Freetown Christiania, or Christiania, is an acclaimed tourist attraction decorated by neon graffiti while simultaneously being an extremely disputed piece of land. Defended by its residents when questioned by Denmark, whether that be politically or with militant officers, Christiania is not officially recognized by those nearby in Copenhagen but is frequently visited by tourists.

The founders of Christiania created the province with the intention of establishing a self-governing “freetown” that traded city life in exchange for a more relaxed lifestyle. To understand the history of Christiania and the debate surrounding whether or not it is a state, I seek to apply the Montevideo Convention’s four criteria for what a state must contain: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to interact with other states. In addition to these four criteria, I also add an additional criterion: the durability of the state to withstand time. Following these five criteria, I argue that Christiania should be a state because of its ability to last as a self-governing territory with a stable and growing population and a steady economy based on tourism, despite its failure as of yet to receive international recognition as a separate state from Denmark.

The first criterion defined by the Montevideo Convention is the existence of a permanent population. This criterion was met from the founding of Christiania, when 150 young people decided to occupy an abandoned military area, destroy the buildings left there, and begin constructing the town anew. The population’s right to live on that land was questioned in 1975 when the Danish government decided to demolish the town; however, the government never acted on this decision and the population of Christiania was able to grow.

While the province grew, it began to struggle with drug trade as it became a safe haven for dealers who wanted to escape the Danish anti-drug laws, thereby demonstrating Christiania’s separation from Danish law. Mary Manjikian writes, “At this point, one can suggest that Christiania provided a sort of convenient interstitial site for the Danish government. It was a sort of unregulated space where activities took place beneath the radar.” In response, the town passed laws to begin safeguarding the territory from drugs and gang crime: “After numerous problems with violent police clashes and dangerous gang fights, the town´s residents got the gang members to agree not to carry patches and weapons. […]” In 2024, Forbes Magazine reported that the main drug dealing street, Pusher Street, would be dug up to create more room for a new housing development for the now 1000 residents of Christiania. This demonstrates Christiania’s ability to not only have a permanent and growing population but also to govern over them separately to the Danish law.

Further, this population does not fear retaliation from Denmark and is instead open about their residence in Christiania: “Christiania was never a space that hid in the shadows. Its residents sought not to blend in or to hide within Denmark, but were instead always overt in their identity and their activities.” While the consistently increasing population of Christiania has yet to gain international recognition, it would not be shocking to see nations begin to give it attention if the population continues to grow and Christiania continues to expand accordingly, thereby giving it the validity it needs to pursue official statehood status.

While the debated nation-state is generally governed by its people as a whole through monthly meetings, a fund of eleven members takes official responsibility for governance and distribution of necessary goods, such as water and electricity. This accounts for the second criterion of the Montevideo Convention: the existence of a government. The ability of Christiania to exist as an independent territory within the larger Denmark, which previously had governance rights of the land where Christiania sits, came first as a result of a 1989 document commonly referred to as “Christiania Law”. This document states the legal right of settlers to reside within Christiania. Therefore, this document acts as a recognition from Denmark that Christiania has a right to exist where it is and how it is. Further, Christiania has established the Freetown Christiania Foundation to better govern the districts’ needs and collects “user fees” from residents to manage the necessities.

There is, however, a caveat to “Christiania Law”: Denmark’s Ministry of Defense can ask the residents to leave at any point in time. This stipulation questions Christiania’s ability to govern the territory completely by itself as, at any time, Denmark’s government could step in and remove them from the land, removing any potential recognition from Denmark of the independent nature of Christiania and instead viewing them as a territory in which they have the right to step in whenever they please. While Denmark’s right of removing the population of Christiania has yet to be expressed explicitly, the region does experience frequent police raids and must cooperate with the Copenhagen municipality, which controls certain buildings and stores. Perhaps it is this control that Denmark retains over the area that prevents other nations from giving Christiania the international attention that would solidify statehood status.

In regard to the third requirement of a state as proposed by the Montevideo Convention – a defined territory – Christiania seems to have its chosen land set, although there have historically been debates between its government and that of Denmark regarding what is actually fully owned by Christiania and what is still a part of Denmark. Since its founding in 1971, Christiania has governed over the abandoned military barracks they claimed upon their occupation of the land. As stated above, “Christiania Law” gave the residents the right to remain where they were. In 2011, a new agreement gave Christiania more control over the administration of its lands and buildings. There are, certainly, still conflicts between Christiania and Denmark. One recent example occurred in 2022, during which Denmark tried to assert its right by claiming rights over certain land and demanding that Christiania pay money to incorporate certain pieces of land. This land, however, included those who did not choose to live in Christiania. This created a debate over whether to absorb this land by paying a fee and include those who may not want to live in Christiania or to allow themselves to be controlled by the whims of the Danish government within the debated territory. This ability of the Danish government to potentially control the land Christiania claims as its own calls into question its ability to last as a state because if Denmark were to revoke their land, Christiania would no longer have its defined territory. This may be another reason why Christiania has not yet been internationally recognized.

The fourth criterion is where I believe viewing Christiania as a state becomes particularly complicated and where it becomes difficult to say that Christiania has received international recognition. Christiania does not frequently interact with international governments or states. The only consistent communication between Christiania and an internationally recognized nation is its frequent interactions with Denmark in an effort to solidify its position as a unique and individual nation-state instead of a subsidiary within Denmark. While states themselves do not recognize Christiania, tourists do by visiting the enclave, with many sources citing it as one of the top destinations when visiting Denmark. However, this recognition is tricky as people are not visiting Christiania to visit Christiania but instead viewing it as a unique part of Denmark during their trip there. There is a fine line between visitors respecting Christiania as a unique place with its own laws versus just an interesting enclave within the larger city, and it is difficult to know what visitors are really thinking when they visit. Because visitors do not have to cross an actual border with an exchange of passports or any kind of legitimate border control, tourists may just view Christiania as an interesting place to see within Denmark. While this may be a valid argument against the statehood of Christiania, the sheer amount of attention Christiania receives from these tourists is a step in the direction of international recognition. As more people go to visit, the province is more likely to be seen by larger nations and perhaps get the recognition they may seek to become legitimized across the world.

The fifth and final criterion that is not a part of the Montevideo Convention but is perhaps the most convincing in the case of Christiania is durability. Christianitia has proven its durability as it has lasted in primarily the same form or in a larger one since its founding in 1971. When a challenge presents itself, Christiania seems to overcome it, like through adapting to the gang violence by eventually destroying the primary drug centers of the area or by attempting to legitimize their governance by giving tours to tourists who seek to learn more about Christiania and its mission.

With all five of these criteria in mind, it is my opinion that Christiania should be perceived as a state, or at least as a state that may be established in the future with international recognition. While now it may not have the international recognition it needs to be perceived as a state, it is and has been an operating, self-governing enclave for fifty-five years. While it does often have strife with Denmark, that strife is often resolved through means I interpret more as interaction between states than Denmark asserting its power as an overall ruler. There may be some powers that Denmark attempts to assert in an effort to feel in power, but Christiania’s ability to manage its own economy, people, and necessities demonstrates its ability to be considered its own state.