BBNJ 环境影响评价规则、影响与因应

姜玉环 张继伟

《〈联合国海洋法公约〉下国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的养护和可持续利用协定》（以下简称“《BBNJ 协定》”），自2004 年联合国大会启动非正式磋商进程以来，历经近二十年、共五届政府间正式谈判，于2023 年6 月19 日正式达成，并有望于近几年内获得生效实施。BBNJ 协定的制定被视为当今国际海洋法领域最重要的立法进程，将重构全球海洋利益格局，深度影响国际海洋秩序的调整。1参见贾宇：《塑造国际海洋法律秩序的中国贡献——纪念《联合国海洋法公约》开放签署40 周年》，载《亚太安全与海洋研究》2022 年第5 期，第1-21 页。该协定包含了海洋遗传资源、划区管理工具、环境影响评价、能力建设与技术转让四个议题的“一揽子”规则，将为国家管辖范围以外区域（以下简称“ABNJ”）海洋遗传资源利用、海洋生态系统划区保护与管理、环境影响评价和相关能力建设等事项提供统一的国际法律框架。环境影响评价作为基于活动的预防性管理工具，是《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称“《公约》”）明确规定的一般义务，同时，作为一项整体性规则在国际司法实践中被确认为一般国际法。2Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, p. 83-84, para. 205.BBNJ环评规则发展和重构了现行环评制度框架，拓展和丰富了环评国际规则的内涵与外延，对BBNJ 国际法律制度体系的构建与变革将发挥重要的作用。

主权国家是海洋资源开发的权利主体和海洋环境保护的义务主体，BBNJ 环评规则将通过调整与规范国家对其管辖或控制下的活动相关权利、义务和责任关系，为各国更全面、有效地落实环评相关义务提供有力的国际法框架，进而对各国的现实和长远利益产生直接或间接影响。中国是新兴海洋利用大国，党的二十大报告提出“发展海洋经济，保护海洋生态环境，加快建设海洋强国”的战略目标，明确要求“统筹推进国内法治和涉外法治”，主张“维护以国际法为基础的国际秩序”。因此，BBNJ 环评规则将为中国获取深远海战略资源利益和拓展海洋发展空间带来一定挑战的同时，也为中国主动对接高标准国际规则、积极引领国际规则制定、推动国际海洋法治体系变革并不断增强在国际法律事务中的话语权和影响力提供重要机遇。基于上述背景，本文重点解读BBNJ 环评规则的发展特征和内容要点，并从多个视角探讨其生效实施对国家的潜在影响，进而从中国的角色和利益出发，提出应对这一国际规则的策略建议。

一、BBNJ 环评规则的主要特征

BBNJ 协定是在符合《公约》相关规定、不违背其宗旨和原则及其所建构的权力和利益平衡基础上达成的。BBNJ 环评规则旨在对《公约》环评程序框架加以细化与补充，同时，结合现代环保理念，进一步丰富拓展环评的制度内涵与功能价值，整合与延展BBNJ 环评制度对环境影响的预防、减缓和管理等多重目标。新的BBNJ 环评规则主要特征包括：

（一）确立和发展了ABNJ 落实环评义务的规则框架

《公约》第204 至206 条是环评实施、监测和报告等国际法义务的直接来源。BBNJ 环评规则首要目的是落实《公约》环评相关规定，使其原则性规定更具可操作性和可监督。BBNJ 环评制度正式确立了ABNJ 环境影响评价的国际规则框架，明确了活动管辖国的强制性前置环评义务，细化了环评实施程序和具体规范要求，为各国切实履行环评义务提供了明确和具体的法律依据与指南。从规则构成和属性来看，BBNJ 环评规则体系的构建从义务本位出发，既包含一般性原则与方法、实体性和程序性规则（以程序义务为主、实体义务为辅），也包括一系列配套环境标准和方法指南。随着国家管辖外区域环评国际实践的广泛开展，环评在国际海洋法律体系中的国际习惯法地位将得到显著强化。

BBNJ 环评规则的发展性主要体现在：一是细化和补充《公约》环评框架的具体范围和内容，对第206 条等相关条款中的模糊性措辞加以澄清和具体化，例如：对于“有合理根据”，BBNJ 协定要求活动发起国依法设置国内筛选程序，依据相关准则要求，开展详细的初步环境分析，并经国际公共评议及咨询程序进一步确保相关决策的根据在法律上是充分与合理的；对于“在实际可行范围内”，协定中多处使用的“酌情”“如有”和“适当情况下”等用语，考虑到国内自由裁量权，在一定程度上兼顾了具有不同技术能力的国家自主性与灵活性；对于“用公认的科学方法”开展评估，协定为指导环评阈值的衡量与判定，细化明确了需要考虑的非详尽要素，并授权附属科技机构制定一系列国际标准和指南（包括确定最佳实践），为缔约国提供通用的科学方法建议和指导。尽管如此，文书中仍有制度上和技术上的含糊之处尚未清晰阐释，有待于未来随着海洋科技进步、开发利用活动的广泛开展和保护治理实践的深化拓展而逐步完善，这也充分表明了环评规则体系的动态发展特征。二是在《公约》环评一般性义务框架基础上，吸收借鉴南极环评等相关实践做法，在机制创新方面实现突破，例如：协定分层设置了“超出轻微或短暂影响”的筛选阈值和重大不利影响的环评阈值，相应要求开展初步环境分析和全面的环境影响评价；规定了活动环评之外针对相关规划和方案的战略环境评估要求，拓展了环评类型和适用对象范围；吸纳《公约》第十二部分关于活动影响预防与管理相关义务内容，在环评过程中综合考虑国家管辖内、外活动的“双向”跨界影响情形，并将规则内容范围延伸到环评后续活动的实施监管阶段等。总体而言，相关规则的突破性以协定所遵循的“不损害各国根据《公约》享有的权利、管辖权和义务”这一原则为边界，对BBNJ 养护和可持续利用方面的全球利益和国家责任之间的关系加以调适以寻求达到保护与发展的整体平衡。

（二）统筹与协调ABNJ 环评法律框架和机制

BBNJ 环评规则的另一重要立法目的是“为国家管辖范围以外区域的活动建立协调一致的环境影响评价框架”。环评框架的“一致”（coherent）性，是对协定第五条所确立的“不损害相关法律文书和框架以及相关全球、区域、次区域和领域机构，并促进一致性和协调性”这一原则的具体实现。

首先，在适用范围上，BBNJ 环评规则适用于ABNJ 开展的所有活动，除协定一般性排除适用条款中的政府非商业性船舶或飞机情形，3《〈联合国海洋法公约〉下国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的养护和可持续利用协定》第四条。以及有条件排除其他相关环评法律框架规制下的活动（如公海捕鱼、航行和倾废、深海采矿等）重复环评情形，4《〈联合国海洋法公约〉下国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的养护和可持续利用协定》第29 条第4 款。其他非政府公务性、未纳入相关法律规制的各类活动，以及未来新兴活动类型，如海洋生物采探、深海旅游、海洋新能源开发、海洋地球工程、海底工程、海上试验等，均落入BBNJ 环评规则适用范围，因此，BBNJ 环评规则实际上构成ABNJ 活动环评的兜底性机制（或默认机制）。

其次，在促进协调性方面，BBNJ 协定除了避免同一活动重复环评加重缔约方负担，在不削弱其他相关国际环评法律框架和机构职权范围的前提下，还对其他环评框架下活动的监测和审查报告的公布作出补充性要求，对可能存在执行差、监管弱等问题的相关环评框架起到一定的辅助性和督导性作用；同时，支持科学和技术机构与相关国际机制协调制定环评有关国际标准和指南，5《〈联合国海洋法公约〉下国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的养护和可持续利用协定》第29 条第3 款。实际上有利于形成环评方面的“全球最低标准”，6虽然BBNJ 协定谈判过程中，各方就环评规则和标准是否构成“全球最低标准”存在显著分歧，这一措辞并未纳入最终案文中，但是协定中通过鼓励缔约方在规范扩散方面发挥能动作用、确立与相关国际机构在标准制定过程中的协作机制、明确不同环评框架的协调适用规则，以及基于环评全球数据库制定最佳实践等途径，全方位强化BBNJ 环评规则适用的普遍性和基础性。客观上将推动其他关联领域环评制度的完善以及相关主管国际组织环境规制的强化。

第三，在促进一致性方面，BBNJ 环评规则中判定相关活动是否需要重复环评的标准与本协定环评启动门槛一致，并依托本协定信息交换机制建立了所有ABNJ 活动环评报告的汇交与信息公开机制，便利了科学和技术机构总结最佳实践做法和制定通用技术指南，同时，协定还鼓励缔约国在其他法律框架下应用BBNJ 环评相关要求和技术标准。上述举措从实质上加强了现有相关环评法律机制之间的联动和一体化进程，将加快推动ABNJ 环评国际规则体系的重构。

（三）提供了国际行为体参与活动决策进程的程序机制

BBNJ 环评的定义和程序强调知情决策（informed decision-making）这一核心内涵，突出体现透明度和公众参与等现代环保理念。环评制度中的公共参与程序既是确保广泛利益相关方知情、表达关切和参与决策过程的重要机制，也是国际社会对活动国履行环境义务全过程进行跟踪监督的有力手段。不同于各国国内环评制度，BBNJ 环评程序中公共参与主体、内容、方式和效力具有其特殊内涵。

BBNJ 环评的一般利益相关方是“今世后代全人类”，包括持有相关传统知识的土著人民和当地社区，相关全球、区域、次区域和领域机构，民间社会，科学界和公众。根据特殊地理条件及潜在受影响情况，毗邻沿海国和毗邻活动国等最受影响国家是最重要的公共参与主体，不同主体参与方式和影响程度会有所差异。BBNJ 协定中还专门强调了小岛屿发展中国家和专属经济区环绕公海的周边国家在环评公告协商进程中的特殊需要7《〈联合国海洋法公约〉下国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的养护和可持续利用协定》第32 条第6 款。，一方面充分顾及到沿海国作为最受环境不利影响的主体权利和利益，另一方面也强化了对地理有利沿海国以直接利益相关方身份深度参与活动决策进程的机制保障。

国际环境问题中的公众参与内容和方式通常包括四个方面：一是信息的获取、收集和传播（信息的单向流动），二是协商咨询（信息的双向互动），三是参与决策过程（共同分析和联合评估），四是参与实施过程（监督实施和诉诸救济）。8参见姜玉环、张继伟：《国家管辖范围以外海洋环境影响评价公众参与制度初探》，第二届海洋开发与管理学术年会论文，2018 年，第49-57 页。BBNJ 环评制度中不同的公共参与及协商咨询途径贯穿活动事前、事中全过程，包括筛选决定公布与公共评议、环评报告草案公布与公共评议及科学和技术机构审议、环评报告和决策公布、监测和审查报告公布等，还包括第三方或跨界影响双方联合环评、缔约方大会应请求提供决策咨询意见等情况，以及后续活动实施过程中发现未预见重大环境影响的通知情形等，充分体现了BBNJ 环评国际参与内容和方式的多样化。

不同利益相关方公共参与结果的作用及效力具有不同阶段的差异性，例如，对于可能最受影响的利益相关方实质性评论意见，活动发起国应考虑、书面答复并处理相关意见，尤其对于涉及活动对国家管辖范围以内区域的影响，处理方式可能包括酌情采取额外的应对措施或修改活动内容；科学和技术机构提出的意见与建议具有更高程度的权威性，活动发起国必须加以考虑。BBNJ 环评实施过程中公共评议的内容可能广泛涉及活动及其影响的方方面面，协定要求利益相关方发表评论看法应根据现有最佳科学和科学信息（包括在可获得的情况下的土著人民和当地社区的相关传统知识）来表达关切，以避免公共参与程序的滥用和随意性。通过BBNJ 环评公告和参与协商程序提交的相关科学信息，可以为环评实施主体提供补充性资料，助其完善环评文件；同时，公参主体的实质性意见和建议也可能对主管当局的审议和决策产生一定影响，而在活动实施过程中利益相关方的监督和针对紧急情况的通知行为也可能对主管当局采取的监管措施和相关决定产生影响，甚至改变。

（四）成为督促各国强化活动监管的重要手段

环评是一种基于活动的预防性管理工具，BBNJ 环评规则实际上是以前置性环评义务作为抓手，要求缔约方建立涵盖所有公海活动的登记或许可管理制度，并通过确立具体的程序义务和实体义务，为缔约方（尤其是海洋利用国）开展公海经济活动加装“环保护栏”，以平衡各国海洋资源开发利用权利与海洋环境保护义务，促进养护和可持续利用目标的均衡实现。具体操作上，一方面，通过程序性的“国际化”监督机制设计，赋予BBNJ 框架下科学和技术机构对是否达到环评启动门槛的决定及理由、环评报告草案、监测和审查报告的技术性审议评估及建议权，强化从活动事前环评阶段到事中监管全过程的透明度和国际社会公共参与机制，对活动发起国环评实施流程的推进，以及最终环评报告的形成构成管理上的约束。另一方面，通过细化的实质性义务规定，增强活动设计、环评结果效用及活动决策的可说明性，确保船旗国行使资源开发权利和管辖权过程中充分考虑环境问题。如，要求环评主体在影响评估基础上提出影响预防、减缓和管理措施并纳入环境管理计划，并对授权活动开展的决策施加限定条件，即仅当考虑到缓解或管理措施的情况下，缔约方确认已尽一切合理努力确保该活动能够以符合防止对海洋环境造成重大不利影响的方式进行时才可作出批准决定。9《公海生物多样性条约》第三十四条第二项。另外，对于国家管辖内开展的对国家管辖外海域具有潜在重大不利跨界影响的活动，BBNJ 协定也规定了环评报告、监测报告等相关信息的公开要求。虽然相关要求主要依赖沿海国的履行，对活动决策与监管进程的约束弱于对域外活动的规制，但是仍然可以为某类严重事故或污染活动的监管提供又一国际规则依据。

二、BBNJ 环评规则主要内容评析

BBNJ 环境影响评价规则共13 条，具体条款内容包括：目标、适用范围、与其他相关法律框架的关系、启动门槛、实施程序、公告和协商要求、环评报告内容、决策、后续活动及其影响的监测和报告及审查、科学和技术机构制定标准和准则、战略环境评估。从BBNJ 环评规则的执行层面来看，主要组成内容包括环评的启动机制、运行机制和监管机制，而基于透明度规则的环评公共咨询机制贯穿于环评执行进程的不同环节。

（一）启动机制

环评的启动机制是触发BBNJ 环评程序的重要初始环节，BBNJ 环评规则基于活动潜在影响的程度建立了分层阈值、分级筛选的启动机制和相应的分级评估要求，主要通过缔约方国内程序实施（见图1）。具体流程包括：

图1 BBNJ 环评启动机制实施流程示意图13“CHM”指信息交换机制，“STB”指科学和技术机构。

1. 初始阶段

基于活动领域和区域及环境因素确定适用的法律框架，查明是否需要根据BBNJ 协定或其他相关法律框架开展筛选及环评。根据协定第二十九条第四款，两种限定情形下不必重复开展BBNJ 环评：一种情形是，缔约方认定已按照相关法律框架开展了与本协定环评要求等同10“等同”（equivalent）的定义和内涵并未明确界定，各方在谈判过程中对这一限定性措辞的含义表达了疑惑，存在功能上的等同和实质性等同等不同观点，考虑到环评报告和相关监测报告的提交公布要求，环评报告内容的等同是基本条件。此用语的模糊性既为缔约方的规则适用带来一定的解释和发展空间，也为不同环评法律框架之间的互动关系提供了一个重要连接点。的评估，且评估结果纳入相关决策过程考虑；或者缔约方认定已进行过评估，且实际遵守了相关法律框架或机构关于防止、减轻或管理低于“重大不利影响”这一门槛的潜在影响相关规章或标准要求。实践中，国际海事组织监管的公海倾废、国际海底管理局监管的深海采矿、联合国粮农组织及区域渔业管理组织负责的公海深海底鱼捕捞等传统活动，以及其他相关区域条约框架下实行环评的活动，满足这一条件即无需依据BBNJ 协定重复进行筛选或环评，但需要履行通过信息交换机制公布环评报告、监测和审查报告的义务。第二种情形是，缔约方认定相关全球、区域、次区域或领域机构已对计划活动或活动类别的潜在影响进行过评估，同时，源于评估的规章或标准设计旨在防止、减轻或管理低于“重大不利影响”这一门槛的潜在影响，且已得到遵守。实践中，国际海事组织监管下的公海航行活动的环境规制和标准，相关国际或区域法律框架或机构11其他政府间国际或区域组织，如《保护东北大西洋海洋环境公约》《南太平洋地区自然资源和环境保护公约》、北极理事会、区域渔业管理组织等，未来可能针对特定类型活动潜在影响开展的评估和实行的管理措施，也可能满足此种情形。值得注意的是，满足何种情况的决定权在缔约方。针对海洋科学研究、海底电缆敷设等活动类型环境影响的评估以及所制订的相关规制或标准，以及未来BBNJ 缔约方会议针对特定区域某类活动潜在影响的评估及其相关环境标准等，在缔约方认定已得到遵守的条件下，可免除重复开展BBNJ 环评的义务。

2. 筛选阶段

基于筛选阈值及相关标准确定纳入环评筛选程序的活动，BBNJ 环评筛选阶段的适用门槛是“可能对海洋环境产生超出轻微或短暂的影响，或影响未知或知之甚少”，达到这一阈值的活动需要开展初步环境影响分析，未达到的活动及其他无需进行评估的活动可以直接实施。如何判断是否达到筛选以及环评的阈值，需要由国内主管当局综合考虑协定中所列非详尽衡量因素12《〈联合国海洋法公约〉下国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的养护和可持续利用协定》第30 条第2 款。，或可制定具体的国内阈值标准或清单等指南，指导活动主体和国内主管部门的筛选工作。

3. 决策阶段

基于筛选阶段的初步环境影响分析结果确定是否达到环评的启动门槛，进而决定开展环评或实行信息公开的简易程序。触发环评的阈值与《公约》保持一致，即“可能对海洋环境造成重大污染或重大有害变化”。活动发起国的国内主管部门基于筛选结果做出是否需要启动环评的决策，并通过BBNJ 信息交换机制公布决定。对于不需要环评的决定及其初步分析理由等相关信息需要经过40 天的国际公共参与和评议程序，活动发起国主管部门在考虑、回复或处理各国关切以及BBNJ 科学和技术机构意见或建议的基础上对其筛选决定进行复查，最终确定是否直接实施活动或需要开展环评。

（二）运行程序

环评的范围界定、评估和评价、预防和减缓措施及环境管理计划的拟定，以及与利益攸关方的协商等内容属于缔约方自由裁量范畴。缔约方应确保BBNJ 环评程序启动后的具体运行实施包含以下主要流程（见图2）：首先，活动主体开展评估范围确定、影响评估、提出减缓和管理措施、编写环评报告，同时，在评估中需要考虑累积影响和对国家管辖范围以内区域的影响。其次，活动发起国通过信息交换机制发布环评报告草案，14在提交BBNJ 信息交换机制进行国际公告协商进程前，通常需要将草案先提交国内主管部门进行初步审查。进行有期限的国际公共参与和协商程序，BBNJ 科学和技术机构对环评报告草案进行审议和评估并向活动发起方提出建议。再次，活动发起方完善形成最终环评报告并向国内主管当局提交，以供国内决策过程审议和审查。然后，国内主管当局依国内程序审查后，作出是否批准活动的决策并公布决定情况，最终环评报告也应通过信息交换机制提交和予以公布。

图2 BBNJ 环评程序实施流程示意图

对于环评结果在活动决策中的效力，相关法律框架下均将环评结果作为决策应考虑的重要因素之一。通常情况下，环评结果显示拟议活动将对海洋环境和生物多样性造成重大不利影响的，活动将不被批准，但不同环评相关制度框架存在一定差异。现有国际实践中的事前环评主要有两种形式：一种做法是将环评作为活动许可决策的前置性要件，如海上倾废活动环评、南极活动环评，其中，南极环评制度要求拟议活动相关决定“应基于全面环境评价及其他有关的考虑作出”。另一种做法是环评报告不作为活动实施申请的决策前置程序要件，而是要求在活动开展前提交，如深海矿物勘探活动环评，但是深海采矿活动实行集中式的国际机构决策和统一监管模式，环评报告作为勘探活动开展的前置条件，不影响其对相关决策的强效力。BBNJ 协定与其他相关国际环评法律框架的做法基本一致，即要求缔约方在决策中“充分考虑”环评结果，考虑到缓解或管理措施，并且，强调仅当确定已尽一切合理努力确保该活动能够以符合防止对海洋环境造成重大不利影响的方式进行时，才可作出批准活动实施的决定。

（三）监管机制

BBNJ 环评规则部分根据《公约》第204 至205 条等相关规定，对活动实施后续的缔约方监测、报告和审查监管，以及国际审查监督机制作出更加明确和详细的规定（见图3）。其中，监测的对象为缔约方授权或参与的活动的环境影响，纳入监测的活动范围不以是否开展了环评的活动为限，而是所有活动；监测的内容将包括经济、社会、文化和人类健康等更广泛的影响。BBNJ 协定赋予科学和技术机构对监测报告的国际审查职权，以及可视情况对其开展评估的机制，若其认为可能存在环评阶段未预见的、或因违反管辖国批准要求而造成重大不利环境影响的情形，科学和技术机构具有通知和建议权，其他缔约方也可向活动发起国登记关切、发表意见。同时，活动发起国主管当局作为活动影响及监测报告的审查主体，若确定可能存在未预见或新的重大不利影响，应当履行国际通知义务，并采取和评估其采取的相关必要行动措施。与本条密切相关的是《公约》第198 条关于即将或实际发生损害的通知要求，两者的细微差异在于，后者对于活动发起国通知义务的条件要求是获悉存在污染损害的迫切危险或已实际遭受污染损害，而BBNJ 协定规定的条件是确定存在未预见或违反规定产生的重大不利影响，即该种重大不利影响为实际发生，其它缔约国告知发起国的条件是其认为“可能”存在此类重大不利影响，因此，BBNJ 协定的规定拓展了环评制度公共参与的内容和方式，意图通过多种路径加强活动实施期间对于重大不利影响的风险预防和公共监督。

图3 BBNJ 环评后续监管机制实施流程示意图

三、BBNJ 环评规则对国家的影响

国际规则的制定和实施与主权国家之间存在着密切而复杂的互动关系。BBNJ 国际规则的创制既反映了全球海洋治理法律体系发展演进的历时性变化趋势，也体现了具有不同利益和话语权力的国家间横向博弈过程。BBNJ 环评规则制定过程中，具有不同能力水平和实力地位的国家对规则创制的作用方式及效果各异，当国际规则形成后，其实施效力也与参与规则制定的国家话语权大小紧密相关，不同国家受国际规则影响的路径和程度也因价值导向和利益需求及国内政治语境等因素而异。BBNJ 环评规则通过影响国家的国际话语、发展利益和国内制度等方面，塑造和构建新的BBNJ 全球治理结构和秩序。

（一）对国家话语的影响

国家话语权被视为一国在国际事务互动中表达意见的权利，体现了在国际社会中掌控国际舆论和影响国际局势发展的能力和权力。15参见刘小燕、崔远航：《政府话语权威与国际规则的经纬逻辑》，载《社会科学》2018年第10 期，第170-182 页。BBNJ 环评规则对国家话语的影响主要体现在对国家主体在新的国际机制与治理实践中具有的制度话语和舆论性话语（或道义话语）。首先，主权国家在BBNJ 环评机制中的地位和作用显著依赖于国家对于BBNJ 资源开发利用与保护的技术与能力。BBNJ 环评规则未从实质上打破以《公约》为核心所构建的国际海洋法律秩序及其利益平衡，基本坚持了以资源开发利用为导向的国家的主导性主体地位。同时，通过“国际化”监督及透明度机制安排，努力平衡资源开发权利与环境保护义务。公海深海资源开发与生物多样性保护的科学信息和新兴技术将占据BBNJ 环评制度演进和技术标准体系塑造的中心位置，具有较强深海资源开发利用技术、生态环境保护技术和科技支撑能力的国家，在未来BBNJ 可持续利用的治理结构中更容易获得引领性地位，而包括小岛屿国家在内的以海洋保护为导向的国家或利益团体将借助BBNJ 国际框架逐步增强其在BBNJ 养护领域的道义性话语权力。

其次，多元主体参与BBNJ 环评事务及治理的能动性不断增强，话语地位和影响力不断提升。BBNJ 环评规则基本上实行国家主导实施、国家自主决策的模式，但同时也确认了除主权国家外其他多元主体可享有国际利益相关行为体身份，建立了多环节的公共参与路径及机制保障，强化最受影响主体发言权和科技机构评议监督权的效力，以制衡船旗国管辖权的话语权威，平衡国家个体利益与全球整体利益。可以预见，基于预防性方法和现代环保理念，实行生态环境友好型开发方式及全过程的环境监管，将成为BBNJ 全球治理进程中的主流意识形态，因此，具备完善和先进环保制度的国家、具有海洋生物多样性相关多领域专长的国际组织、区域治理重要载体性组织、与全人类共同利益及价值融合更为紧密的行为体，将更能有力占据道义制高点，在BBNJ 全球治理秩序发展演变中获得更大的主动权和感召力。

（二）对国家利益的影响

国际规则与国家利益是有机联系的，国家在与特定规则的互动基础上明确其身份和利益。BBNJ 环评规则通过平衡资源开发权利和环境保护义务，对全球整体利益和国家特殊利益及其相互关系产生多样化的影响。

首先，国家利益是主权国家对外行为的根本诉求，维护和确保负责任地利用人类所处的海洋环境，促进可持续发展是全人类（包括今世后代）共同利益。BBNJ 环评规则的制定形成既体现了整体性的全球环境和发展利益价值导向，为构建全球BBNJ 利益共同体、责任共同体和命运共同体提供国际法支持，有助于推动形成ABNJ 资源开发与环境治理一体化发展的新格局。同时，BBNJ 协定通过增加能力建设相关国际合作规则对部分发展中国家的个体利益给予特殊考量，16《BBNJ 协定》第三十一条第二款关于联合环境影响评价，尤其是对小岛屿发展中国家管辖或控制下的计划活动；该条第三款在科学和技术机构下设立一个专家名册，为能力不足国家提供环评技术支持。符合其倡导的理想状态下公平和公正的国际经济秩序，以促进全人类整体发展利益和全球环境利益的协调发展，也充分呼应了人类命运共同体理念有关“共同繁荣”的国际法基本内涵。17参见施余兵：《国家管辖外区域海洋生物多样性谈判的挑战与中国方案——以海洋命运共同体为研究视角》，载《亚太安全与海洋研究》2022 年第1 期，第35-50 页。简言之，BBNJ 环评规则基于对全球长远利益关照下的短期局部国家利益调适，体现BBNJ 领域当前利益和长远利益、全球利益和国家利益的对立统一。

其次，不同发展水平和实际条件的国家在BBNJ 养护与可持续利用领域具有不同的利益导向和现实需要，兼顾平衡各方利益诉求是规则制定、实施和发展中面临的主要挑战。环评实质性规则中对不同国家地位的区分并未完全采用发展中国家和发达国家的“二分法”，仅原则性要求加强发展中缔约国能力建设支持，具体通过科学和技术机构与信息交换机制为能力有限的缔约国提供获取环评实施相关科学信息和专家人力资源等公共产品与服务机会，但是对于发展中国家最需要的科研水平、开发技术等关键发展能力的提升仍缺乏有针对性的援助。同时，文书强调发展中国家内部亚国家群组的差异性及其利益分化，考虑到了具有不同地理区位和地缘条件的国家特殊利益和需要，包括小岛屿国家和专属经济区环绕公海的周边国家，可通过国际公共参与机制将其自然权力转化为制度性权力。根据受活动潜在影响的可能性和性质，毗邻沿海国和毗邻活动国被确认为BBNJ 环评进程中最主要的利益相关方，环评规则基于国际合作原则要求相关方在环评和活动实施过程中积极磋商，以有效平衡船旗国与沿海国有关环境事项的管辖权，同时兼顾各国开发利用海洋资源的合法利益。未来，随着BBNJ 领域多元行为体不断发展壮大并发挥重要作用，各国将更倾向于通过合作组合方式解决关乎全球共同利益的问题，通过双赢或多赢增进共享利益。

最后，BBNJ 环评规则对不同身份定位的国家利益影响途径和驱动因素各异。环评的实施建立在大量的调查、监测和研究等人力、资金和资源投入基础上，发展中国家对深海的认知程度、活动范围和能力、开发技术水平等方面与发达国家存在差距。随着海洋开发与保护全球治理越来越朝着高目标、高标准、高技术方向发展，环境标准与开发技术日益融合，后续一系列环评实施流程标准、执行绩效标准和环境质量目标标准或准则的制定，势必对发展中国家海洋资源开发权利和利益的实现及环境保护义务的有效履行，以及自主创新能力提出更高要求。在适用统一的环评标准及最佳环境做法18另如，根据国际海洋法法庭海底分庭咨询意见第161 段，在“区域”内活动的最佳环境做法上，担保国并不会因为发展中国家的身份获得优惠待遇。也就是说，“区域”环境保护制度将会最佳环境做法上采取统一标准。相关规则进展值得重视。情境下，发展中国家获取同样的资源利益将意味着需要付出更大成本代价。在BBNJ 能力建设机制难以提供实质性能力支持情况下，广大发展中国家，尤其是最不发达国家可能在未来公海国际经济秩序中处于更加不利的竞争地位。对于海洋利用大国，BBNJ 环评作为基于活动的前置性许可管理工具，将通过一系列实质性和程序性要求，确立涵盖环境条件、特殊区域和活动方式（或技术手段）的综合性准入约束，形成“有牙齿”的活动规制及技术标准规则体系。在区域战略环评、累积影响评估和划区管理工具相关规则的共同作用下，传统活动的范围、方式、强度及其影响管理均将受到相应约束，进而对海洋活动大国的发展空间产生影响或制约。同时，BBNJ 环评规则也将促使传统海洋资源开发方式朝着绿色和生态友好型优化升级，以满足国际社会日益高涨的对公海深海环境实行更高保护标准的呼声。对于沿海国，BBNJ 是集政治、经济、科技和环境问题于一体的议题，深远海是维护海上安全和拓展海洋权益的重要战略疆域。毗邻公海的地理有利国一方面作为临近公海活动环境影响敏感国，更易造成环境利益的减损，另一方面，作为环评中的主要利益相关方，可借助透明度规则和国际公共咨询协商程序，为其拓展环境管辖权与决策参与及监督权提供合法依据和正式机制，进而获得有利的制度性话语或相关政治利益。反观地理不利沿海国，相关权利的保障相对较弱，未来拓展深远海发展战略空间将面临更多因素制约或不确定性风险，参与BBNJ 国际治理、维护海洋权益的过程中需付出相应的规则或机制成本。

（三）对国内制度的影响

国际规范的国内合法性是衡量其对国家影响的重要变量，国家制度层面的接受和认可是国际规则权威性的重要来源。国际规则在与国内制度的互动过程中，不断塑造和协调国家行为体的行为、目标和政策。BBNJ 环评制度是规范和调整国家行为体履行环评义务相关行为的原则、规则、程序和机制等组成的系统，将影响各类活动环境规制的国际制度环境、国内制度建设和国家规则实践。

从国家遵约角度，BBNJ 协定明确要求缔约方应酌情采取必要的立法、行政或政策措施执行协定。虽然各国已经普遍建立了较为完善的国家管辖范围内环评法律制度，BBNJ 环评的标准化评估流程也吸纳了国内环评的一般做法，但不同国家在理解和遵守国际规范方面存在客观差异。环评制度从义务本位出发，为各国转化、引入和适用新规则明确了责任范围。缔约方在BBNJ 环评规则下的义务可以分为确保义务和直接义务，前者包括根据协定要求建立国内适用于国家管辖范围以外区域的环评制度、实施程序、信息公开和协商机制、活动影响审查机制等，后者包括缔约方主管当局根据协定具体规则开展筛选、发布环评报告、作出活动授权决策、监测活动影响、定期提交监测报告和公布审查报告，以及在发生新的重大不利影响情况下的审查、通知和采取行动的义务。上述义务的执行需要国家在形成国内统一政治认同的基础上，对国际规则进行国内规则的转化与衔接，即国内制度化。同时，不同国家在不同问题领域对国际规则的确认程度和国内制度化水平会存在差异，各国根据国内社会关系和发展需要推进国内制度改革的目标和速度，推动国内BBNJ 环评制度体系的建设与完善。此外，还需增强渔业、航运、深海资源开发和保护等相关部门目标与BBNJ 框架下全球目标的符合性，进一步完善域外各类活动的有效治理体系，不断融入国际规范体系之中。

从活动规制角度，在缔约方确保义务下，活动提议方通常是环评、信息公开和协商、监测等义务的实际实施主体。为了确保活动主体的行为符合BBNJ 环评规则和标准规范要求，缔约方需要建立配套的BBNJ 环评国内标准和规范体系，以落实环评规则规定的国家义务，增强对其管辖和控制下的活动的归口管理和环境规制。BBNJ 协定框架下将制定关于筛选阈值标准、跨界影响和累积影响评估、公告和协商、监测和报告、战略环评等一系列程序性和技术性实施标准和指南文件及最佳实践做法，可能直接涉及环评过程中实施主体的权利义务范围和行为效力，这些国际性标准或指南也将为活动主体实施环评的方式和方法提供基本遵循和重要指引。

四、中国的应对策略

国内法治与国际法治存在相互配合与相互渗透的紧密关系。19参见叶泉：《论全球海洋治理体系变革的中国角色与实现路径》，载《国际观察》2020年第5 期，第74-106 页。国际规则影响国内制度，国内法律实践也会影响或改造国际规范。国家融入国际治理体系的过程，不仅是国际治理新要素给国家带来新变化的过程，也是国家影响国际要素的过程。立足中国在BBNJ 领域的角色和利益，推动BBNJ 环评规则的实施与发展完善，符合中国负责任大国的利益和立场，契合构建全球海洋命运共同体的使命担当。中国是BBNJ 协定及环评规则制定的积极参与者和推动者，面对新的机遇和挑战，中国需要进一步统筹国际国内环评规则发展，提升海洋治理能力和水平。

（一）国际应对

首先，加强国际环评规则的解释和运用能力。BBNJ 环评程序性规则较为明确和细化，很多技术性规则和标准具有中性特征，并非只能简单机械地适用，在解释时具有较强的可塑性，如阈值标准、影响评估、减缓措施等。在全球海洋资源能源绿色低碳转型发展的大趋势下，随着中国在深远海领域科技水平的不断提升和开发实践的不断积累，可以预见，绿色开发技术将成为未来国家间海洋权益博弈的核心要素，规则、科技、道义和舆论互动关系错综交织，将成为影响未来BBNJ领域海洋事务发展的重要内容。无论如何，作为海洋活动大国，中国必须提升绿色技术创新水平，注重“海洋命运共同体”的理念转化和国际话语衔接，20同上注。提升“最佳可得技术”“最佳环境实践”“良好行业做法”的引领能力，加强自身对环评国际规则的解释和运用能力，有效运用国际法规则应对履行国际义务过程中面临的各种环境壁垒、21参见王传良、张晏瑲：《人类命运共同体理念与现代海洋法的发展——以“BBNJ 国际协定”的制订为视角》，载《江苏大学学报（社会科学版）》2023 年第1 期，第73-85 页。法律挑战和舆论压力，维护自身海洋权益。

其次，增强整合适用环评相关法律制度能力。随着海洋领域诸多国际规则的不断酝酿和形成，BBNJ 规则与其他规则之间的主导权之争将日益显著。BBNJ领域相关主管国际组织的职能范围存在交叉或重叠，区域渔业管理组织等区域性机构也开始重视BBNJ 交叉议题的处理，22参见李洁：《BBNJ 全球治理下区域性海洋机制的功用与动向》，载《中国海商法研究》2021 年第4 期，第80-87 页。不同环评规则的具体目标和标准门槛存在差异。BBNJ 协定及环评规则初步明确了与相关法律文书和框架以及相关全球、区域和领域机构的关系，环评规则的有效实施不能是对现有环评框架的替代或重复，而需要有效的加以协调与整合。在BBNJ 养护和可持续利用领域全球竞合态势明显、规则体系尚未完善的情况下，增强关联议题领域的复杂规则整合适用能力，是推动多层次、多中心全球海洋治理协同发展的客观要求。

第三，增强参与和影响环评国际软法制定能力。BBNJ 环评技术建议、程序规范和行为指南等“软法”是BBNJ 环评制度的重要组成部分。环评“软法”文件以其较强的道德或利益导向和实践督导功能，将对正式国际规则的完善和有效适用发挥重要的补充与辅助作用。在发达国家掌握技术优势和国际规则主导权的情况下，发展中国家及新兴海洋大国积极参与环评国际软法制定相关的国际磋商及谈判进程，是借助国际法力量维护自身利益的重要途径。环评领域已有国家实践广泛而丰富，技术性软法规则的形成和发展将迅速推进，中国作为发展中大国，应积极参与并提升环评软法规则制定和支撑国际组织决策、程序和人事制度建设的能力，提高环评相关补充性及支持性制度的设计能力，增强广大发展中国家在规则解释和修订的核心机制中的代表性和话语权。

第四，促进多元主体广泛参与BBNJ 治理进程。BBNJ 国际协定的立法进程充分展现了主权国家之外的国际、区域组织或机构等国际行为体的重要角色和作用。借助开放、包容的多边国际规则平台，多元化的主体越来越深入参与到国际规则和治理体系的塑造与演变过程中。公共参与和知情决策是BBNJ 环评程序的核心价值，广泛利益相关方的全过程参与得到环评规则的正式确认和机制保障。因此，国家需要与非政府组织、科研机构、学术研究团体、开发者等多元行为体保持密切和有效的合作与互动关系，并借助国内多元利益相关主体在国际规则和规范制定与实施过程中的广泛、深度和多层次介入，推广有益治理经验，开拓和引领全球、区域和双边治理框架下环境规则的形成与发展。

（二）国内应对

第一，加快国内规则衔接。国内BBNJ 领域涉外环评制度方面存在立法空白或规范层级较低的问题，不能满足未来BBNJ 协定生效后的履约要求和实践需要。国内国际规则的有机衔接和双向互动是提升域外活动监管法制化水平、应对法律风险挑战和对外制度规则博弈的重要基础，需要加快推进国内相关法律法规和规范的制修订工作，形成涵盖海洋环境保护、深海资源开发等在内系统完备的BBNJ 环评启动与实施规则、国际透明度规则、国际咨询协商机制、域外活动监管规则等法律体系和配套技术标准规范体系，实现域外活动环评和监管有法可依。

第二，完善管理协调制度。BBNJ 环评规则的实施实质上以环境问题的规制为抓手，影响和塑造未来国际海洋经济、政治和法律秩序，涉及主权国家资源利益分配和发展空间格局。因此，需要从国家层面推进海洋治理体制机制改革，完善BBNJ 事务综合协调机制和风险应对机制，23参见戴瑛：《总体国家安全观视角下的BBNJ 国际协定及中国应对》，载《广西社会科学》2023 年第1 期，第26-33 页。统筹发展和安全，集中调度与协调各类政策工具，确保有效运用国内法和国际法规则维护国家在BBNJ 领域的主权、安全和发展利益。BBNJ 环评管理制度建设与实施需要协调好多领域行业规制之间的关系，涉及自然资源、生态环境、渔业、海事等部门环境规制目标和手段，需要完善跨部门履约协调协作机制，整合调动各类专业人才、数据信息和资金等优势资源，促进BBNJ 事务管理的协同增效。

第三，加强技术保障体系建设。随着深远海资源开发的环保规制趋于严苛，绿色开发技术和生态友好做法越来越成为BBNJ 养护和可持续利用领域的基本要求，贯穿于开发准入、技术标准、行为准则和监督管理的全过程和各领域。健全的科技创新体系、绿色开发技术和装备体系、环境管理监督与服务保障系统等是确保BBNJ 环境影响评价与管理的有效实施，以及资源开发与环境保护顺利开展的必要保障。

五、结 语

BBNJ 协定的达成及其后续实施将推动以《公约》等国际法为核心的全球海洋法律体系发展变革进程。BBNJ 环评规则以前置性环评程序为抓手建立了统一的BBNJ 环境管理制度框架，为落实《公约》环评义务、协调相关法律框架的关系，推动BBNJ 养护和可持续利用目标的均衡实现，提供明确具体的规则、标准和程序依据和指南。

BBNJ 环评规则着重规范和调适主权国家享有的资源开发权利和环境保护义务之间的关系，直接影响各国在全球海洋治理领域的国际话语、海洋权益和国内制度等方方面面，将推动塑造并形成未来公海深海资源和生物多样性治理的法律秩序和政治经济格局。BBNJ 环评规则体系的发展走向，以及关联领域的平行进程对国家的影响机制和路径值得持续关注和深入研究。从维护国家深远海战略资源利益、拓展海洋经济发展空间的角度出发，需要立足世情国情，整合资源和技术优势，强弱项、补短板、填空白，推动国家在BBNJ 领域的特殊利益和国际社会共同利益的有效融合与共同发展。

BBNJ Environmental Impact Assessments:Rules, Impacts and Response

JIANG Yuhuan, ZHANG Jiwei*

Abstract: The development and conclusion of theAgreementundertheUnited NationsConventionontheLawoftheSeaontheConservationandSustainableUse ofMarineBiologicalDiversityofAreasBeyondNationalJurisdiction(hereinafter the “BBNJAgreement”) marks a significant milestone in the advancement of the global legal framework for marine affairs. Through theBBNJAgreement, an environmental impact assessment (hereinafter “EIA”) system has been laid out and advanced, which elaborates on mechanisms for the trigger, execution, and subsequent oversight of EIAs. This has fostered the construction and refinement of a regulatory framework for the entire process of ex ante assessment, monitoring,and management of marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction, along with an international mechanism for public oversight. The enforcement of the BBNJ EIA rules carries the potential to generate far-reaching and intricate effects on a nation’s international discourse, development interests, and domestic systems.It will drive the continuous development and evolution of a new global legal order and governance landscape for the oceans. China plays a distinctive role in BBNJ affairs, with crucial interests at stake. As the new international EIA rules present both opportunities and challenges, it becomes imperative for China to enhance its capacity to interpret, apply, and shape these international rules holistically, and expedite the development of a comprehensive domestic BBNJ EIA system.

Key Words:BBNJAgreement; EIA rules; Impacts on States; The response of China

* JIANG Yuhuan, Assistant Researcher, Third Institute of Oceanography of the Ministry of Natural Resources, China, Ph.D. in Environmental Management, E-mail: jiangyuhuan@tio.org.cn; ZHANG Jiwei, Senior Engineer, Third Institute of Oceanography of the Ministry of Natural Resources, China, Ph.D. in Environmental Economics.

©THE AUTHORS AND CHINA OCEANS LAW REVIEW

TheAgreementundertheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSeaon theconservationandsustainableuseofmarinebiologicaldiversityofareasbeyond nationaljurisdiction(hereinafter “theBBNJAgreement”) was officially concluded on 19 June 2023, marking the culmination of almost two decades and five sessions of formal intergovernmental negotiations following the establishment of the Openended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea by the United Nations General Assembly in 2004. TheBBNJAgreementis anticipated to come into effect and be operationalized in the coming years. The formulation of theBBNJAgreementis widely recognized as the most significant legislative process in the realm of international law of the sea in present times, which will reshape the landscape of global maritime interests and profoundly impact the adjustment of the international maritime order.1See JIA Yu, China’s Contribution to Shaping the International Legal Order for the Seas and Oceans: Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Opening for Signature of the UNCLOS, Asia-Pacific Security and Maritime Affairs, Vol. 29: 5, p. 1-21 (2022). (in Chinese)This Agreement encompasses a comprehensive set of rules pertaining to four key areas: Marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, environmental impact assessment (hereinafter “EIA”), and capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology. These rules are poised to establish a unified global legal framework for issues such as marine genetic resources utilization in areas beyond national jurisdiction (hereinafter “ABNJ”),area-based protection and management of marine ecosystem, EIA and associated capacity-building efforts. EIA, as an activity-based preventive management tool,constitutes a general obligation specified under theUnitedNationsConventionon theLawoftheSea(hereinafter “UNCLOS”). Moreover, EIA is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of general international law in international judicial practice,serving as a comprehensive rule.2Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, p. 83-84, para. 205.The BBNJ EIA rules have significantly enhanced and restructured the existing framework of the EIA system, and also broadened and enriched the scope and application of international rules pertaining to EIA. They are poised to play a crucial role in shaping and transforming the international legal framework governing BBNJ.

Sovereign States hold the rights to exploit marine resources and bear the responsibility for protecting the marine environment. By adjusting and regulating the relationship between States’ rights, obligations, and responsibilities concerning activities within their jurisdiction or control, the BBNJ EIA rules aim to establish a robust international legal framework that empowers States to fulfill their EIArelated obligations in a comprehensive and efficient manner, thereby exerting direct or indirect impacts on the immediate and long-term interests of States. China has emerged as a dominant force in the realm of ocean conservation and utilization. The report of the 20th CPC National Congress outlines a strategic objective to “develop the marine economy, protect the marine ecological environment, and step up efforts to build China into a strong maritime country”. It explicitly emphasizes the need “to coordinate the promotion of the domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law” while asserting to “maintain the international order based on international law”. Consequently, the BBNJ EIA rules will bring forth certain challenges for China in terms of securing strategic resource interests in the deep and distant oceans and expanding its ocean development space. Simultaneously, these rules will offer significant opportunities for China to proactively align itself with highstandard international regulations, assume an active leading role in the development of international rules, contribute to the transformation of the international maritime rule of law system, and continually bolster its capacity for discourse and influence in international legal affairs. Building on the aforementioned background, this paper aims to delve into the developmental characteristics and key aspects of the BBNJ EIA rules. It further explores the potential ramifications of their enforcement and implementation on States from various perspectives. Subsequently, strategic recommendations are presented to effectively address this international regulation,taking into account China’s role and interests.

I. Main Features of the BBNJ EIA Rules

TheBBNJAgreementwas reached based on compliance with the pertinent provisions of UNCLOS, without contravening its purposes and principles, and the equilibrium of power and interests it establishes. The BBNJ EIA rules aim to refine and complement the framework for EIA procedures within the context of UNCLOS. Simultaneously, these rules incorporate contemporary environmental protection concepts to further enhance and broaden the institutional significance and functional value of EIA. They seek to integrate and extend the multiple objectives of the BBNJ EIA system, encompassing the prevention, mitigation, and management of environmental impacts. The main features of the new BBNJ EIA rules include:

A.EstablishingandDevelopingtheLegalFrameworkforImplementing EIAObligationsinABNJ

Articles 204 to 206 of UNCLOS constitute the direct basis for international legal obligations pertaining to the implementation, monitoring, and reporting of EIA. The foremost objective of the BBNJ EIA rules is to effectively implement the EIA-related provisions of UNCLOS and enhance the practicality and supervisability of its fundamental principles. The BBNJ EIA system has formally established the international regulatory framework for EIA in ABNJ. It explicitly mandates the obligation of conducting a prior EIA for States with jurisdiction over activities. Additionally, it refines the implementation procedures and sets specific normative requirements for EIA, thereby offering States a clear and precise legal foundation and guidelines to effectively fulfill their EIA obligations. In terms of its composition and attributes, the system of the BBNJ EIA rules is constructed from an obligation-based perspective. This system encompasses general principles and methods, substantive and procedural rules (with procedural obligations taking precedence over substantive obligations), as well as an array of supporting environmental standards and methodological guidelines. With the widespread implementation of international practices for EIA in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the position of EIA within the international maritime legal system as customary international law will be considerably reinforced.

The developmental nature of the BBNJ EIA rules is primarily reflected in the following aspects: Firstly, it refines and supplements the specific scope and content of the EIA framework outlined in UNCLOS. It also clarifies and specifies the ambiguous wording in relevant provisions such as Article 206. For instance,regarding the phrase “have reasonable grounds”, theBBNJAgreementrequires the State initiating activities to establish domestic screening procedures in accordance with the law, conduct detailed preliminary environmental analysis, and further ensure through international public review and consultation procedures that the basis for relevant decisions is legally sufficient and reasonable. Regarding the phrase “as far as practicable,” the Agreement frequently employs terms like “as appropriate”, “if any”, and “where appropriate”, taking into account the domestic discretionary power, while also considering the autonomy and flexibility of States with different technical capabilities to some extent. Regarding assessments conducted “by recognized scientific methods”, the Agreement elaborates on the non-exhaustive factors that need to be considered in order to guide the measurement and determination of EIA thresholds. It also authorizes the Scientific and Technical Body (STB) to develop a series of international standards and guidelines (including determining best practices), providing State Parties with general scientific method recommendations and guidance. Nevertheless, there are still institutional and technical ambiguities surrounding the instrument that have not been adequately elucidated. These aspects are expected to be gradually refined in the future as marine science and technology advance, exploitation and utilization activities extensively unfold, and protection and governance practices intensify and broaden. This underscores the ever-evolving nature of the EIA rules system.Secondly, by building upon the general obligation framework of UNCLOS on EIA,the Agreement draws on and incorporates practices from related contexts such as EIAs in Antarctica to achieve breakthroughs in terms of innovative mechanisms.For example, the Agreement employs a hierarchical structure to establish screening thresholds for “more than a minor or transitory effect” and EIA thresholds for substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes, requiring preliminary environmental analysis and comprehensive EIA in response. It also stipulates strategic EIA requirements for relevant plans and proposals outside the scope of activity-based EIA, expanding the types of EIA and the scope of applicable objects.Furthermore, the Agreement incorporates the obligations related to the prevention and management of activity impacts in Part XII of UNCLOS, comprehensively considers the “two-way” cross-border impacts of activities within and outside national jurisdiction during the EIA process, and extends the scope of regulatory content to the implementation and supervision stage of post-EIA activities, among others. In general, the advancement of the rules is circumscribed by the principle of “not prejudice the rights, jurisdiction and duties of States under the Convention”, to which the Agreement adheres. Additionally, the interplay between global interests and national responsibilities for the preservation and sustainable utilization of BBNJ has been adjusted to strive for an overall equilibrium between conservation and development.

B.IntegratingandCoordinatingtheLegalFrameworkandMechanism ofEIAinABNJ

Another important legislative purpose of the BBNJ EIA rules is to “establish a coherent EIA framework for activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction”. The “coherent” nature of the EIA framework is a concrete realization of the principle established in Article 5 of the Agreement, i.e., “does not undermine relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, subregional and sectoral bodies and that promotes coherence and coordination with those instruments,frameworks and bodies.”

Firstly, concerning its scope of application, the BBNJ EIA rules apply to all activities carried out in ABNJ, with the exception of those excluded under the general exceptions clause of the Agreement,3Art. 4 of Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.such as government non-commercial vessels or aircraft, and those conditionally excluded under other relevant EIA frameworks (e.g., fishing, navigation and dumping on the high seas, deep-sea mining, etc.) with repeated EIAs.4Art. 29(4) of Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.Other non-government activities of an official nature that are not subject to the relevant legal frameworks, and emerging types of activities in the future, such as marine bioprospecting, deep-sea tourism, new marine energy development, marine geoengineering, seabed engineering, and offshore experiments, etc., all fall within the purview of the BBNJ EIA rules.Consequently, these rules effectively constitute the fallback mechanism (or default mechanism) for EIA of activities in ABNJ.

Secondly, with regards to promoting coordination, theBBNJAgreementnot only seeks to prevent the duplication of EIAs for the same activity and alleviate the burden on States Parties, but also introduces supplementary requirements for the disclosure of monitoring and review reports for activities falling under other EIA frameworks without compromising the terms of reference of other relevant international EIA legal frameworks and institutions. These requirements play a supportive and supervisory role for relevant EIA frameworks that might suffer from challenges such as poor implementation and weak supervision. Furthermore, theBBNJAgreementsupports the Scientific and Technical Body in coordinating with relevant international mechanisms to develop international standards and guidelines on EIAs.5Art. 29(3) of Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.This in effect contributes to the establishment of “global minimum standards” for EIAs,6Although there was significant disagreement during the negotiations of the BBNJ Agreement regarding whether EIA rules and standards constitute “global minimum standards”, and this wording was not included in the final text, the Agreement does take steps to reinforce the universality and foundational aspects of BBNJ EIA rules by encouraging states parties to take a proactive role in proliferating the norms, establishing a mechanism for collaboration with relevant international bodies in the standard-setting process, clarifying the rules for harmonizing and applying different EIA frameworks, and developing best practices based on the global database of EIAs.and will objectively drive improvements in EIA systems in related fields and enhance environmental regulations of competent international organizations.

Thirdly, in relation to promoting consistency, the criteria outlined in the BBNJ EIA rules for determining whether a relevant activity necessitates repeated EIAs are aligned with the thresholds for initiating an EIA as stipulated in this Agreement.Additionally, a mechanism has been put in place under the Clearing-house Mechanism of this Agreement to facilitate the submission of EIA reports and the disclosure of information for all activities in ABNJ. This facilitates the Scientific and Technical Body in consolidating best practices and developing comprehensive technical guidelines. Moreover, the Agreement also encourages States Parties to apply BBNJ EIA-related requirements and technical standards within other legal frameworks. The aforementioned initiatives have substantially enhanced the interconnectedness and integration between the current pertinent legal mechanisms for EIA, which will expedite the reconstruction of the international rules system for EIA in ABNJ.

C.ProvidingaProceduralMechanismforInternationalActorsto ParticipateintheDecision-makingProcessofActivities

The definition and procedures of the BBNJ EIA place a strong emphasis on the fundamental principle of informed decision-making, underscoring contemporary environmental protection concepts such as transparency and public participation.The public participation procedure in the EIA system serves as a crucial mechanism to ensure the involvement of a diverse range of stakeholders. It allows them to stay well-informed, voice their concerns, and actively participate in the decision-making process. Moreover, it is a potent tool for the international community to effectively track and monitor the fulfillment of environmental obligations by the host State throughout the entirety of the activity. In contrast to domestic EIA systems, the BBNJ EIA process entails distinct elements in terms of its public participation subject, content, modalities, and effectiveness.

The general stakeholders of the BBNJ EIA encompass “present and future generations of humankind,” including indigenous peoples and local communities holding relevant traditional knowledge, relevant global, regional, subregional,and sectoral institutions, civil society, the scientific community, and the public.Depending on the special geographic conditions and potential impacts, the most affected States, such as the adjacent coastal States and adjacent activity States,are the most important subjects of public participation, with the modalities of participation and the degree of impact varying from one subject to another. TheBBNJAgreementalso places particular emphasis on addressing the unique needs of small island developing States (SIDS) and neighboring States with exclusive economic zones (EEZs) surrounding the high seas in the public notification and consultation process for EIA.7Art. 32(6) of Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.On one hand, it ensures that coastal States, which are most vulnerable to adverse environmental impacts, have their rights and interests fully considered; on the other hand, it reinforces mechanisms that enable geographically advantaged coastal States to participate deeply in the decisionmaking process as directly interested parties.

In international environmental issues, public participation typically encompasses four aspects of content and methods: (a) access, collection and dissemination of information (one-way flow of information); (b) consultation and dialogue (two-way interaction of information); (c) participation in the decisionmaking process (collaborative analysis and joint assessment); and (d) participation in the implementation process (monitoring of implementation and access to remedies).8JIANG Yuhuan & ZHANG Jiwei, A Preliminary Study of the Public Participation System for Marine Environmental Impact Assessment in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction,Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Ocean Development and Management, p.49-57 (2018). (in Chinese)In the BBNJ EIA system, various avenues for public participation are integrated throughout the entire activity process, from the pre-activity stage to during the activity. These avenues include the selection of decisions for public disclosure and public review, the public participation and consultation of draft EIA reports, STB reviews, disclosure of EIA reports and decisions, and the publication of monitoring and review reports. It also encompasses situations such as joint EIAs conducted by third parties or between parties affected by transboundary impacts, provision of decision-making advisory opinions by the Parties upon request, and notifications of unforeseen significant environmental impacts during the implementation of subsequent activities. These various aspects of public participation highlight the diverse range of content and modes of international involvement in the BBNJ EIA process.

The role and effectiveness of public participation by different stakeholders vary across different stages. For instance, substantive comments and opinions from potentially most affected stakeholders should be considered by the State initiating the activity. These comments should be addressed in writing, and relevant concerns should be dealt with. This is especially important when the activity concerned has impacts on areas within the jurisdiction of the State. In such cases,the response may involve considering additional measures or modifying the activity’s scope, as appropriate. Opinions and recommendations presented by the Scientific and Technical Body hold a higher level of authority and shall be given consideration by the State initiating the activity. The public comment during the implementation of the BBNJ EIA may cover a wide range of aspects related to the activity and its impacts. The Agreement mandates that stakeholders’ comments and opinions should be based on existing best scientific practices and scientific information, including relevant traditional knowledge from indigenous peoples and local communities when available. This ensures that concerns are expressed in a well-informed manner, thus preventing the misuse and arbitrariness of public participation procedures. Relevant scientific information submitted through BBNJ EIA notifications and participatory consultation procedures can provide supplementary data for the body implementing EIA to improve the EIA documents.Additionally, the substantive opinions and recommendations from the public participation body may exert certain impact on the deliberation and decisionmaking of the competent authorities. Furthermore, the supervision by stakeholders and their notification of emergencies during the implementation of activities can potentially impact or even lead to changes of the regulatory measures and decisions made by the competent authorities.

D.ServingasanImportantMeanstoUrgeStatestoStrengthenthe SupervisionofActivities

EIA is an activity-based preventive management tool. The BBNJ EIA rules essentially leverage the obligation of prior EIA as a starting point and mandate States Parties to establish a comprehensive registration or licensing management system that encompasses all activities conducted on the high seas. Through the establishment of specific procedural and substantive obligations, these rules create an “environmental fence” for States Parties, particularly for States that utilize ocean resources, to engage in economic activities on the high seas. This is done to balance the rights of States to exploit marine resources with their obligations to protect the marine environment, and to promote the balanced achievement of conservation and sustainable utilization objectives. In terms of specific implementation, the procedural design of an “internationalized” supervision mechanism empowers the Scientific and Technical Body under the BBNJ framework to technically assess and provide recommendations on decisions and justifications regarding whether the threshold for initiating EIAs has been met, draft EIA reports, as well as monitoring and review reports. This strengthens transparency and international public participation mechanisms throughout the entire process, from the preactivity EIA stage to during the supervision, while also imposing constraints on advancing the EIA implementation process of the State initiating the activity and managing the formation of the final EIA report. Furthermore, the provisions of elaborated substantive obligations enhance the design of activities, the utility of EIA results, and the transparency of activity decisions. This ensures that flag States fully consider environmental issues while exercising their rights and jurisdiction over resource exploitation processes. For instance, the entity conducting the EIA is mandated to propose measures for preventing, mitigating,and managing the impacts based on the impact assessment, and incorporate them into an environmental management plan. Additionally, conditionalities should also be imposed on the decision to authorize the activity. Specifically, a decision to authorize shall only be made when, taking into account mitigation or management measures, the State Party has determined that it has made all reasonable efforts to ensure that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.9Art. 34(2) of Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.Furthermore, theBBNJ Agreementstipulates requirements for the disclosure of relevant information such as EIA reports and monitoring reports concerning activities conducted within a State’s jurisdiction that may have substantial adverse effects on marine areas outside of that jurisdiction. Although the requirements primarily depend on compliance by coastal States and impose fewer restrictions on the decision-making and regulatory process of activities compared to the regulation of extraterritorial activities, they can still serve as an additional international rule base for the regulation of specific types of severe accidents or polluting activities.

II. Comments on the Main Contents of BBNJ EIA Rules

The BBNJ EIA rules consist of 13 articles, encompassing the following specific provisions: Objectives, scope of application, relationship with other relevant legal frameworks, initiation thresholds, implementation procedures,requirements for public notification and consultation, contents of EIA reports,decision-making, monitoring and reporting and review of follow-up activities and their impacts, establishment of standards and guidelines by the Scientific and Technical Body, and strategic environmental assessment. At the implementation level of the BBNJ EIA rules, the main components include the EIA initiation mechanism, operational mechanism, and regulatory mechanism. Additionally, the EIA public consultation mechanism, which is based on transparency rules, runs throughout the various stages of the EIA implementation process.

A.TriggerMechanism

The trigger mechanism of the EIA is a crucial initial step in triggering the BBNJ EIA process. The BBNJ EIA rules have established a tiered threshold and a graded screening trigger mechanism based on the potential impact of the activity,along with corresponding graded assessment requirements. This mechanism is primarily implemented through domestic procedures of the States Parties (see Figure 1). Specific processes include:

Figure 1 Schematic Diagram of the Implementation Process for the BBNJ EIA Trigger Mechanism13CHM stands for Clearing-house Mechanism; STB stands for Scientific and Technical Body.

(a) Initial stage: Determine the applicable legal framework based on the scope of activities, the region, and environmental factors, to ascertain whether screening and EIA are required under theBBNJAgreementor other relevant legal frameworks. In accordance with Article 29 (4) of the Agreement, there are two specific circumstances in which it is not necessary to repeat the BBNJ EIA. The first circumstance is that a State Party determines that an assessment equivalent10The definition and connotation of “equivalent” were not clearly defined, and the states parties expressed doubts about the meaning of this qualifying term during the negotiation process, with different views on functional equivalence and substantive equivalence. The equivalence of the contents of the EIA report was a basic condition, taking into account the requirements for the submission and publication of the EIA reports and the related monitoring reports. The ambiguity of this terminology creates room for interpretation and development in the application of the rules by the states parties and provides an important point of connection between the interactions of different legal frameworks for EIA.to the EIA requirements outlined in this Agreement has already been conducted in accordance with the applicable legal framework, and the results of this assessment have been taken into consideration in the relevant decision-making process; or a State Party determines that an assessment has been carried out and there is demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the relevant legal framework,institutional regulations, or standards for preventing, mitigating, or managing potential impacts that do not exceed the threshold of “substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes”. In practice, for traditional activities regulated by various international organizations, such as dumping on the high seas regulated by the International Maritime Organization, deep-sea mining regulated by the International Seabed Authority, deep-sea bottom fishing on the high seas managed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and regional fisheries management organizations, as well as activities with EIA conducted under other relevant regional legal instruments or frameworks, if the conditions specified are met, there’s no requirement to undergo a repeat screening or EIA.However, there is an obligation to fulfill reporting duties through a Clearinghouse Mechanism, including the publication of EIA reports, monitoring reports,and review reports. The second circumstance is that a State Party determines that relevant global, regional, subregional, or sectoral institutions have already assessed the potential impacts of the planned activity or activity category. Additionally,the regulations or standards arising from this assessment are designed to prevent,mitigate, or manage potential impacts falling below the threshold of “substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes,” and they have been complied with. In practice, the environmental regulations and standards governing high seas navigation activities under the oversight of the International Maritime Organization,assessments of the environmental impacts of activities such as marine scientific research, submarine cable laying, etc., and related regulations or standards developed by relevant international or regional legal frameworks or institutions,11This situation may also be addressed by future assessments and management measures adopted by other intergovernmental international or regional organizations, such as the OSPAR Commission, the SPREP Convention, the Arctic Council, regional fisheries management organizations, etc., regarding the potential impacts of specific activities. It is important to note that the decision-making authority regarding the criteria for meeting specific circumstances rests with the states parties.as well as assessments of the potential impacts of certain activities in a given region and their related environmental standards by the future BBNJ Conference of the Parties, may be exempted from the obligation to repeat the BBNJ EIA, given that these conditions are deemed to have been complied with by the States Parties.

(b) Screening stage: Determine activities to be included in the EIA screening process based on screening thresholds and related criteria. The applicable threshold for the BBNJ EIA screening stage is “may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment, or the effects of the activity are unknown or poorly understood.” Activities meeting this threshold require conducting a preliminary EIA analysis, while activities not meeting this threshold and other activities that do not require assessment can proceed directly with implementation.The determination of whether screening and EIA thresholds are met should be based on a comprehensive consideration of non-exhaustive factors12Art. 30(2) of Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.listed in the Agreement by the domestic competent authority, or guidance such as specific domestic threshold criteria or checklists could be developed to guide the screening process for both the activity-conducting entity and the domestic competent authority.

(c) Decision stage: Determine if the threshold for initiating an EIA is met based on the results of the preliminary environmental impact analysis at the screening stage, so as to make the decision to conduct an EIA or implement a summary procedure for disclosure of information. The threshold for triggering an EIA is consistent with UNCLOS, i.e. “may cause substantial pollutionof or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment.” The competent authority of the State initiating the activity makes the decision on whether or not to initiate an EIA based on the results of the screening and publishes the decision through the BBNJ Clearing-house Mechanism. Decisions on no need for an EIA, along with the reasoning behind the preliminary analysis and other related information, are subjected to a 40-day international public participation and review process. During this process, the competent authority of the State initiating the activity reviews its screening decision based on considering, responding and addressing the concerns raised by other States, as well as taking into account opinions or recommendations from BBNJ Scientific and Technical Body. Ultimately, the authority determines whether to proceed directly with the implementation of the activity or whether an EIA is necessary.

B.ImplementationProcedures

The scoping, assessment and evaluation of EIAs, the preparation of preventive and mitigation measures and environmental management plans, and consultation with stakeholders, are all within the discretion of the States Parties involved.States Parties should ensure that the concrete operational implementation of the BBNJ EIA process, once initiated, contains the following main steps (see Figure 2): Firstly, the activity conducting entity carries out the scoping of the assessment,perform impact assessment, propose mitigation and management measures, and prepare the EIA report. Additionally, the assessment should consider cumulative impacts and impacts in areas within national jurisdiction. Secondly, the initiating State publishes the draft EIA report through the Clearing-house Mechanism14Before initiating the international notification and consultation process through the BBNJ Clearing-house Mechanism, it is typically required to first submit the draft to the domestic authorities for a preliminary review.and conducts an international public participation and consultation process for a limited period of time, and the BBNJ Scientific and Technical Body reviews and evaluates the draft EIA report, and makes recommendations to the initiating State. Thirdly,the activity initiating entity finalizes and completes the EIA report and submits it to the relevant domestic authorities for review and scrutiny in the domestic decisionmaking process. Afterwards, the domestic regulatory authorities review the activity according to domestic procedures, make a decision on whether to approve the activity, and announce the decision. The final EIA report should also be submitted and published through the Clearing-house Mechanism.

Figure 2 Schematic Diagram of the Implementation Process of the BBNJ EIA Process

Regarding the effectiveness of EIA results in activity decision-making, the EIA results are considered under relevant legal frameworks as one of the important factors to be taken into account in decision-making. Generally, if the EIA results demonstrate that the proposed activity will have significant adverse impacts on the marine environment and biodiversity, it will not be granted authorization. However,there may be variations across different EIA-related institutional frameworks. In current international practices, there are primarily two forms of ex ante EIA. One form involves utilizing EIA as a prerequisite for decision-making regarding the authorization of activities, such as EIA for dumping at sea and EIA for activities in Antarctica. In the case of the Antarctic EIA regime, decisions pertaining to proposed activities are mandated to be founded upon “a comprehensive environmental assessment and other relevant considerations.” The other form is that the EIA report is not used as a prerequisite for the decision-making process of activity implementation applications. Instead, it is required to be submitted before the commencement of the activity, such as EIA for deep-sea minerals exploration activities. However, deep-sea mining activities are governed by a centralized decision-making and unified regulatory model led by an international body, where the EIA report serves as a prerequisite for conducting exploration activities, but its strong efficacy on the decision-making process remains unaffected. TheBBNJ Agreementbasically aligns with the practices of other relevant international legal frameworks for EIA by requiring States Parties to “take full account” of the results of the EIA in their decision-making, to consider mitigation or management measures, and to emphasize that a decision to authorize the implementation of an activity shall only be made when, taking into account mitigation or management measures, the States Parties have determined that they have made all reasonable efforts to ensure that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.

C.SupervisionMechanisms

Based on relevant provisions of Articles 204 to 205 of UNCLOS, the BBNJ EIA rules provide more explicit and detailed regulations regarding the monitoring,reporting, and review supervision by the States Parties after the implementation of activities, as well as the international review and oversight mechanisms(see Figure 3). The monitoring will encompass various aspects, including but not limited to the environmental impacts of activities that are authorized by or involve the participation of States Parties. The scope of activities to be included in the monitoring is not restricted solely to those that have undergone an EIA.Instead, it will encompass all activities. Furthermore, the monitoring will extend to encompass a broader range of effects, such as economic, social, cultural, and human health impacts. TheBBNJAgreementgrants the Scientific and Technical Body the authority to conduct international reviews of monitoring reports and establishes mechanisms for conducting assessments when deemed necessary. If the body identifies potential significant adverse environmental impacts that were not foreseen during the environmental assessment phase or that were resulted from non-compliance with the approving requirements of the jurisdictional State, the Scientific and Technical Body has the right to notify and provide recommendations.Other States Parties also have the option to register their concerns and express their opinions to the State initiating the activity. In addition, the competent authority of the State initiating the activity, as the reviewing body for the activity impact and monitoring reports, has an obligation to notify the international community if it determines the possible existence of unforeseen or new significant adverse impacts.Furthermore, the authority should take appropriate and necessary measures to assess and address these impacts. Closely related to this article is the notification requirement in Article 198 of UNCLOS concerning imminent or actual damage.The subtle difference between the two lies in that the latter imposes an obligation on the initiating State to notify when it becomes aware of an urgent danger of pollution damage or has actually suffered pollution damage. In contrast, the conditions set forth in theBBNJAgreementrequire the determination of significant adverse impacts that are unforeseen or resulted from non-compliance, meaning these impacts have actually occurred. Additionally, other States Parties’ obligation is to notify the initiating State when they consider such significant adverse impacts “may” exist. Consequently, the provisions of theBBNJAgreementexpand the scope and methods of public participation in the EIA system, aiming to enhance risk prevention and public oversight of significant adverse impacts during activity implementation through multiple avenues.

Figure 3 Schematic Diagram of the Implementation Process of the BBNJ EIA Follow-up Monitoring Mechanism

III. The Impact of BBNJ EIA Rules on the States

The formulation and implementation of international rules involve a close and complex interaction between sovereign States. The establishment of the BBNJ international rules signifies the progressive development and evolution of the global legal framework for ocean governance. It also exemplifies the process of horizontal negotiations among States with diverse interests and varying levels of discourse.The process of formulating the BBNJ EIA rules involves States with different levels of capabilities and positions, each playing a varied role in rule creation with different effects. Once international rules are established, the effectiveness of their implementation is closely related to the size of the participating States’ discourse power during rule formulation. The pathways and extent to which different States are influenced by international rules also vary due to factors such as value orientation, interest demands, and domestic political contexts. The BBNJ EIA rules shape and construct a new global governance structure and order for BBNJ by exerting their influence on States’ international discourse, development interests,and domestic systems.

A.ImpactonNationalDiscourse

National discourse is regarded as a State’s right to express its opinions in international interactions, which signifies its capacity and authority to shape international public opinion and influence the development of international situations.15See LIU Xiaoyan & CUI Yuanhang, The Government Discourse Authority and the Longitude-Latitude Logic of International Rules, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 40:10, p.170-182 (2018). (in Chinese)The influence of the BBNJ EIA rules on national discourse primarily manifests in the institutional discourse and discourses of moral or ethical nature (public discourse) that national entities possess within new international mechanisms and governance practices. First and foremost, the status and role of sovereign States in the BBNJ EIA mechanism are intricately linked to their technological capabilities and capacity to develop, utilize, and safeguard BBNJ resources. The BBNJ EIA rules, in essence, do not fundamentally disrupt the international legal framework governing the oceans and seas established around UNCLOS and its balance of interests. These rules largely maintain the dominant role of States oriented to resource exploitation and utilization Simultaneously,efforts are made to strike a balance between the rights of resource exploitation with environmental protection obligations through the implementation of “internationalization” monitoring and transparency mechanisms. Scientific information and emerging technologies related to deep-sea resource exploitation and biodiversity conservation in the high seas will play a central role in the evolution of the BBNJ EIA system and the shaping of its technical standards.States with strong capabilities in deep-sea resource exploitation and utilization,ecological environmental protection, and technological support are more likely to assume leading positions in the governance structure of sustainable BBNJ utilization in the future. On the other hand, nations or interest groups prioritizing marine conservation, including small island States, will gradually enhance their ethical discourse power in BBNJ conservation by virtue of the BBNJ international framework.

Secondly, the active engagement of diverse stakeholders in BBNJ EIA affairs and governance has been increasing, leading to the elevation of their discourse status and influence. The BBNJ EIA rules primarily adhere to a model of Stateled implementation and autonomous decision-making by States. However, they also acknowledge that apart from sovereign States, other diverse entities can hold the status of international interest-related actors. These rules establish a multitiered path for public participation and mechanisms for safeguarding, reinforcing the efficacy of the speaking rights of the most affected parties and the oversight authority of scientific and technical bodies. This is aimed at counterbalancing the discourse authority of flag States’ jurisdiction and balancing individual national interests with global collective interests. It is foreseeable that the adoption of an eco-friendly exploitation approach and comprehensive environmental supervision,based on a precautionary approach and modern environmental concepts, will become the prevailing ideology in the global governance process of BBNJ. As a result, States with robust and advanced environmental protection systems,international organizations with expertise in various aspects of marine biodiversity,regional governance entities, and actors that align closely with the common interests and values of humanity will have a stronger moral standing. They will also gain greater initiative and appeal in shaping the development and evolution of the global governance order of BBNJ.

B.ImpactontheNationalInterest

International rules are intricately intertwined with the national interests, as States shape their identities and define their interests through their engagement with these specific rules. The BBNJ EIA rules have diverse impacts on both global collective interests and State-specific interests, as well as their interrelationships,by striking a balance between the right to exploit resources and the responsibility to safeguard the environment.

First and foremost, national interest represents the underlying principle guiding sovereign States in their interactions with the outside world. Safeguarding and responsibly utilizing the marine environment for the promotion of sustainable development align with the collective interests of all humanity, including present and future generations. The formulation of the BBNJ EIA rules not only reflects the comprehensive value orientation of global environmental and developmental interests, but also provides international legal support for the establishment of a global BBNJ community based on shared interests, responsibilities, and destiny. Moreover, these rules contribute to fostering a new paradigm of integrated development in the exploitation of resources and the governance of the marine environment in ABNJ. In the meantime, theBBNJAgreementgives special consideration16Art. 31(2) of Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. The BBNJ Agreement concerning the joint environmental impact assessments, specifically for planned activities under the jurisdiction or control of small island developing states; and paragraph 3 concerning the establishment of a roster of experts under the Scientific and Technical Body to provide technical support on EIA to states with insufficient capacity.to the individual interests of certain developing States by introducing international cooperation rules that enhance capacity-building, which is in line with its advocacy of a fair and just international economic order under ideal situation. It aims to promote the coordinated development of the overall developmental interests of all mankind and the interests of the global environment,and is in harmony with the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind and the basic connotation of international law of “common prosperity.”17See SHI Yubing, Challenges of Negotiations on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction and China’s Approach——A Perspective of Maritime Community with a Shared Future, Asia-Pacific Security and Maritime Affairs, Vol. 29:1, p.35-50 (2022). (in Chinese)In short, the BBNJ EIA rules find a balance between the short-term localized national interests and the long-term global interests, embodying the opposition and unity of immediate and long-term interests, as well as global interests and national interests, in the BBNJ field.

Secondly, States with varying levels of development and actual conditions have diverse interest orientations and practical needs in the realm of BBNJ conservation and sustainable utilization, and the main challenge lies in balancing the interests of all parties during the formulation, implementation, and evolution of these rules. The distinction between the status of States in the substantive EIA rules does not fully align with the traditional “dichotomy” between developing and developed States. Instead, just a principled emphasis is placed on enhancing capacity-building support for developing States Parties. This is achieved through the Scientific and Technical Body and the Clearing-house Mechanism, providing opportunities for States Parties with limited capabilities to access public goods and services, including scientific information and expert human resources for effective implementation of the EIA. However, there remains a lack of targeted assistance in enhancing the key developmental capabilities such as scientific research and development level and development technology that developing States are most in need of. Simultaneously, this instrument highlights the diversity among subgroups of developing States and the differentiation of their interests. It takes into account the unique interests and needs of States situated in different geographical locations and geopolitical conditions. This includes small island States and neighboring States with exclusive economic zones surrounding the high seas. These States can leverage international public participation mechanisms to translate their inherent rights into institutionalized powers within the framework. Based on the likelihood and nature of potential impacts from activities, neighboring coastal States and neighboring activity States are identified as the most significant stakeholders in the BBNJ EIA process. The EIA rules, guided by the principle of international cooperation, mandate active consultation among the relevant parties during the EIA and implementation of the activity. This aims to ensure an effective balance between the jurisdictions between flag States and coastal States concerning environmental matters, while also considering the legitimate interests of all States in the exploitation and utilization of marine resources. In the future, as diverse actors in the BBNJ field continue to grow and play an crucial role, States will be more inclined to solve issues concerning global common interest through a cooperative portfolio approach, aiming to achieve win-win or multi-win situations to enhance shared benefits.

Thirdly, the BBNJ EIA rules have varying pathways and drivers of impacts on the interests of States with different roles. The implementation of the EIA relies heavily on significant investments in manpower, funding, and resources for activities such as research, monitoring, and investigations. However, there exists a noticeable disparity between developing States and developed States in terms of their awareness of the deep sea, the extent of their activities and capabilities,and the level of their exploitation technology. As global governance of marine exploitation and protection progresses towards higher goals, standards, and technological advancements, there is a growing integration of environmental standards and exploitation technologies. Consequently, the development of a series of standards or guidelines for the EIA implementation process, execution performance, and environmental quality objectives will undoubtedly impose higher demands on developing States in terms of their realization of rights and interests in marine resource exploitation, effective fulfillment of environmental protection obligations, and enhancement of capacity for independent innovation.Under the application of unified EIA standards and best environmental practices,18Furthermore, as stated in paragraph 161 of the Advisory Opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, there is no preferential treatment granted to sponsoring states based on their status as developing states with regard to best environmental practices for activities within the “Area”. Indeed, it implies that a unified standard will be adopted for best environmental practices within the environmental protection regime of the “Area”. The progress of relevant rules deserves significant attention.developing States might face a greater cost burden to obtain the same resource benefits. In cases where BBNJ capacity-building mechanisms struggle to provide substantive support, the vast developing States, especially the least developed States, could find themselves in a more disadvantaged competitive position within the future international economic order of the high seas. For major powers in ocean utilization, the BBNJ EIA rules serve as an activity-based pre-licensing management tool that will establish comprehensive access constraints covering environmental conditions, special areas, and activity modes (or technical means)through a series of substantive and procedural requirements, forming a system of activity regulation and technical standard rules with effective control and oversight.Under the combined effect of the rules related to regional strategic EIA, cumulative impact assessment, and area-based management tools, the scope, modalities, and intensity of traditional activities and the management of their impacts will be subject to corresponding constraints. This, in turn, can impact or constrain the development space for activities of major maritime powers. Simultaneously, the BBNJ EIA rules will drive and upgrade traditional marine resource exploitation methods towards a greener and more ecologically friendly manner. This promotion is in response to the growing international demand for higher protection standards for the deep-sea environment in the high seas. For coastal States, BBNJ is an issue that integrates political, economic, scientific and technological, and environmental concerns, and the deep and distant oceans are crucial strategic frontiers for maintaining maritime security and expanding maritime interests. Being geographically adjacent to the high seas, coastal States have both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, they are more sensitive to the environmental impacts stemming from activities in the nearby high seas, which can lead to a reduction in their environmental interests. On the other hand, as primary stakeholders in EIAs,these States can leverage transparency rules and international public consultation and negotiation procedures to establish a legal basis and formal mechanisms for expanding their jurisdiction over environmental matters, partake in decisionmaking, and exercise oversight. This, in turn, enables them to gain favorable institutional discourse or relevant political benefits. On the contrary, coastal States that are geographically disadvantaged face relatively weak guarantees of relevant rights. As they seek to expand their strategic development space into the deep and distant oceans in the future, they will encounter more factors constraining their efforts and increased uncertainty and risks. Their engagement in international governance of BBNJ and the preservation of maritime rights will require them to incur corresponding costs in terms of adhering to rules and mechanisms.

C.ImpactontheDomesticInstitutions

The domestic legitimacy of international norms is a significant variable in assessing their impact on a State. The acceptance and endorsement of these norms at the national institutional level serves as a crucial source of authority for international rules. Throughout the interaction between international norms and domestic institutions, there is a continuous shaping and coordination of the behavior, goals, and policies of State actors. The BBNJ EIA system is a comprehensive system comprising principles, rules, procedures, and mechanisms that govern and guide the conduct of State actors in fulfilling their EIA obligations.This system holds sway over the international institutional landscape, domestic institutional growth, and national regulatory practices concerning environmental regulation across diverse activities.

From a national compliance standpoint, theBBNJAgreementexplicitly mandates that the States Parties shall undertake appropriate legislative,administrative, or policy actions to effectively implement the Agreement. While many States have established relatively comprehensive domestic legal frameworks for EIAs within their jurisdiction, the standardized assessment process of the BBNJ EIA takes into account the prevailing domestic EIA practices. However, there exist distinct variations among States in terms of their understanding and adherence to international norms. The EIA system, driven by an obligation-centric approach,delineates the scope of responsibilities for States in the transformation, introduction,and application of new rules. Under the BBNJ EIA rules, the obligations of States Parties can be divided into two categories: Obligations to ensure and direct obligations. The former encompasses the establishment of domestic EIA systems applicable to ABNJ, implementation procedures, mechanisms for information disclosure and consultations, as well as mechanisms for reviewing activity impacts as required by the Agreement. The latter involves actions by the States Parties’competent authorities, such as screening based on specific rules, releasing EIA reports, making decisions on activity authorization, monitoring activity impacts,submitting periodic monitoring reports, publishing review reports, and fulfilling duties related to reviewing, notifying, and taking action in cases of new significant adverse impacts. The implementation of the above obligations requires States to transform and align international rules into domestic rules based on a unified domestic political consensus, that is, domestic institutionalization. Simultaneously,different States exhibit varying degrees of recognition and domestic institutionalization of international rules across different issue domains. Each State advances their domestic institutional reforms at their own pace and according to their domestic social dynamics and developmental needs, driving the construction and enhancement of the domestic BBNJ EIA system. Furthermore, it is imperative to strengthen the alignment of objectives within relevant sectors such as fisheries,shipping, and deep-sea resource exploitation and preservation, with the overarching global goals under the BBNJ framework. This will contribute to the enhancement of effective governance systems for various extraterritorial activities and facilitate their integration into the broader international standards framework.

From the perspective of activity regulation, proponents of activities typically serve as the actual implementers of obligations such as EIA, information disclosure and consultation, and monitoring under the States Parties’ obligations to ensure.To ensure that the behavior of activity conducting entity aligns with the BBNJ EIA rules and standards, States Parties need to establish a complementary domestic system of BBNJ EIA standards and norms. This is necessary to fulfill the State’s obligations under the EIA rules and to strengthen the centralized management and environmental regulation of activities within their jurisdiction and control.Under the framework of theBBNJAgreement, a series of procedural and technical implementation standards, guidance documents, and best practices will be developed concerning screening threshold criteria, transboundary and cumulative impact assessments, public notification and consultation, monitoring and reporting,strategic EIA, etc. These standards or guidelines may directly address the scope of rights and obligations of implementing entities in the EIA process and their behavioral efficacy. They will also provide fundamental guidance and important directions for activity conducting entities to conduct their EIA processes.

IV. Response from China’s Perspective

The rule of law at the national and international levels is intricately interconnected and mutually influential.19See YE Quan, China’s Role in Reforming the Global Ocean Governance System,International Review, Vol. 41:5, p. 74-106 (2022). (in Chinese)International rules have a profound impact on domestic institutions, while domestic legal practices possess the potential to influence or even reshape international norms. The process of a State’s integration into the international governance system is not solely about the incorporation of new elements of international governance that bring about changes within the State. It is also a reciprocal process wherein the State exerts its influence on the international elements. Based on China’s role and interests in the BBNJ field, promoting the implementation and development of BBNJ EIA rules aligns perfectly with China’s position as a responsible major nation, and also corresponds to China’s mission of fostering a global maritime community with a shared future.China has been an active participant and advocate in the formulation of theBBNJ Agreementand EIA rules. Faced with new opportunities and challenges, China needs to further coordinate the development of international and domestic EIA rules, and enhance its capacity and expertise in ocean governance.

A.InternationalCountermeasures

Firstly, we should strengthen our capacity to interpret and apply international EIA rules. The BBNJ EIA procedural rules are relatively explicit and detailed, with many technical rules and standards being neutrally formulated. They are not meant to be applied mechanically, and they possess a degree of flexibility in interpretation,such as threshold criteria, impact assessment, and mitigation measures. Amidst the global trend towards green and low-carbon transformation in ocean resource and energy development, China’s continuous advancement in deep- and distantocean technological capabilities and accumulating practical experience foreshadow a future where green development technologies will emerge as a pivotal aspect of inter-State competition over maritime interests. This will give rise to a new battleground, where rule-based conflicts, technological advancements, ethical considerations, and public opinion will intertwine, forming the basis for future competition in the BBNJ field. In any case, as a major power engaged in marine activities, China must elevate its green technological innovation capabilities. China should focus on transforming the concept of the “maritime community with a shared future,” aligning its international discourse,20Ibid.and enhancing its ability to lead in “Best Available Technology”, “Best Environmental Practice”, and “Good Industry Practice”. China should also strengthen its ability to interpret and apply international EIA rules, and effectively employ the rules of international law in response to the various environmental barriers21See WANG Chuanliang & ZHANG Yanqiang, The Relationship between a Community with Shared Future for Mankind and Development of International Law of the Sea — From the perspective of Establishing the BBNJ International Agreement, Journal of Jiangsu University (Social Science Edition), Vol. 25: 1, p. 73-85 (2023). (in Chinese), legal challenges, and public opinion pressures that it faces in the course of fulfilling its international obligations,so as to safeguard its own rights and interests in the oceans and seas.

Secondly, we should enhance our capacity to integrate applicable EIA-related legal systems. With numerous international rules evolving and emerging in the maritime domain, the struggle for dominance between BBNJ rules and other regulations is becoming increasingly significant. The functions of international organizations responsible for BBNJ-related matters often overlap or intersect, and regional bodies like fisheries management organizations are also addressing crosscutting BBNJ issues.22See LI Jie, Functions and trends of regional ocean mechanism under BBNJ global governance, Chinese Journal of Maritime Law, Vol. 32: 4, p. 80-87 (2021). (in Chinese). There are variations in specific objectives and standard thresholds among different EIA rules. TheBBNJAgreementand the EIA rules have outlined preliminary relationships with relevant legal documents, frameworks, as well as global, regional, and sector-specific institutions. Effective implementation of EIA rules shouldn’t replace or duplicate existing EIA frameworks; instead,it should involve coordinated and integrated efforts. Given the evident global competition landscape and the evolving nature of BBNJ conservation and sustainable utilization, enhancing the ability to integrate and apply complex rules in interconnected domains becomes essential, which is crucial for fostering the harmonious advancement of multi-level and multi-center global ocean governance.

Thirdly, we should enhance our capacity to participate in and influence the development of international soft law on EIA. The BBNJ EIA technical recommendations, procedural norms, guidelines for conduct, and other “soft law” are important components of the BBNJ EIA system. These “soft law” documents for EIA, with their strong ethical or interest-oriented and practiceguiding functions, will play an important complementary and supplementary role in improving and effectively applying formal international rules. In a context where developed States hold technological advantages and dominate the international rule-making landscape, active engagement by developing States and emerging maritime powers in international consultations and negotiation processes related to the development of international “soft law” on EIA becomes a crucial avenue for safeguarding their interests through the power of international law. In the field of EIA, numerous countries have already amassed widespread and rich practical experience. The rapid advancement and development of technical soft law rules are underway. As a major developing State, China should proactively engage in and strengthen its capacity to develop soft law rules on EIA. Additionally, China should support the establishment of decision-making, procedural, and personnel systems within international organizations, aiming to enhance its ability to design complementary and supportive systems related to EIA. Furthermore, China should strive to amplify the representation and voice of developing States in the core mechanism of rule interpretation and revision.

Fourthly, we should facilitate the broad involvement of diverse actors in the BBNJ governance process. The legislative process of the BBNJ international agreement fully demonstrates the important role and function of international actors, such as international and regional organizations or institutions, other than sovereign States. With the assistance of an open and inclusive multilateral platform for international rules, a diverse array of actors are becoming increasingly engaged in the process of shaping and advancing global rules and governance systems.Public participation and informed decision-making constitute the core values of the BBNJ EIA process, and the participation of a wide range of stakeholders throughout the process is formalized and guaranteed by mechanisms within the EIA rules. Therefore, it is imperative for the State to maintain a strong and efficient collaboration and interaction with various entities, including non-governmental organizations, scientific research institutions, academic research groups, developers,etc. By leveraging the extensive, in-depth, and multi-level involvement of various domestic stakeholders in the process of formulating and implementing international rules and norms, China can promote beneficial governance practices and contribute to the formation and development of environmental regulations within global,regional, and bilateral governance frameworks.

B.DomesticResponse

Firstly, we should accelerate the alignment of domestic rules. The foreignrelated EIA system in the domestic BBNJ field currently suffers from legislative gaps and inadequate regulation. These shortcomings render it incapable of meeting the compliance requirements and practical needs that will arise upon the enforcement of theBBNJAgreement. The organic connection and two-way interaction between domestic and international rules are vital foundations for elevating the legal framework for regulating extraterritorial activities, addressing legal risk challenges, and engaging in international rule-making dynamics.Therefore, it is imperative to expedite the development and revision of relevant domestic laws, regulations, and norms. China should work on the establishment of a comprehensive and systematic framework that encompasses aspects such as marine environmental protection and deep-sea resource exploitation. This framework should include rules for initiating and conducting BBNJ EIA,international transparency standards, mechanisms for international consultation and negotiation, and rules for extraterritorial activity governance, and other legal systems and supporting technical standards and norms, ensuring that there are laws to abide by in terms of the EIA and regulation of extraterritorial activities.

Secondly, we should enhance the management and coordination mechanisms.The implementation of BBNJ EIA rules fundamentally revolves around regulating environmental issues, with far-reaching implications for the future international economic, political, and legal order of oceans and seas. This process also pertains to the allocation of resource interests and the spatial arrangement of development among sovereign States. Therefore, it is necessary to promote the reform of the institutional mechanism for ocean governance at the national level, improve the comprehensive coordination mechanism for BBNJ affairs and the risk response mechanism,23See DAI Ying, The BBNJ International Agreement and China’s Response from the Perspective of Overall National Security Concept, Social Sciences in Guangxi, Vol. 39: 1,p. 26-33 (2023). ( in Chinese)integrate development and security, and centralize the scheduling and coordination of various types of policy tools to ensure the effective application of domestic laws and international law rules to safeguard the sovereignty, security,and development interests of the State in the BBNJ field. The construction and implementation of the BBNJ EIA management system require careful coordination among various sectors and industries, as it involves the interplay of regulatory objectives and methods in fields such as natural resources, ecological environment,fisheries, maritime affairs, etc. It is necessary to improve the mechanism of crosssectoral compliance coordination and collaboration and integrate and mobilize the advantages of professionals, data, information, and financial resources to promote synergies in the management of BBNJ affairs.

Thirdly, we should strengthen the construction of a technical support system.As environmental regulations for the exploitation of deep and distant ocean resources become more stringent, the adoption of green development techniques and eco-friendly practices is increasingly becoming a fundamental requirement in the field of BBNJ conservation and sustainable utilization. This requirement applies throughout the entire process and fields, including exploitation access, technical standards, codes of conduct, and supervision and management. Sound scientific and technological innovation system, green development technology and equipment system, environmental management supervision and service guarantee system, etc.,are necessary guarantees to ensure the effective implementation of BBNJ EIA and management, as well as the smooth implementation of resource exploitation and environmental protection.

V. Conclusions

The conclusion and subsequent implementation of theBBNJAgreementwill significantly contribute to the ongoing evolution of the global maritime legal framework, with a primary focus on international law instruments, including UNCLOS. The BBNJ EIA rules, anchored in a pre-EIA process, have established a unified framework for BBNJ environmental management. These rules provide precise and explicit guidelines, standards, and procedural foundations for fulfilling the EIA obligations under UNCLOS, facilitating the harmonization of pertinent legal frameworks and fostering the equitable attainment of BBNJ conservation and sustainable utilizations.

The BBNJ EIA rules emphasize regulating and reconciling the relationship between the resource exploitation rights enjoyed by sovereign States and their obligations for environmental protection. This directly impacts States’ international discourse, maritime interests, and domestic systems in the realm of global ocean governance, and will play a pivotal role in shaping and establishing the legal order and political-economic landscape for the governance of resources and biodiversity in the high seas and deep sea in the future. The developmental trajectory of the BBNJ EIA rules system, along with the parallel progress in related domains, warrants ongoing attention and in-depth research regarding their impact mechanisms and pathways on States. In order to safeguard national interests in strategic resources in the deep and distant oceans and to expand the space for the development of the marine economy, it is essential to consider both global and domestic conditions. This entails integrating resources and technological advantages, addressing weaknesses, bridging gaps, and filling voids. By doing so, we can effectively merge the nation’s special interests in the BBNJ field with the common interests of the international community, thereby fostering a joint development.

Translators: CHEN Cong, YAN Lilan

Editor (English): HUANG Yuxin