The in and Out Cycle in Territories: Greenland

Territories have the unique characteristic of being both in and out at the same time. Despite their massive differences in all areas, you can easily spot the “territory” due to this in and out feature. Whether they are called a special administrative unit, dependency, self-governing, autonomous nation, outermost/overseas department, etc., once you have identified this in and out cycle, it’s fair to assume that you’re working with a territory, despite the elaborate names these places tend to have.

Let me explain what I mean by an in and out cycle. Usually, recent events, either in the territory itself or external voices prompt a sudden interest in issues in that particular place. The influx of interest which provokes the “in” rapidly faces the reality of the “out” In the realm of territories, the “out” consists of lack of recent and historical comprehensive sources of information or analysis, ignorance of important local voices and narratives, and lack of interest in the complexity and interconnectedness of the reality on the ground. Despite these problems, the “in” still needs something to rely on. At that moment, instead of doing the extra work, challenging preconceptions, talking to local people or explaining how complex things actually are, the “in” tends to feed the interest cycle with the same recycled information which consequently reinforces the “out” part of the equation. It’s a cyclical process that feeds itself ad nauseam.

Nowadays, Greenland seems to be a perfect example of this cycle. After the US President made several comments as to his wish to annex the Danish territory, interest on Greenland has increased dramatically, be it from media outlets, academic communities, business leaders, politicians and the public in general. Recently, several major media outlets from all over the world extensively covered the elections in Greenland which took place on March 11, 2025. For territories which have historically been left out of important conversations, this national and international interest is usually welcomed and appreciated. However, as I mentioned before, the sudden attention quickly reckons with the fact that there are massive shortcomings and needs at place which hinders people’s ability to fully comprehend what’s at play in the territory.

During the course of my research on territories I have observed at least three major trends contributing to the “out” factor, which the “in” refuses to recognize or does so only in passing: lack of acknowledging the complexity and interconnectedness of problems, lack of including local voices and inability to find reliable and trustworthy sources of information.

When it comes to problems, territories are the gift that keeps on giving. If you think of recent conversations on Greenland, they tend to steer around several issues seemingly unrelated: security, geopolitics, natural resources, climate change, indigenous peoples, self determination, etc. If it feels overwhelming, it’s because it is. Problems in territories tend to be complex and interconnected, and they have been going on for a long time. At times, external “solutions” have been imposed which subsequently have contributed to another layer of complexity to an already tenuous situation. If you are from or have worked in territories, you are deeply aware of this reality. However, the new “in” cycle is usually trying to quickly understand a situation which requires a longer period of time and extensive sources to fully comprehend what is happening.

The idea of working with recycled information, analysis or sources of information when it comes to territories is important because it brings us to my second point: lack of including local voices. By its own political and government definition, territories are not expected to speak for themselves. At the core of their relationship, territories rescinded their ability to speak independently to another entity which then has the power and right to do so. Depending on how the relationship has developed over time between the two parties, some territories have indeed recovered their rights to decide over some of their issues. However, when it comes to international/foreign relations and other key topics such as natural resources and security, power tends to remain solely in the capitals of the outside power. This reality creates a situation where important local voices are not heard or included at all in conversations where their local input might be incredibly insightful. In the case of Greenland, it’s not surprising to observe a parade of well-informed and well-intentioned Danish, European and American scholars and from other countries providing their knowledge and expertise. However, what’s rare is to find spaces where local Greenland people have been given an opportunity to express their views. And when you do find them, they tend to be politicians which inherently have a particular goal and represent specific stakeholders.

Let me be clear about this point. Well-informed outsiders are critical to the study of territories. Without their expertise and voices, we are unable to fully understand the realities of these places. I do not want this post to be construed as advocating for their elimination. This is not a zero-sum game. However, what I am advocating for is the need to also include local voices with a particular point of view which is desperately needed in these conversations and that have historically been excluded. Finding and bringing these voices into the equation will require doing some extra homework and diverting from the same recycled sources of information. However, the need to tell the whole story with a diversity of perspectives should overcome any difficulties to find them.

Let’s say that you agree wholeheartedly with my two previous points. You acknowledge the complexity and interconnectedness of problems in territories and you also understand the need to incorporate local voices in your research. Then, inevitably, the next question arises: where should you go for trustworthy and reliable sources? In my experience, your best bet is to craft a research strategy which looks beyond solely finding the information you need. It should also include how that information is produced, what sources are involved, intentions and goals of producing that information, etc. In short, you should be interested in the information landscape of the territory, in particular the information legal landscape. In the case of Greenland, there are areas of the law administered from Copenhagen and others from Nuuk. Furthermore, despite its explicit withdrawal from the European Community in the 1980s and given its status as an Overseas Country and Territory (OCS) associated with the European Union, there might be regulations, standards and just influence of European law which applies. When it comes to research, the successful way forward requires a comprehensive research strategy which intentionally incorporates local information and goes beyond how-to checklists. This is exactly what we are going for in my upcoming book, Access to Legal and Government Information on US and Canadian Territories, which will be published by De Gruyter later in the year.