9月22日，在联合国大会期间，美国、丹麦和格陵兰岛签署了一项安全协议，从而结束了由白宫引发的外交僵局（该僵局有可能演变为军事冲突）。根据这项协议，美国获得了对格陵兰岛矿产、港口及基础设施领域中其认为“敏感”的外国投资的否决权，并获得了在该地区的永久性军事存在权——这些军事存在权与北大西洋公约组织（NATO）的命运无关。
On September 22, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, the United States, Denmark, and Greenland signed a security agreement, bringing an end to the diplomatic – and potentially military – standoff initiated by the White House. Washington gained a veto over foreign investments it deems sensitive in Greenland's mines, ports, and infrastructure, as well as an expanded and permanent military presence, independent of the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
丹麦首相梅特·弗雷德里克森称赞该协议，称其“尊重丹麦王国的主权和领土完整”。美国国务卿马可·卢比奥表示：“这项协议彻底解决了我们在格陵兰岛的安全关切。”这一协议的签署似乎标志着自冷战结束以来最严重的跨大西洋紧张局势之一得到了缓解。从1月份美国威胁要采取强硬手段，到1月底在达沃斯世界经济论坛上要求立即进行谈判，再到7月在安卡拉举行的北约峰会上重申“格陵兰岛应由美国而非丹麦控制”，共和党政府一直不断制造出格陵兰岛可能被强行吞并的紧张气氛。
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen praised the agreement, saying it "recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity" of the Kingdom of Denmark. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, "This deal permanently and completely addresses our national security concerns in Greenland." This resolution appeared to close one of the most serious episodes of transatlantic tension since the end of the Cold War. From the threats of using "the hard way" voiced in January, to the demand for "immediate negotiations" at the World Economic Forum in Davos [late January], and finally, the reiteration at the NATO summit in Ankara in July that Greenland "should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark," the Republican administration had raised the specter of a forced annexation.
虽然美国撤回了这些威胁，但这并未结束相关的法律争论；相反，它只是引发了关于当前控制格陵兰岛方式的新讨论。
Washington withdrew that threat. But its withdrawal did not end the legal debate: Instead, it opened a quieter discussion about the nature of the control now replacing the proposed annexation.
第一课是：国际法始终具有约束力。这一事件表明，国际法确实具有威慑作用。《联合国宪章》第2条第4款明确禁止任何国家以武力威胁或使用武力侵犯其他国家的领土完整。在此框架下，国际法院始终拒绝接受这样一种观点：即某些战略利益（即便是像美国这样的超级大国的利益）可以凌驾于国际法之上、从而免除其遵守国际法的义务。
The first lesson is that international law held firm. This episode suggests that international law had a real deterrent effect. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of a state. Within this framework, the International Court of Justice has consistently rejected the argument that a strategic interest – even one asserted by a superpower such as the United States – can suspend this obligation.
在1986年的“Contras案”裁决中，国际法院已经裁定：当美国的安全需求侵犯了他国的主权时，美国无权自行判断自己的安全需求是否正当。在2004年关于在巴勒斯坦领土上修建隔离墙的咨询意见中，法官们进一步明确指出：任何以安全为由的行为都不能成为事实上吞并他国领土的正当理由。
In the so-called Contras ruling of 1986, the Court had already found that the US could not be the sole judge of its own security needs when those needs infringe on the sovereignty of a third party. In its 2004 advisory opinion on the construction of the wall in Palestinian territory, the judges clarified that security claims could not justify a situation equivalent to de facto annexation. You have 59.04% of this article left to read. The rest is forrs only.