The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Can countries buy other countries?

Photo of a town on Greenland

Despite Greenland belonging to an ally, the NATO country Denmark, the U.S. president does not rule out military action. Ideally, he says he would like to buy Greenland – but is it even possible for one nation to buy another in that way?

“Historically, it is entirely possible and has occurred on several occasions. The United States purchased the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803, which at the time doubled the country’s size and is considered one of the largest real estate transactions in history,” says Joakim Zander, researcher in Business Law at LUSEM.

During the nineteenth century, the United States further expanded its territory through land purchases: Florida in 1819 (from Spain), parts of Arizona and New Mexico in 1853 (from Mexico), Alaska in 1867 (from Russia), and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1917.

The latter were previously known as the West Virgin Islands and were sold by Denmark. The United States has also previously attempted to purchase Greenland, shortly after World War II and during the previous Trump administration in 2019, but Denmark declined.

Further back in history, such territorial transactions were carried out when one country either needed the money or concluded that it could not maintain control over the territory and risked losing it in a military conflict.

Sweden, too, was involved in such transactions from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, during which colonies in West Africa, the West Indies, and what is now the United States were bought and sold.

Greater consideration of residents’ wishes today

Boel Flodgren, Professor Emerita of Business Law at LUSEM, points to a shift away from colonialism’s focus on trade, where the people living in the colonies were taken less into account. Today, the right of peoples to self-determination carries significant weight, and it is not legally straightforward how one would go about buying a country.

Rights fail when international law is not respected

International law and the UN Charter are intended to protect civil society, but both researchers agree that the system has shortcomings and ceases to function when countries such as the United States or Russia do not respect the rules of the game.

They are not permitted to enter Ukraine, Venezuela, or Greenland, but there are no effective sanctions systems to hold them accountable. When that happens, property rights also cease to function.

“What do the people who live in the territory want, and who has the right to sell the land in question? International law sets out rules for states, but if a state chooses not to follow them, only ‘power’ remains as a countermeasure, not rights. It becomes a matter of ‘might makes right,’” says Boel Flodgren.

She adds that there are examples from modern times where states have reached agreements and sold land areas that subsequently changed nationality. Boel Flodgren emphasizes that while this is possible, it differs fundamentally from conducting ordinary real estate transactions in another country.

No change of sovereignty through land purchases

For several years, China has invested in land purchases in many parts of the world, but the land does not change country and continues to be governed by the same laws and regulations as before.

In practice, it is still possible today for a country to purchase land from another country and incorporate it. For this to occur, the seller country’s legislation must allow it, and the population, through its parliament in the affected area, must also consent.

More examples of territorial changes since World War II

Switzerland and France – Basel–Mulhouse Airport (1949):
In this case, Switzerland and France agreed on the location of Basel’s airport, which lies entirely within French territory, while establishing a Swiss corridor through French land to allow for customs-free access.

Belgium and the Netherlands (2016/2018):
As the River Meuse changed its course over time, properties ended up on different sides of the border. This at times created uncertainty over which country’s police had jurisdiction. As a result, the two countries carried out a land exchange and redrew the border to follow the river’s new course.

India and Bangladesh (2015):
This was a historically large exchange of enclaves aimed at resolving one of the world’s most complex border disputes.

  • Background: There were more than 160 “enclaves” (Indian territories inside Bangladesh and vice versa).
  • Solution: The two countries agreed to simply exchange these areas. Residents were given the choice of which citizenship they wished to hold. This resolved a problem that had existed since independence in 1947.

Kiribati purchases land in Fiji (2014):
The island nation of Kiribati, threatened by rising sea levels, purchased approximately 20 square kilometers of land on the island of Vanua Levu (Fiji) to secure food production and as a potential future refuge for its population.