The conference delegates discussed the Arctic Ocean, climate change, the protection of the marine environment, maritime safety, and division of emergency responsibilities if new shipping routes are opened.
[2] The declaration addresses the areas of "vulnerable ecosystems, the livelihoods of local inhabitants and indigenous communities, and the potential exploitation of natural resources", invoking a jurisdictional and sovereign-based approach to convey the responsibilities of the Arctic five.
Fear of economic exploitation and pollution in the Arctic Ocean was a key source of momentum in drafting and implementing the Ilulissat Declaration.
[3] Melting Arctic ice, exacerbated by climate change, has intensified concerns that economic activities in the area will further degrade the environment – thereby calling for renewed cooperation efforts and reaffirming territorial claims.
[3] Such depictions of intense geopolitical friction heightened the fear of territorial rivalry in the rapidly melting Arctic, from which arose the Ilulissat Declaration.
[1] Linked to the aforementioned fear of a perceived ‘governance gap', another motivation for creating this declaration was merely to block any calls for an Arctic Treaty that would bring in new legislation and new states.
[11] Møller instigated the meeting that led to the Ilulissat Declaration in an attempt to signal order and reassert control in the Arctic region.
[7] The actual content of the Ilulissat Declaration, as aforementioned, pertains to "vulnerable ecosystems, the livelihoods of local inhabitants and indigenous communities, and the potential exploitation of natural resources".
[13] Through the declaration, the Arctic Ocean coastal states attempted to restate their legitimacy and power in the region, squashing any calls for an international approach.
[23] Such assertions have caused some concern for states that fear China may become too aggressive in the region and end up leveraging too much power in the Arctic, both physically and politically.