Will I drag Troels Lund, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and Mette Frederiksen to court to stop the defense agreement with the USA?

MP Theresa Scavenius is now ready to file a lawsuit that could bring Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen (S), Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen (M), and Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen (V) to court in a case concerning alleged violations of the Constitution.

The dispute centers on whether the defense agreement, which grants U.S. soldiers access to three bases in Jutland, violates the Constitution. Scavenius argues this is the case, while the government firmly rejects the accusation.

The U.S. has not yet utilized the agreement, which allows them access to the three air bases in Karup, Skrydstrup, and Aalborg. However, if they were to do so, Scavenius believes that American soldiers would gain such extensive powers over Danish citizens that it would violate the Constitution.

That is why the independent MP is now taking legal action against the three party leaders and senior ministers.

"I do this primarily out of necessity. In my view, this bill should have been caught by the Ministry of Justice before it became a legislative proposal," she says.

"I hope that the Supreme Court will take this case and declare it invalid, as it is entirely in violation of the Constitution and a lack of protection for citizens' legal security. If you can encounter an American soldier who can detain you, open fire on you, that is unacceptable," Scavenius adds.

---

**Facts about the defense agreement:**

* The agreement was signed in December 2023 but approved by the Folketing (Danish Parliament) in June 2025.

* It allows the U.S. to conduct a range of military activities on and from Danish soil, including personnel deployment, storage of military equipment, maintenance, training, and exercises.

* The agreement grants the U.S. military easy access to and stay in selected military areas in Denmark in coordination with the Danish Defense.

* It covers the three air bases in Karup, Skrydstrup, and Aalborg.

* The soldiers are subject to American jurisdiction, meaning the U.S. must prosecute American soldiers if they commit crimes in Denmark.

* The agreement is non-cancelable for 10 years.

Source: Ministry of Defense.

---

**'Unlimited powers'**

The lawsuit is based on Article 6 of the agreement with the U.S. According to Scavenius, it grants American soldiers authority over Danish citizens on Danish territory.

"According to the Constitution, foreign authorities cannot have jurisdiction over Danish citizens. American soldiers have been given authority over Danish citizens across the entire territory. This means that if Americans choose to, you can encounter them on the street, and they will have unlimited powers over you," she explains.

Do you believe the government made an incorrect legal assessment, or do you think they deliberately approved a law in violation of the Constitution?

"That is an interesting question I won’t speculate on. I simply don’t know. I hope they didn’t know. If they did, that is even worse," Scavenius says.

She argues that the case is made relevant by the U.S.’s interest in Greenland, where negotiations are now underway to renegotiate the 1951 agreement between Denmark and the U.S.

"If the new agreement with Greenland is negotiated based on this defense agreement, it means the government could potentially grant Americans expanded powers across the entire territory, including over the Greenlandic population, and risk the autonomy of Greenland," Scavenius states.

---

**What the agreement says:**

Denmark hereby authorizes, in accordance with NATO SOFA Article VII, Section 10, the U.S. forces to exercise all rights and powers necessary for the use, operation, defense, and control of the agreed facilities and areas, including the implementation of proportionate measures to maintain or restore order and protect U.S. forces, U.S. contractors, Danish contractors, and their dependents.

The U.S. forces must coordinate security plans, including establishing cooperation procedures regarding security measures, with the relevant Danish authorities.

---

**Social Democrat defends the agreement:**

Simon Kollerup, the Social Democrats’ defense spokesperson, points out that the question of the Constitution was thoroughly examined before the law was passed.

"There is no case here, in my assessment. We had a very thorough parliamentary process where this was the focal point," he says.

"It has been thoroughly discussed and answered by some of the country’s strongest legal experts in the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defense. They unanimously agree that there are no constitutional challenges," Kollerup tells *P1 Morgen*.

He emphasizes that the U.S. has not yet made use of the agreement. If that were to become relevant, a more precise and concrete cooperation agreement would need to be established.

"To utilize the defense agreement, reciprocal agreements must be made between Denmark and the U.S. on how to fill this framework," Kollerup states.

He accuses Scavenius of using the legal system because she couldn’t get her political agenda through the Folketing.

"If you can’t get your political will through the Folketing, you can always take it to court. That’s what’s happening here," he says.

---

**The unwritten constitutional prohibition:**

The case does not concern the violation of a specific paragraph in the Constitution but rather the unwritten constitutional prohibition.

This is a legally recognized concept described by the Ministry of Justice as follows:

"Both international law and constitutional law consider Danish authorities as the sole competent entities to exercise authority within Danish territory (the so-called unwritten constitutional prohibition)."

---

**Experts divided:**

DR has shown the lawsuit to several experts, who assess it differently.

Frederik Harhoff, emeritus professor of international law at the University of Southern Denmark, believes Scavenius has a weak case.

Firstly, he argues that the MP is legally misguided by targeting the three ministers personally. According to Harhoff, the lawsuit should be directed against the state. Additionally, his legal assessment is that the defense agreement does not violate the Constitution.

"The evaluation that this agreement grants U.S. forces extensive authority on Danish territory is simply incorrect," he states.

He stresses that the U.S. forces, according to the agreement, must coordinate security plans and cooperation procedures with the relevant Danish authorities.

"It makes sense to collaborate in certain cases. Let’s say there’s a massive demonstration in front of an American base, and it’s unclear whether the demonstrators can breach the base.

"In such a case, it is the host country’s police—Denmark in this instance—that must ensure they don’t enter. However, the sending state, the U.S., has the right to assist and help the Danish police keep the demonstrators out.

"In that way, one could argue that it grants Americans the ability to exercise authority on Danish territory, but only in collaboration with Danish authorities," Harhoff explains.

---

**'Very far-reaching'**

At the Institute of Human Rights, the agreement is interpreted differently. Senior researcher Peter Vedel Kessing, who has closely followed the defense agreement, believes it could conflict with or violate the Constitution. He views the controversial paragraph as imprecise.

"It is not limited to the base or areas near the base. The powers apply generally across Danish territory," he says.

"If Americans were to transport materials or weapons through Denmark and a demonstration occurred, they could, in principle, exercise the necessary powers to protect their equipment. This means they could, in principle, stop the demonstration, detain people, and use force.

"This is very far-reaching, and there is a constitutional prohibition against other states having the authority to exercise jurisdiction and use force on Danish territory. One cannot delegate such powers to other countries unless there is a narrow agreement on it," Kessing states.

Theresa Scavenius’s first step is to apply to the Civil Service Authority for free legal representation. She hopes the case can proceed, arguing that as an MP, she has a legal interest and can therefore pursue it.

Warning: This article was translated by a Large Language Model, in case of doubt, you can always visit the original source.