580–581; Castberg, op. cit., pp. 258–259; Smedal, op. cit., pp. 77–78.

^14c On June 7, 1863, however, the Danish Government granted a concession to J. W. Taylor for mining on the east coast, on condition of “satisfactory guarantees for the sovereignty of the Danish State in this part of Greenland, as well as for the protection of the population.” Tidsskrift, No. 14, pp. 70–71.

¹⁵ Report concerning the Danish West-Indian Islands, 1916, Annex A, p. 136, quoted in Smedal, op. cit., p. 83. See the similar statement made by Lauge Koch in 1927, ibid., p. 98.

¹⁶ Wolgast, “Le différend damnnorvêgien au sujet de Groenland,” Affaires étrangères, 25 octobre 1931, p. 475.

¹⁷ James Brown Scott, The Hague Court Reports (2d ser.), pp. 100–101.

¹⁸ 8 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1927), pp. 312–315, and authorities there cited.

“Manifestations of territorial sovereignty assume, it is true, different forms, according to conditions of time and place…. The intermittence and discontinuity compatible with the maintenance of the right necessarily differ according as inhabited or uninhabited regions are involved…. A juridical fact must be appreciated in the light of the law contemporary with it.” Palmaa Arbitration, The Hague Court Reports (2d ser.), pp. 94, 100. See 1 Fauchille, Traité de droit international public, 2· partie, pp. 714, 745.

As to the effectiveness of occupation required in the 18th century, see Vattel, The Law of Nations (Fenwick’s trans., Vol. Ill, p. 85), Bk. I, Ch. XVIII, §208.

¹⁹ December 27, 1915, quoted in Smedal, op. cit., p. 84.

²⁰ U. S. Treaty Series, No. 629; 39 Stat. 1706.

In securing this declaration, the Danish Government wished to prevent any objection to the extension of Danish sovereignty which might be based on an extensive interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, or upon discoveries made by the Peary expeditions to Greenland. Rasmussen, 8 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1927), p. 662.

²¹ Skeie, op. cit., p. 53. Texts of declarations in Smedal, op. cit., pp. 84–85.

²² Ibid., p. 85. In a note of Dec. 17, 1921, the Norwegian Foreign Minister requested the Danish Government to state whether it had accepted a proposal of the British Government that it should have a prior right of purchase in Greenland. On Dec. 20 the Danish Foreign Minister informed the Norwegian chargé d’affaires that Denmark had no intention to sell, and that the British Government had secured only a right of consultation. Tidsskrift, No. 28, pp. 83–84, and note. Cf. Skeie, op. cit., pp. 89–92.

²³ Press communiqué of the Norwegian Government, Jan. 8, 1923, Morgenbladet, No. 9, Jan. 9, 1923. Norwegian and German texts in 31 Zeitschrift für internationales Redit (1988), pp. 160–161.

In an instruction from the Danish Foreign Minister to the Danish Minister at Kristiania, Jan. 8, 1921 (Tidsskrift, No. 19a, pp. 73–74), it is stated that Ihlen informed Krag that “the plans of the Danish Government with reference to sovereignty over all of Greenland would encounter no difficulties from the Norwegian side [at den danske Regerings Planer med Hensyn til Overhojheden over Grønland ikke vilde mødt Vanskeligheder fra norsk Side].”

²⁴ Tidsskrift, No. 19b, pp. 74–76.

On Feb. 9, 1920, Denmark signed the convention recognizing “the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitzbergen.” 2 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 8; 113 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 789.

²⁵ Tidsskrift, No. 20, pp. 77–78.

²⁶ Ibid., No. 21, p. 78.

²⁷ Love og Anordninger A. 1921, p. 767, ibid., No. 22, p. 79. English translation in 114 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 720. See also notification to mariners in Greenland waters, June 16, 1921, Tidsskrift, No. 23, p. 79, and note of Kruse to Minister Ræstad, July 2, 1921, bringing these proclamations to the notice of the Norwegian Government. Ibid., No. 24, pp. 79–80.

²⁸ Ibid., No. 25, p. 80. Also note from Ræstad to Kruse, Nov. 2, 1921, ibid., No. 81, pp. 80–81. For a résumé of the correspondence from Jan. 18, 1921, to Nov. 2, 1921, see communiqué of the Norwegian Government, Morgenbladet, No. 340, Nov. 9, 1921. Norwegian and German texts in 31 Zeitschrift für internationales Recht (1923), pp. 158–160.

In a letter to the Alesund Masters’ Association (Ålesunds Skipperforening) on Nov. 23, 1921, Ræstad stated that the Norwegian Government had never recognized the extension of Danish sovereignty over all of Greenland, and that it did not consider the proclamation of May 10, 1921, as binding on Norway. Tidsskrift, No. 27, Bilag b, pp. 82–83.

²⁹ Tidsskrift, No. 29, pp. 84–86.

³⁰ Mowinckel, Norwegian Foreign Minister, to Kruse, Sept. 20, 1922, ibid., No. 31, pp. 87–88; Mowinckel to the Danish Foreign Minister, Sept. 23, 1922, ibid., No. 32, p. 88; Kruse to Mowinckel, Oct. 2, 1922, ibid., No. 33, pp. 88–90; Mowinckel to Kruse, Oct. 16, 1922, ibid., No. 34, pp. 90–91; Haxthausen, Danish chargé d’affaires at Kristiania, to Mowinckel, Nov. 14, 1922, ibid., No. 35, pp. 91–92.

³¹ Huitfeldt, Norwegian Minister at Copenhagen, to Foreign Minister Cold, Dec. 22, 1922, ibid., No. 36, p. 92.

³² Cold to Huitfeldt, Feb. 5, 1923, ibid., No. 37, pp. 92–96. In this note it is asserted that Ihlen repeated his statement of July 22, 1919, to Krag’s successor, Kruse, on Nov. 7, 1919. In a report to the Danish Foreign Minister on the following day, Kruse said: “With reference to the Spitzbergen question, the Foreign Minister [Ihlen] began with expressing his pleasure that Denmark had recognized the sovereignty of Norway, and that it was likewise the pleasure of Norway to recognize the sovereignty of Denmark in Greenland, where—as he expressed it—he expected great achievements of Denmark [ligesom det var Norge en Glos de at anerhende Danmarks Suveramitet paa Grønland, hvor der—som han udtrykte sig—venter Danmark store Opgaver].”

³³ That Ihlen intended a recognition of Danish sovereignty receives support in the fact that the Norwegian protest against the proclamation of May 10, 1921, was directed, not against the extension of sovereignty, but against the extension of the monopoly. Cf. p. 14, supra.

Rasmussen states, without citation of authority, that “it is a generally recognized rule of international law that a verbal promise or renunciation is as binding as one given in writing.” 8 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1927), p. 666.

³⁴ Jens Bull, op. cit., p. 582. See Redslob, Journal des Nations, Sept. 13, 1931.

³⁵ Castberg, 5 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1924), pp. 263–264.

³⁶ Ibid., pp. 262–263, and authorities cited in notes.

The Norwegian Constitution provides (Art. 28) that “Reports on the subject of… matters of importance shall be presented to the Council of State by the member to whose department they belong, and such matters shall be dealt with by him in accordance with the decision taken by the Council of State.”

³⁷ It is to be noted that the Spitzbergen Convention of 1920 provides that a Commissioner of Danish nationality shall be appointed for the settlement of territorial claims. This provision points to the absence of substantial Danish claims in Spitzbergen.

³⁸ For a careful statement and evaluation of all of the factors which enter into the interpretation of Ihlen’s declaration, see Wolgast, Affaires étrangère», Oct. 25, 1931, pp. 466–471.

³⁹ Tidsskrift, No. 38, pp. 96–97. Text of resolution in Report, p. 16.

⁴⁰ Kruse to Michelet, July 30, 1923, ibid., No. 39, pp. 97–98.

⁴¹ The delegates were : for Norway—Johan Ludwig Mowinckel, C. J. Hambro, Kr. Høgset, and Halvdan Koht; for Denmark—L. C. Christensen, Th. Stauning, Baron Otto Reedtz Thott, and J. H. Jörgensen.

⁴² The texts of the documents are found in Castberg, østgrønlandsavtalen, Kristiania, 1924, pp. 40–48, and Tidsskrift, No. 42a, pp. 102–104. French texts in Castberg, “L’Accord swr le Groenland Oriental entre le Danemark et la Norvège,” 32 Revue générale de droit international public (1925), pp. 164–169; German texts in 33 Zeitschrift für internationales Recht (1924–1925), pp. 460–465.

⁴³ Danish, Norwegian, French and English texts in 27 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 204 ff.; English text in 120 Br. and For. State Papera, p. 238.

⁴⁴ See the communiqué signed by the delegates on Jan. 28, 1924. Castberg, Østgrønlandsavtalen, pp. 47–48; 32 Reime générale de droit international public (1925), p. 168; 33 Zeitschrift für internationales Recht (1924–1925), p. 465.

⁴⁵ The declaration signed on Jan. 28, 1924, provided that the exact limits of the Angmagssalik district and of the Eskimo colony to be established at Scoresby Sound should be fixed and published.

⁴⁶ Texts in 27 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 204; and 120 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 238.

The translation in the League of Nations Treaty Series is inexact, there being no mention of “rights.” The Norwegian text reads: “… erklærer den, at den forbeholder sig sit principiélle Syn i de Spørgsmaal vedrørende Grønland, som ikke er omhandlede i Overenskomsten, saaledes at ved den intet er præjudiceret og intet opgivet eller forspildt.”

⁴⁷ Cf. Wolgast, Affaires étrangères, Oct. 25, 1931, p. 472; Redelob, Journal dea Nations, Sept. 13, 1931.

⁴⁸ 8 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1927), p. 685.

Ræstad, the leading Norwegian opponent of the convention, has stated that “when, among several interested countries, two of them conclude a convention concerning the juridical order in a country, one of the contracting countries must already possess the sovereignty, or will acquire it by the conclusion of the convention. And since it is only Denmark which olaims sovereignty, Norway, in accepting the project of convention, will thus give tacitly to Denmark the recognition which it has up to this time refused to give explicitly.” Quoted from Tidens Tegn, Feb. 11, 1924, by Castberg, 32 Revue générale de droit international public (1925), p. 172. See also Ræstad’s observations in Dagbladet, Oct. 24, 1923, quoted by Jens Bull, 10 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1929), p. 600.

⁴⁹ Rasmussen, op. cit., note 48, p. 676 ff. See also Rasmussen, 12 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1931), p. 226.

⁵⁰ Rasmussen, 8 (3° sér.) Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1927), pp. 685–688.

⁵¹ The president of the Danish delegation, L. C. Christensen, stated in the Folketing, March 25, 1924, that “The only thing the Convention aims at is the solution of certain practical questions…. One will therefore look in vain in the Convention for anything relating to the questions in dispute, viz., sovereignty, or the Norwegian view that it (East Greenland) is terra nullius.” Quoted in Smedal, op. cit., p. 94.

The Danish publicist, Knud Berlin, asserts that the convention does not contain “the slightest recognition, either explicit or implicit, of the sovereignty of Denmark.” Berlingske Tidende, February 17, 1924, quoted in Jens Bull, op. cit., p. 598.

⁵² Jens Bull, op. cit., pp. 586–601. Castberg states : “Le désaccord entre la Norvège et le Danemark ayant été constaté en vertu d’un accord, il en résulte avec d’autant plus de certitude qu’aucune des deux parties ne saurait soutenir que l’autre a accepté implicitement le point de vue de son adversaire.” 32 Revue générale de droit international public (1925), p. 180.

⁵³ Jens Bull, op. cit., pp. 589, 600; Castberg, 32 Revue générale de droit international public (1925), p. 177.

⁵⁴ Ibid., pp. 175–176.

⁵⁵ A Norwegian writer has summarized this point of view as follows: “Il faut se rappeler que les deux pays estimaient qu’ils possédaient des droits plus étendus au Groenland oriental que ceux reconnus dans l’accord, le Danemark parce qu’il se considère comme possédant la souveraineté, et la Norvège parce qu’elle considère le territoire comme terra nullius. Les deux pays ont en grande partie renoncé à leurs droits présomptifs, afin d’obtenir, par vin consentement commun, des règles précises en ce qui concerne l’activité des ressortissants des deux pays dans ces régions. Il n’est pas admissible d’interpréter l’accord de telle manière que les dispositions, qui ne contiennent aucune réserve ni pour l’une ni pour l’autre des parties, pourront être laissées de côté quand il s’agit de ressortissants danois, de sorte que ceux-ci, par des dispositions unilatérales danoises, puissent obtenir des droits plus étendue que ceux prévus par l’accord,—tandis que les droits correspondants ne seraient point accordés aux ressortissants norvégiens.” Jens Bull., op. cit., p. 594.

⁵⁶ Tidsskrift, No. 43, pp. 104–106.

⁵⁷ English translation in 122 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 364. An extract from the official text (Love og Anordninger A. 1925, pag. 537) is given in Tidsskrift, No. 44, p. 106.

See also the Notice to Mariners in Greenland Waters, May 22, 1925, Tidsskrift, No. 45, p. 107 (Beretninger og Kundgørelser vedrørende Styrelsen af Grønland, 1925, pag. 273).

⁵⁸ Note from the British Minister at Copenhagen to the Danish Foreign Minister, April 25, 1925; note from the Foreign Minister to the British Minister, June 4, 1925. 36 League of Nations Treaty Series, 132; Tidsskrift, No. 47, pp. 108–109.

Note from the French Minister at Copenhagen to the Danish Foreign Minister, Oct. 12, 1925; note from the Foreign Minister to the French Minister, Oct. 19, 1925. 38 League of Nations Treaty Series, 326; Tidsskrift, No. 48, pp. 109–110.

⁵⁹ Note from the Norwegian Minister at London to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sept. 25, 1925. 35 Zeitschrift für internationales Recht (1925–1926), p. 513, note.

Note from the Norwegian Minister at Paris to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nov. 2, 1925. Ibid., pp. 513–514, note.

⁶⁰ Pro memoria from the Danish Minister at Oslo to the Norwegian Foreign Office, Dec. 20, 1930, Tidsskrift, No. 49, p. 111.

The correspondence for the years 1930–1931 has been published under the following title: Den dansk-norske Noteveksling 1930–31. I. Spørgsmaalet om Politimyndighed in Østgrønland og Indbringselse af de mellem Danmark og Norge bestaaende Uoverensstemmelser m. H. t. Suveraeniteten over Østgrønland, for Forligsnæm eller Domstol. II. Forstaaelsen af Art. 4 i østgrønlandsoverenskomsten af 9. Juli 1924. København, J. H. Schultz Forlag, 1931.

⁶¹ Pro memoria from the Foreign Office to the Danish Minister at Oslo, Jan. 6, 1931, Tidsskrift, No. 50, p. 111.

⁶² Note verbale from the Danish Minister to the Norwegian Foreign Office, March 14, 1931, ibid., No. 51, pp. 111–112. Also, note verbale from the Foreign Office to the Danish Minister at Oslo, March 30, 1931, ibid., No. 52, p. 112; note verbale from the Danish Minister to the Norwegian Foreign Office, June 13, 1931, ibid., No. 53, p. 113.

⁶³ Note verbale from the Danish Minister at Oslo to the Norwegian Foreign Office, June 13, 1931, ibid., No. 53, p. 113; note verbale from the Norwegian Foreign Office to the Danish Minister, June 20, 1931, ibid., No. 54, pp. 113–114; note verbale from the Danish Minister to the Norwegian Foreign Office, June 23, 1931, ibid., No. 55, p. 114.

⁶⁴ Note verbale from the Norwegian Foreign Office to the Danish Minister at Oslo, June 30, 1931, ibid., No. 56, pp. 114–115.

⁶⁵ Note verbale from the Danish Minister to the Norwegian Foreign Office, July 3, 1931, ibid., No. 57, pp. 115–116.

⁶⁶ Note verbale from the Norwegian Foreign Office to the Danish Minister, July 7, 1931, ibid., No. 58, pp. 117–118.

⁶⁷ Note verbale from the Danish Minister to the Norwegian Foreign Office, July 10, 1931, ibid., No. 59, pp. 118–119. For a résumé of the controversy during the years 1930–1931, see Skeie, op. cit., pp. 67–76.

⁶⁸ Royal resolution of July 10, 1931 (Norsk Lovtidende Nr. 23. 11. Juli 1931), ibid., No. 60, p. 119.

⁶⁹ The Norwegian Government considered that in absence of occupation by Norway, a decision of the court in Norway’s favor would lead only to a renewal of the dispute as to which state East Greenland, as terra nullius, should belong. Communiqué of the Norwegian Foreign Office, July 11, 1931.

⁷⁰ Note verbale from the Danish Minister at Oslo to the Norwegian Foreign Office, July 11, 1931, ibid.. No. 62, p. 120.

⁷¹ Requête introductive d’instance (Cour permanente de justice internationale, Distr. 2044, 1931), ibid., No. 64, pp. 121–122.

The national judges will be as follows: for Denmark, Herluf Zahle; for Norway, Benjamin Vogt. The agents are: for Denmark, Harald Scavenius and Steglich Petersen; for Norway, Arne Sunde. 2 Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret (1931, Fase. 4), p. 283.

On Aug. 19, 1931, the Icelandic Government informed the Danish Government that Iceland had legal interests in the case. Ibid., 284.

The written documents are to be submitted to the Permanent Court not later than Sept. 1, 1932.

⁷² See Smedal, op. cit., pp. 54–76.