This market will resolve to “Yes” if, by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM PT, the United States acquires sovereignty or primary/exclusive jurisdiction or control over any defined land territory in Greenland through a binding legal instrument (e.g., treaty, enacted legislation, or executive action), including via force. Otherwise, it will resolve to “No.”
Only binding actions that unambiguously transfer sovereignty or establish primary/exclusive U.S. jurisdiction qualify, even if the effective date occurs after the market deadline. Non-binding statements, negotiations, MOUs, basing/access agreements, SOFA/COFA-type arrangements, leases, or commercial concessions do not qualify. Any U.S. rights or control existing at market creation (Jan 7, 2026, 3:11 PT) will not count.
The primary resolution source will be official statements or legal instruments from the U.S., Denmark, or Greenland, with a consensus of credible reporting used if necessary.
Update 2026-01-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Extraterritorial military/diplomatic bases:
Standard military bases, embassies, SOFA-style arrangements, basing rights, or access agreements with extraterritorial status → NO
A Guantánamo-style arrangement (binding legal instrument establishing exclusive or primary U.S. jurisdiction over defined territory where local law does not apply without U.S. consent) → YES
Rule of thumb: Access/presence/extraterritorial privileges = NO; Sovereignty or exclusive territorial jurisdiction = YES
1,000People are also trading
would a 'hybrid' system like Okinawa count?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=624QcAMbLxI
sounds like YES based on Guantanamo-like arrangement resolving YES.
@LukeShadwell they could acquire (buy) land for e.g. military bases. That would not give them sovreignty over it, as in Guantanamo
@ChrisMillsc5f7 Ahh interesting perspective. What you’re saying does make sense but for some reason didn’t even occur to me as a possible meaning of the title when I read it
@ChrisMillsc5f7 My market here counts a situation like Guantanamo if you want to bet on that https://manifold.markets/LukeShadwell/what-countries-will-acquire-soverei?r=THVrZVNoYWR3ZWxs
@TomBurns Short answer: No.
Why:
Under the criteria, a base with extraterritorial status (diplomatic or military) does not resolve YES unless it creates primary or exclusive U.S. jurisdiction or control over a defined area such that Denmark and Greenland’s ordinary legal authority does not apply except by U.S. permission.
Typical military bases, embassies, SOFA-style arrangements, basing rights, or access agreements → NO
These are explicitly excluded and do not transfer sovereignty or establish exclusive jurisdiction.
A Guantánamo-style arrangement (binding legal instrument, defined territory, exclusive or primary U.S. jurisdiction, local law does not apply without U.S. consent) → YES
Rule of thumb:
Access / presence / extraterritorial privileges = NO
Sovereignty or exclusive territorial jurisdiction = YES
So a standard U.S. base in Greenland, even with strong legal protections, would not resolve YES under this market.