Reference no: EM133004398

Question - In formal discussions leading up to the Berlin Peace talks, Denmark's ambassador told Norway's foreign minister that Denmark would not object to Norway's claim to Spitzbergen if Norway did not oppose Denmark's claim to the whole of Greenland at the Paris Peace Talks.

After Consulting with his government, the Norwegian foreign minister told the Danish ambassador "that the Norwegian Government would not make any difficulty in setting the question." During the Paris Peace talks, Denmark's representatives, as promised, dropped their objections to Norway's claim over Spitzbergen. Much to Denmark's surprise, though, Norway's representatives continued to press the country's claim to Greenland. A dispute thus arose between the two countries over which had sovereignty over Greenland. When Denmark's representatives reminded the Norwegian representatives of their foreign minister's earlier assurance, they were told that this was only a verbal commitment which was not binding on Norway.

Using relevant international business law principles and applicable cases, provide a response to the following questions:

(a) What is a 'Treaty" and how is a treaty different from a "Convention"? Which one is binding upon states?

(b) Is Norway obliged under international law to give up its claims to Greenland? (Word limit Maximum 600 words).