第二届“国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的国际立法”学术研讨会综述

冯金龙 雷丽萍

当前，国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性养护和可持续利用问题国际协定（以下简称“BBNJ 协定”）谈判是最重要的国际海洋立法进程之一。为了系统分析BBNJ 协定谈判的现状及目前所面临的诸多法律挑战，并尝试从法律和科学等多个视角为我国参加相关谈判提供智力支持。2022 年11 月11 日，由中国海洋发展基金会、自然资源部海洋发展战略研究所、厦门大学法学院主办，厦门市海洋发展局、福建海洋可持续发展研究院（厦门大学）协办，厦门大学南海研究院、福建省社会科学研究基地海洋法与中国东南海疆研究中心承办的第二届“国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的国际立法”学术研讨会（以下简称“研讨会”）通过线上方式成功举办。在国际交往因疫情受限的背景下，作为厦门国际海洋周暨厦门国际海洋论坛的一部分，本届研讨会采用线上方式举行，会议语言为中英文双语并配有同声传译，共有15 位海内外专家学者围绕会议主题、联系实践做主旨报告并进行讨论交流。

本届研讨会开幕式由自然资源部海洋发展战略研究所所长张海文主持，自然资源部国际合作司司长陈丹红、外交部条约法律司副司长苟海波、中国海洋发展基金会副理事长兼秘书长潘新春、厦门大学法学院副院长朱晓勤出席会议并致辞。

一、包括海洋保护区在内的划区管理工具与跨领域问题

本届研讨会的第一个议题为“包括海洋保护区在内的划区管理工具与跨领域问题”，由自然资源部国际合作司处长王安涛主持，上海海洋大学海洋文化与法律学院教授唐议、中国大洋矿产资源研究开发协会高级工程师高岩、日本东北大学副教授西本健太郎（Kentaro Nishimoto）、武汉大学中国边界与海洋研究院教授蒋小翼、华东政法大学国际法学院副教授郑雷、皮尤慈善信托基金会（Pew Charitable Trusts）公海海洋生物保护官员、澳大利亚卧龙岗大学博士研究生尼古拉·克拉克（Nichola Clark）、海南大学公共管理学院教授姜秀敏以及厦门大学南海研究院博士研究生庄媛围绕该议题分别进行了富有成果的讨论。

（一）国家管辖范围以外包括海洋保护区的划区管理工具全球规则——BBNJ 协定与相关法律文书、框架和机构的合作与协调

上海海洋大学海洋文化与法律学院教授唐议做了题为“国家管辖范围以外包括海洋保护区的划区管理工具全球规则——BBNJ 协定与相关法律文书、框架和机构的合作与协调”的报告。唐议教授首先指出，包括海洋保护区（Marine protected area，以下简称“MPA”）的划区管理工具（Area-based management tools，以下简称“ABMTs”）是指导BBNJ 协定谈判的2011 年“一揽子计划”的四要素之一，也是受到国际社会高度关注的议题。

其次，唐议教授介绍了现有关于国家管辖范围以外ABMTs的相关法律文书、框架以及全球、区域和次区域、部门机构（以下简称“IFB”）的现状。例如，1994年《关于执行1982 年12 月10 日〈联合国海洋法公约〉第十一部分的协定》中规定了特别环境利益区、影响参照区、保护参照区，当前在克拉里昂—克利珀顿区建有9 个特别环境利益区。1995 年《联合国鱼类种群协定》尽管没有直接规定ABMTs，但弥补了《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称“《公约》”）在鱼类种群养护与管理方面的不足。《国际防止船舶造成污染公约》及相关协定中规定了特别区域、特别敏感区，当前在地中海、南极建有2 个特别区域。《国际捕鲸管制公约》规定了鲸保护区，区域渔业管理组织或安排设置了保护脆弱海洋生态系统的禁渔区，区域海洋协定或项目中规定了海洋保护区，南极海洋生物资源养护委员会规定了禁渔区和海洋保护区，并于2010 年和2017 年分别建立了一个海洋保护区。

再次，唐议教授回顾了从2017 年筹备委员会会议到第五次政府间会议谈判中关于ABMTs 的IFB 的演进过程，案文条款在形式和内容上均变化频繁。从发展的脉络来看，在预备委员会通过的建议当中将ABMTs 的IFB 作为单独一个部分，在第一次和第二次政府间会议谈判当中作为要处理的事项，在第三次和第四次政府间会议谈判中主席文件作为单独一条。最新的主席案文中，ABMTs 的IFB 不再单独作为一条，而是并入到第19 条“决策”当中。唐议教授认为，最新的主席案文对原第15 条与第19 条进行了充分、全面的融合，使得关于包括MPA在内的ABMTs 的国际合作与协调更加务实，体现在BBNJ 协定的缔约方会议与相关IFB 的职权分工中，然而国际合作与协调的重要性在形式上被弱化，因为它不再作为单独的一条，而是被融合在第19 条当中。最新的主席案文试图扩大BBNJ 协定的缔约方会议在建立包括MPA 的ABMTs 和相关措施方面的授权。

此外，唐议教授认为应在案文中明确规定，只有在没有相关IFB 具有建立包括MPA 的ABMTs 或相关措施职权的情况下，BBNJ 协定的缔约方会议才能就建立包括MPA 在内的ABMTs 和相关措施作出决定。缔约方会议在建立包括MPA 的ABMTs 和相关措施方面的决策机制应当是协商一致。他以MPA 与渔业资源养护的关系为例，认为更加专业的区域渔业机构能够更恰当地处理渔业问题，而不是通过一个庞大的全球性的综合机构，尤其是在多数票决的决策机制下，这很难解决实际问题。

（二）国际海底区域区域环境管理计划的进展

中国大洋矿产资源研究开发协会高级工程师高岩做了题为“国际海底区域区域环境管理计划的进展”的报告。高岩高工首先介绍了区域环境管理计划（Regio nal environmental management plan，以下简称“REMP”）的背景知识，深海采矿活动可能导致生物多样性的丧失，作为管理深海矿产资源的权威组织，国际海底管理局应组织和控制与矿产资源有关的活动，同时要确保有效保护环境免受区域内环境可能所产生的有害影响，这是《公约》第145 条规定的关于国际海底管理局任务的一个重要部分。REMP 为国际海底管理局、担保国和承包商做出明智的决策，其提供明确和一致的机制来确定需要保护的地区或地点，并提供适当水平的保护，ABMTs 也将在制定和实施REMP 中发挥重要的作用。

其次，高岩高工介绍了东太平洋克拉里昂—克利帕顿断裂区多金属结核保留区（Clarion-Clipperton Zone，以下简称“CC 区”）开发的REMP，大致可分为四个阶段：第一阶段是夏威夷大学组织的卡普兰项目，在科学认识的基础之上设计特别环境利益区（Areas of particular environmental interest，以下简称“APEI”）并且提出REMP 的建议，最重要的部分是建立一个由9 个APEI 组成的保护区网络，在这个提案被国际海底管理局采纳之后，建立了CC 区的REMP，而后经过三年的实施和五年的审查，增加四个APEI 的提案在2021 年获得批准。APEI 也是深海的第一个ABMT，通常是被描述为拥有自我维持的种群和广泛的生境变化的大区域。自2016 年起，CC 区的REMP 开始审议。审查包括四个部分：（1）审查和分析来自CC 区的最新海底生态系统数据；（2）分析CC 区内海底和海底边界层生物多样性、群落结构、物种范围、遗传连通性、生态系统功能和生境异质性的模式；（3）评估与勘探合同区域相关的APEI 的代表性；（4）确定可添加更多具有代表性的APEI 的区域。

高岩高工还介绍了北大西洋中脊开发的REMP，这一计划始于2018 年在波兰举办的专家研讨会，2019 年在葡萄牙举办了专家研讨会，2021 年又举办了线上研讨会，在2021 年5 月份法律和技术委员会组成工作组起草REMP，并将草案提交给理事会，2022 年9 月获得理事会的批准。其中，包括11 个需要保护的地点和3 个需要保护的区域，9 个需要采取预防措施的地点和区域。

最后，高岩高工总结了REMP 的经验：一是先就使用场地和网络标准实验的粗规模APEI 的区域，需要与保护的细规模场地的REMP 相组合，从而满足广泛的代表生境保护和脆弱场地保护的需要；二是分区的方案，比如像核心区、缓冲区，简单的保护区需要保护连续的生境和梯度，保护生物和遗传连接性；三是REMP在不同地区和矿产类型会有不同，需要采取不同的方法和门槛，以确保有效的管理，即在不同的区域需要不同的REMP。

（三）BBNJ 协定是如何影响相关法律文书、框架与机构的？——关于划区管理工具条款的评析

日本东北大学副教授西本健太郎（Kentaro Nishimoto）做了题为“BBNJ 协定是如何影响相关法律文书、框架与机构的？——关于划区管理工具条款的评析”的报告。西本副教授首先阐释了当前ABMTs 的三种模式，分别是全球模式、混合模式以及区域模式。尽管这三个模式推动了BBNJ 协定谈判方的前进，但是距离BBNJ 协定达成越来越近之时，需要关注此协定会给缔约方带来何种义务。

其次，西本副教授分析了当前BBNJ 协定案文中与IFB 协调的机制，其中一个就是建立机构协调程序，例如在第48 条第5 项中要求建立适当程序等方式，促进与相关IFB 之间的合作与协调。尽管这个规定不够明确，但相应的机制已经在BBNJ 协定中得到体现。

再次，西本副教授又分析了BBNJ 协定对IFB 可能产生的影响。例如第6 条关于国际合作的规定，要求同时也是相关法IFB 的缔约方，在参与IFB 之下的决策时，应努力促进本协定的宗旨。这是在第四次政府间会议谈判后新加入案文草案的，确立起国际合作的一般义务适用于整个条约的原则，同时合作的情形是具体的，即在参与IFB 决策时；而缔约方的义务则由于使用“努力”一词被减轻。又如第20 条第1 款采用了“确保”一词，来确定IFB 以及BBNJ 协定的一致性，第20 条第4 款要求缔约方应促进其加入IFB 采取措施，以支持落实缔约方会议根据该部分规定所作出的决定和所给出的建议，这比第6 条中的要求更为严苛。另外，BBNJ 协定下的缔约方大会对包括在区域渔业管理组织内的IFB 应采取哪些措施上发挥了较强的协调作用，为实现跨不同部门在国家管辖范围以外区域的协调治理方面迈出了重要的一步，而案文第20 条第4 款将为确保实现协调一致的治理提供法律的基础。与此同时，它也会产生一些负面的影响，因为它会和现有区域渔业管理组织产生冲突，具体体现在BBNJ 协定如果获得通过并生效，但没有得到广泛批准的话，区域渔业管理组织内部就会存在立场两极化的风险。

最后，西本副教授建议应继续研究全球、区域或部门的方法，将它们进行适当的融合，既能够致力于国家管辖范围以外区域治理的协调性，同时也不损害IFB。根据最新案文草案所采用的方法，BBNJ 协定所规定的在IFB 进行决策时合作的义务，是促使各国朝着该协定所引领的方向做出努力的重要机制。然而，尽管人们希望这将有助于协调一致的海洋治理，但BBNJ 协定会给现有IFB 的决策带来更多困难。

（四）BBNJ 协定划区管理工具的临时与紧急措施

武汉大学中国边界与海洋研究院教授蒋小翼做了题为“BBNJ 协定划区管理工具的临时与紧急措施”的报告。蒋小翼教授首先概述了BBNJ 协定谈判中关于临时与紧急措施的进展，此想法最初是由一些非政府组织在筹备委员会会议期间提出的，但是直到第四次政府间会议，新西兰在其文本提案中提及，小组委员会才对临时和紧急措施进行了讨论，但未引起足够的重视。在第五次政府间会议中，代表们围绕临时和紧急措施进行了激烈的讨论并达成了一定共识，然而一些关键问题还有待进一步讨论。

其次，蒋小翼教授探讨了临时和紧急措施的必要性。如今，与气候变化有关的事件和由人类所引起的紧急情况越来越多且更加难以预测，这些紧急事件所造成的生态破坏是难以恢复的，对海洋的前沿利用，如与气候相关的海洋地球工程、海底采矿等带来了新的挑战。建立MPA 的过程既耗时又复杂，因此在MPA 管理生效之前，有必要采取应对紧急情况的措施，适当的紧急措施将有助于BBNJ 的养护。

最后，蒋小翼教授对临时和紧急措施的三个关键问题作了分析：第一，预防性的方法和原则需要整合或纳入相关文本，要求考虑环境科学和风险管理方面的不确定性，不应以缺乏充分的科学确定性为由，推迟采取具有成本效益的措施来防止环境退化；第二，应精简当前案文中关于门槛的规定，可以改成“只有在紧急、特殊和不寻常的情况下才能采取紧急措施”，门槛应当是明确且严格的，否则这些措施可能会干扰公海上的正常行动；第三，尽管缔约方会议应当采取紧急措施，但这些措施不应损害《公约》和其他IFB 赋予权利，例如，BBNJ 协定中的紧急措施不应损害国家的合法权益和国家对船舶的专属管辖权。

（五）BBNJ 议题中相关国际组织的环境养护职能合作与协调问题研究

华东政法大学国际法学院副教授郑雷做了题为“BBNJ 议题中相关国际组织的环境养护职能合作与协调问题研究”的报告。郑雷副教授首先概述了BBNJ 议题中所涉及的国际组织，一是国际海事组织，其主要职能是负责航运安全以及防止船舶污染海洋和大气，国际海事组织的工作同样支持联合国可持续发展目标的实现；二是区域渔业组织，现有对公海渔业的管理主要依靠区域渔业管理组织，区域渔业组织已成为实现《公约》中保护与合作原则的重要国际机构；三是《生物多样性公约》，作为一项具有法律约束力的国际条约，其主要解决三个问题：保护生物多样性、可持续利用生物多样性以及公正合理分享由利用遗传资源所产生的惠益；四是区域性公海保护区，目前已有四个区域性的公海保护区；五是国际海底管理局，其对“区域”的专属管辖权，任何国家不应对“区域”的任何部分或其资源主张或行使主权或主权权利，任何国家或自然人或法人，也不应将“区域”或其资源的任何部分据为己有。

其次，郑雷副教授论述了协调相关国际组织职能的三种模式：第一，全球模式，指全球性机构主导并负责管理实施BBNJ 中公海保护区的模式，该模式不仅有利于BBNJ 的统一执行和监管，也有助于保障各国广泛参与到公海保护区的建立过程中，能够避免区域性公海保护区建立时，区域外国家无法参与的问题，而其弊端是建立新的全球机构会不可避免地增加新的管理成本，同时新的机构是否能够协调好与既有国际机构之间的关系还存在不确定性；第二，混合模式，该模式分为两种：一是由全球决策，区域机构执行，由于全球决策机构的存在，这可能有利于保障成员国的参与权，有利于公海保护区全球的整体规划和设计，消除“马赛克化”，但无法影响各国既有国际组织的执行，同时由于要设立新的全球决策机构，可能会增加新的成本，二是由全球层面提供指导，区域机构执行和决策，这样能够做到公海保护区全球的整体规划和设计，但需要既有国际组织的支持和配合，由于没有全球机构的存在，区域外国家可能无法影响一些区域性国际组织建立公海保护区的决策，无法让区域外国家有效参与；第三，“部门+区域模式”，指区域性机构主导并执行，BBNJ 新文书将提供关划区管理工具的一般原则和处理办法，同时确认区域和部门组织在决策、监测和审查方面的充分权威，而不是由全球机制监督，该模式有利于BBNJ 的灵活执行，能够充分利用现有的国际组织，一般不会发生新机构与既有机构之间的冲突问题，但它不利于整合现有的公海保护区或类似实践，不利于消除海洋保护区的“马赛克化”，也不利于促进海洋保护区的整体管理。

最后，郑雷副教授提出了合作的可能路径：一是坚持养护和可持续利用的平衡，二是适用合作义务，三是在可对相关海域进行可持续利用的情况下，强化公海经济利用组织的环保标准，四是与现有国际组织的职权不冲突，并弥补现存国际机制中真正的空白。

（六）BBNJ 协定的体制安排

皮尤慈善信托基金会公海海洋生物保护官员、澳大利亚卧龙岗大学博士研究生（尼古拉·克拉克）Nichola Clark 做了题为“BBNJ 协定的体制安排”的报告。克拉克首先介绍了BBNJ 协定的体制安排概况，包括缔约方会议、科学和技术机构、秘书处以及其他可能的附属机构，例如能力建设和海洋技术转让、供资、遵约、惠益分享、监测和审查等委员会。但是，这些BBNJ 协定下的机构将如何与其他IFB 进行协调，以及BBNJ 协定将在海洋治理组织中处于何种地位，是机构讨论中的重要议题。其次，克拉克分析了2022 年BBNJ 协定谈判中关于体制安排的主要进展：第一，谈判中的体制安排方面最大的变化之一是从“全球”“区域”“混合”术语本身转向了这些不同机构的功能和权力上；第二，BBNJ 协定下的其他附属机构正在获得支持，包括惠益分享、能力建设和技术转让、信息交换机制、供资机制、执行和遵守机制等。

最后，克拉克列举了若干体制安排方面悬而未决的关键问题：第一个需要关注的问题是“不损害”，如何在不损害的情况下进行合作与协调需要一种微妙的平衡，其中不损害就是不与IFB 重叠，还有就是不能弱化IFB；第二个需要关注的问题是决策方式，有些国家主张通过投票决定，有些则主张通过协商一致的方式；第三个需要关注的问题是所谓的“退出机制”，大多数区域组织、澳大利亚、新西兰表示反对这一机制，相关问题是否有一种不损害条约工作的“退出机制”程序？是否只适用于ABMTs，还是整个条约？这些在案文当中还没有相应的规定；第四个需要关注的问题是细节性问题，一方面是诸如议事规则、委员会组成、委员会特别是科学委员会成员的资格要求被推迟决议，另一方面是诸如秘书处和科学委员会的形式还未确定。

（七）BBNJ 国际协定与中国对公海渔业资源保护的贡献

海南大学公共管理学院教授姜秀敏做了题为“BBNJ 国际协定与中国对公海渔业资源保护的贡献”的报告。姜秀敏教授首先分析了《公约》下公海渔业资源治理的三个新挑战：一是《公约》的理论核心受到质疑，最高可持续产量原则是《公约》的核心概念，其定义为在正常情况下该海域渔业可获得的最高可持续产量，然而最高可持续产量原则忽略了渔业自身种群的信息，例如产卵期、年龄结构、增长率等；二是《公约》规则供应不足，例如未规定鱼类洄游研究和历史性权利的相关概念，没有考虑到日益严重的气候问题，忽视海洋环境保护等；三是《公约》中法律裁决面临困境等，许多国际组织对《公约》下的裁决存在争议，一些缔约国在生物资源保护和边界划定方面违反《公约》的规定。

其次，姜秀敏教授从下述四个方面阐述了BBNJ 协定中关于公海渔业资源养护的争论：一是海洋遗传资源问题，海洋遗传资源具有很高的经济价值，然而在国家管辖范围以外区域的海洋遗传资源开发被视为长期和不确定的项目，而且大多数收益被视为非货币性的，导致它成为一个焦点问题；二是公海保护区问题，原先存在着三种不同的管理模式，目前混合方式和区域方式已逐步成为新协定的共识，除此之外，BBNJ 协定在海洋保护区制度中存在缺乏管理计划等缺陷，直接导致现行公海保护区管理方式多为事后管理；三是环境影响评价制度，以欧盟为代表的“环保派”是BBNJ 国际立法的主要推动者，其目的是借助自身的技术优势来维护国家利益；以美国、俄罗斯为代表的“利用派”则主张公海自由，希望维持现有海洋秩序，欢迎相关国家参与环境评价；77 国集团和中国主张利益共享，即需要考虑到不同国家的特点；四是能力建设和技术转让问题，发展中国家呼吁BBNJ 协定在《公约》能力建设和技术转让相关条款的基础上建立强制性的技术规定，而发达国家则希望有条件的转让。

最后，姜秀敏教授还对中国参与公海渔业资源养护的可行性进行了分析，如中国在国际事务中发挥着独特的建设性作用，且在保护海洋渔业资源方面有着丰富的经验。姜秀敏教授随后提出了中国参与公海渔业资源保护的合作途径，包括在引领全球海洋治理整体布局下开展多层次的友好合作、促进国际软法在渔业政策执行领域上的硬法化以及构建我国渔业治理体系等。

（八）BBNJ 国际协定中的传统知识权利主体问题

厦门大学南海研究院博士研究生庄媛做了题为“BBNJ 国际协定中的传统知识权利主体问题”的报告。庄媛首先分析了BBNJ 协定谈判中各国关于传统知识权利主体的分歧，以太平洋小岛屿发展中国家为代表的谈判方认为土著人民和当地社区（Indigenous Peoples and local communities，以下简称“IPLCs”）是BBNJ国际协定中传统知识的唯一权利主体类型，可称之为“单一权利主体模式”。以中国为代表的谈判方认为BBNJ 国际协定中的传统知识权利主体应当实现多元化定位，不仅包含IPLCs，还应当包括国家在内的其他个人或实体，可称之为“多元权利主体模式”。

其次，庄媛对界定BBNJ 国际协定中传统知识权利主体的理论标准进行了探讨，主要从主体适格性标准和主体确定性标准两个方面进行论述。在主体适格性标准上，单一权利主体模式和多元权利主体模式涵盖的权利主体类型中，IPLCs和国家都具有集体性质，且国家在法律关系中通常被视为公权力主体。即使如此，只要以上主体能够以非强权者的身份享有传统知识专有权，参与传统知识法律关系，就具有成为BBNJ 国际协定中传统知识权利主体的法律资格。在主体确定性标准上，就传统知识权利主体模式选择的理论标准而言，单一权利主体模式和多元权利主体模式涵盖的权利主体类型在符合私权性质的要求时，都能满足主体适格性标准。鉴于BBNJ 国际协定中的传统知识存在归属于民族、国家等其他权利主体类型的可能性，只有多元权利主体模式符合主体确定性标准。

再次，庄媛概述了界定BBNJ 国际协定中传统知识权利主体的立法实践。在国家立法实践上，采取单一权利主体模式的有巴西、秘鲁、菲律宾、孟加拉国和哥斯达黎加等，采取多元权利主体模式泰国、南太平洋地区和肯尼亚等。在国际立法实践上，采取单一权利主体模式的代表是《生物多样性公约》及其框架下的《名古屋议定书》，采取多元权利主体模式的代表是《保护非物质文化遗产公约》与世界知识产权组织（WIPO）框架下的《传统知识的保护：条款草案》。虽然单一权利主体模式和多元权利主体模式都存在丰富的既有实践，但是多元权利主体模式给予传统知识权利主体更为广泛的定义，能够全面涵盖各国立法例中的权利主体类型，并符合国际立法实践的发展趋势，相较于单一权利主体模式更具包容性、灵活性和前瞻性。

最后，庄媛就识别BBNJ 国际协定中传统知识权利主体的制度方案发表了看法，从确定传统知识权利主体的一般原则和例外情形两个方面进行分析。在一般原则层面，传统知识在一般情形下应当归属于创造传统知识的主体，具体类型应由持有传统知识的群体范围决定。由于BBNJ 国际协定中的传统知识是人类活动与海洋生态环境相互作用的产物，持有传统知识的主体通常是沿海IPLCs，少数情况下也可能是个人、家庭、民族、国家等其他实体。在例外情形层面，当发生无法明确BBNJ 国际协定中传统知识的具体持有人或其他例外情形时，传统知识的权利主体应当归属于传统知识所在的国家。

二、环境影响评价、能力建设和海洋技术转让以及跨领域问题

议题二“环境影响评价、能力建设和海洋技术转让以及跨领域问题”由厦门大学南海研究院副院长施余兵教授主持。中国海洋大学法学院教授董跃、自然资源部第三海洋研究所助理研究员姜玉环、浙江大学光华法学院博士后王森、海南大学法学院教授张丽娜、上海交通大学凯原法学院研究员、北大深研院国际法学院客座教授Onur Sabri Durak、挪威特罗姆瑟大学法学院挪威海洋法中心教授Vito De Lucia、厦门大学南海研究院博士研究生肖桐围绕该议题展开了交流与讨论。

（一）BBNJ 国际造法中的国内法因素：以中国为例

中国海洋大学法学院教授董跃做了题为“BBNJ 国际造法中的国内法因素：以中国为例”的报告。董跃教授指出，从研究背景来看，由于BBNJ 国际文本谈判涉及国际法新兴领域，目前对于BBNJ 各个议题的主要理据仍是由各国外交主张加以表达。国内法在国际造法领域发挥着重要的作用，然而各国对于BBNJ 均没有专门的立法，只有关联的法律，例如深海区域矿产资源法、海洋科研的法律规范等。随后，董跃教授提出在BBNJ 国际造法之中，应当如何看待各国国内法作用的问题，并特别指出预留了立法空间的相关法律，例如中国的《深海海底区域资源勘探开发法》（以下简称“《深海法》”）起到何种作用的问题。

随后，董跃教授就上述问题展开详细阐述，介绍了中国《深海法》的预留空间与预设立场：在预留空间方面，从适用范围、具体制度两方面展开，认为预留空间中最重要的是适用范围，即《深海法》的适用范围并不单纯指向矿产资源，也包括生物资源。就具体制度而言，行政许可制度、环境保护制度、科学研究制度、监测及执法等几项制度均可直接适用于未来中国深海生物资源活动；在预设立场方面，《深海法》规定了和平利用、合作共享、保护环境、维护人类共同利益的基本原则，体现了国家主导的基本立场，在国际法框架性规定之下，由国家来行使决策权，确立相关细则，保障实施效果，同时坚持环境保护与开发利用并重，环境保护要求应当与人类认识水平相适应。

最后，董跃教授阐述了深海国内立法与BBNJ 国际造法的关系。既有深海立法对于BBNJ 国际造法的影响包括宣示、示范和增效。通过国内立法宣示对于国际法相关问题的基本立场；以国内法制度如环境影响评价制度为示范，推动国际法及其他国家立法仿效；对于国际造法的潜在发展做出回应，以国家实践推动相关国际法的生效，例如海洋保护区制度、特殊区域环境损害责任等。关于BBNJ 国际造法进程对于各国国内立法的考量，董跃教授提出，国内立法体现了未来国际法实施的基础法律环境；要避免国际造法中脱离实践的“理想主义”，也要充分考虑到绝大多数缔约国的国内立法及实施的实践情况；一些焦点问题，如果从各国现有立法实践角度考察，可能会得到与目前主流观点不太一致的结论；未来BBNJ 国际造法想要顺利完成并且有良好的实践效果，必须尊重各国既有的国内法实践。

（二）BBNJ 协定下的环境影响评价

自然资源部第三海洋研究所助理研究员姜玉环做了题为“BBNJ 协定下的环境影响评价”的报告。她首先简要介绍了BBNJ 协定下环境影响评价（Environmental Impact Assessment，以下简称“EIA”）的基本内涵界定和要素，指出最新案文对于EIA 的定义反映了国家实践中环评的共通特点：EIA 作为前置性程序，与环境跟踪监测评估、后评估或补充环评等措施相区分。EIA 的内容是预测、分析和评估计划活动的潜在影响，以及提出防止与减缓措施。从这个意义来看其是基于活动的管理工具，目的功能是确保主管当局知情决策。从实践经验来看，环评的有效性需要考虑两个方面因素，一是技术维度，评估的过程是运用专业知识的技术服务活动；二是管理层面，审批程序属于行使公共权力的行政行为。

姜玉环助理研究员结合BBNJ 协定政府间会议谈判的总体进展，具体阐述了EIA 规则部分的五个核心问题，包括适用范围、门槛、关系以及国际化、战略环评等，回顾现存的争议问题及相关因素的考虑。她指出，正在谈判的BBNJ 协议环境影响评价在关键问题上取得了总体良好的进展，各方在EIA 程序框架及报告核心组成内容等条款上达成初步一致，例如EIA 一般义务、基本流程、报告内容及对累积和跨界影响的考虑。同时，新的具体提议被纳入文本（如序言、目的、SEA部分）。仍然有争议的中心问题包括：门槛、与相关法律框架的关系、决策、战略环评等。对于即将举行的续会，需要进一步精简案文，提高清晰度、完整性和平衡。

姜玉环助理研究员对报告内容进行总结并提出对未来的展望：首先，EIA 相关新的国际公认科学方法准则有助于促进BBNJ 可持续性利用，同时该框架也是具有价值的公参程序；其次，EIA 规则方法的制定与适用应考虑现实条件和发展需求的限制，尤其需要考虑对发展中国家能力建设的支持；第三，EIA 是决策支持程序，也是预防性措施。BBNJ 的EIA 规则基本上搭建了以EIA 为支柱的BBNJ环境管理系统；第四，EIA 不是国内环评的一种复制，也不是其他现有框架的替代或升级，平衡性和协调性将决定其未来的有效性。国家协调管辖内外以及协调区域政策，是未来协定实施的重要路径，也可能有助于解决跨界问题；最后，仍然存在很多争议性问题有待解决，为了达成协议需要以更加包容和透明的方式改进工作方法，以确保照顾到所有关切，只有这样才能实现BBNJ 的目标。

（三）南极条约体系下的环评制度及对第三方的影响

浙江大学光华法学院博士后王森做了题为“南极条约体系下的环评制度及对第三方的影响”的报告。王森博士在报告中首先对南极条约体系进行概述，包括四个要点：一是南极条约体系并不歧视《公约》项下的条约，这点从《南极条约》第6条可以看出；二是南极条约体系在其管辖范围内有自己具体的特殊规则；三是《公约》与南极条约体系应该有一个互相尊重的框架；四是有很多国家既是《公约》也是南极条约体系的缔约国。

王森博士随后着重阐述了南极条约体系下的环境影响评价制度。《关于环境保护的南极条约议定书》（以下简称“马德里议定书”）第3 条第 2 款（c）项：在南极条约地区的活动应根据充分信息来规划和进行，其充分程度应足以就该活动对南极环境及依附于它的和与其相关的生态系统以及对南极用来从事科学研究的价值可能产生的影响作出预先评价和有根据的判定。《马德里议定书》第8条第1款：下列第2 款所涉及的拟议中的活动应在依照附件一所确定的就该活动对南极环境或依附于它的或与其相关的生态系统的影响进行预先评价的程序并根据此类活动是否确定为具有下列几种影响来进行：（a）小于轻微或短暂的影响；或（b）轻微或短暂的影响；或（c）大于轻微或短暂的影响。《马德里议定书》附件1“环境影响评价”中包括初始阶段、初步环境评价、全面环境评价、基于全面环境评价的决定、监测、信息与传播、紧急情况、修正或修改等八个条款。其中提到：本议定书第八条所提及的拟议中的活动对环境的影响应在活动开始之前按照有关的国内程序加以考虑。如果一项活动被确定具有小于轻微或短暂的影响，则准备初步环境评价报告即可；如果一项活动被确定具有大于轻微或短暂的影响，则应准备全面环境评价报告。王森博士对以上条文进行了详细分析，指出这些条文提供了很详细的环评规则，以及2016 年的1 号决议是关于环评的一些指导原则，并提出其对南极条约体系下EIA 的评价：EIA 是促进改善南极洲环境保护的一个关键因素，在南极条约体系之下的EIA 适用于所有在南极洲的活动，捕鱼、捕鲸、紧急行动等除外。由于当时许多南极条约协商国（以下简称“ATCPs”）尚未制定相关国内法，因此促进了南极条约体系之下的EIA 发展。南极条约体系之下的EIA 发展至今，将被视为一个成熟的模式，可供其他制度学习。

王森博士还就南极条约体系对非缔约第三方的影响展开论述，指出在整个南极条约体系机制中，需要监管缔约方以及非缔约方，这是基本规定。在南极条约体系之下，还有许多方面需要进一步改进。大多数ATCPs 同时也是《公约》的缔约方，都非常积极地参与到BBNJ 的谈判过程中，为了避免不必要的重复，他们可能更愿意等待BBNJ 的结果出来。

（四）BBNJ 协定下能力建设和海洋技术转让的模式

海南大学法学院教授张丽娜做了题为“BBNJ 协议下能力建设和海洋技术转让的模式”的报告。张丽娜教授在报告中首先对能力建设和海洋技术转让（Capacity building and technology transfer，以下简称“CB&TT”）做了简要介绍。CB&TT是BBNJ 政府间会议谈判的四个议题之一，政府间委员会参与国一致同意，CB&TT 对于提高发展中国家履行BBNJ 管理义务能力至关重要，因此CB&TT也被称为BBNJ 其他三个要素的推动者，然而各国对于CB&TT 模式的看法仍有分歧。现有CB&TT 模式是基于《公约》框架的，海洋技术的发展与转让在《公约》框架中出现在第十四部分，主要包括一般性规定、国际合作、国家及区域海洋科技中心、国际组织之间的合作等内容。《公约》第十四部分涉及CB&TT 的内容包括：一是要促进海洋技术知识的获取、评估和传播；二是要发展海洋技术；三是要促进海洋技术的转让；四是要发展人力资源；以及五是要促进国际合作。同时《公约》项下还有其他条款也涉及CB&TT，包括第十一部分“区域”、第十二部分“海洋环境的保护和保全”以及第十三部分“海洋科学研究”。

张丽娜教授随后分析了目前现存模式存在的缺陷。具体来说，一是《公约》的规定并未得到有效执行，虽然《公约》已经预见需要通过科学合作、能力建设和技术转让等相关规定来解决问题，但在《公约》生效40 年间，相关规定仍未得到充分执行，即便在能力建设方面做出了一定努力，但效果并不显著。她认为缔约方的义务太过薄弱，均基于自愿而非强制；二是《公约》没有提供关于体制机制方面的任何细节，除了第十三部分关于国际海底管理局作用的规定之外，《公约》未提供任何关于CB&TT 体制机制方面的细节；三是《公约》没有设置常设的金融机制，要使能力建设工作卓有成效，持续且稳定的融资至关重要，而《公约》主要依靠的是对自愿信托基金和援助基金的自愿捐款，然而这些捐款并未为实施《公约》提供足够的资金；四是《公约》不涉及信息交换机制，其实信息交换机制具有非常重要的功能，缺乏信息交换机制将不利于实现《公约》项下的能力建设和技术转让目标。

张丽娜教授随之提出了完善建议：为了有效地实施CB&TT，从需求评估到规划、实施、评估和跟进形成连续循环是关键。同时，缔约方各国应对CB&TT 负责，建立辅助性机构来负责模式运行。要在新的BBNJ 协定下完成许多工作，这需要获得大量工作资金的支持，所以必须建立相应财务机制来保证协定执行。在BBNJ 协定下的CB&TT 需要信息交换机制的协助，信息交换机制可以作为一个中央集成化平台，使各方能够获得、提供并且传播与CB&TT 相关的信息。

（五）非公约缔约方对BBNJ 谈判的立场：以土耳其为例

上海交通大学凯原法学院研究员、北大深研院国际法学院客座教授Onur Sabri Durak 做了题为“非公约缔约方对BBNJ 谈判的立场：以土耳其为例”的报告。Onur Sabri Durak 教授首先介绍国家管辖范围以外的区域几乎涵盖了世界上大部分海域，其海洋资源和生物多样性在生态和社会经济层面极具重要性，然而这些海域面临着污染、过度开发、气候变化、生物多样性减少等前所未有的压力。面对这些挑战，并且考虑到未来在食品、医药、能源等方面对海洋资源日益增长的需求，绝大多数国家都同意根据《公约》制定新的执行协议，以保护和可持续利用这些区域的资源。该协议将进一步落实《公约》的现有原则，以实现对公海活动更加全面的管理，原则包括合作义务、保护并维护海洋环境的义务以及对活动进行事先影响评估的义务。Onur Sabri Durak 教授提出新的法律文书将如何适用于非公约缔约国以及如果相向或相邻国家之间没有划定领海界限要如何确定BBNJ 等相关问题。他还谈及方法论—事实分析，即不提供理论性或规范性的分析与讨论。

随后Onur Sabri Durak 教授主要介绍了土耳其与《公约》之间的关系，指出鉴于独特的地理条件，在1982 年12 月8 日全体会议上，土耳其明确表示将不签署或者批准《公约》。此前，土耳其在《公约》谈判期间提出5 项提案，涉及领海（水域）的宽度、大陆架的划定、封闭海和半封闭海、岛屿的海洋区域、海岸相向或相邻国家之间的领海划界等内容，此外还提出了包括海峡国际航行的法律制度、领海上空的空域划界等考虑。土耳其在通过国际法保护海洋环境方面其自己的立场：首先土耳其并不反对《公约》中关于保护和维护海洋环境的规定，同时签署了《国际防止船舶造成污染公约》（又称“《MARPOL 公约》”）、《保护地中海海洋环境和沿海地区公约》（又称“《巴塞罗那公约》”）、《地中海特别保护区和生物多样性议定书》、《保护黑海免受污染公约》（又称“《布加勒斯特公约》”）、《保护黑海生物多样性和景观公约》、《南极条约》、《关于环境保护的南极条约议定书》等。Onur Sabri Durak 教授阐述了土耳其维护生物多样性的措施与意义。每个生物地理区域都有其独特的生态系统，生态系统和栖息地的多样性也承载着物种多样性。土耳其丰富且独特的生物多样性得到相关保护和监测活动的支持，同时在国家和国际项目以及非政府组织协调下，1991 年到2020 年期间的濒危物种（蠵龟、绿海龟等）将继续存在。土耳其的诺亚方舟数据库（国家生物多样性数据库）将同时为科学家和商业界提供数据，从而使植物在食品、医药、绘画材料、能源和国防等多领域发挥功用。此外土耳其还开展了“重要海洋生物多样性地区外来入侵物种的威胁评估”项目，以便通过识别重要海洋生物多样性地区的外来入侵物种减少或消除其影响，消减自然物种及栖息地的压力并对其进行监测。

Onur Sabri Durak 教授详细介绍了土耳其对于国际生物多样性制度的遵守情况。随后他回顾了土耳其代表团参与BBNJ 协议谈判的历程，指出土耳其在第四届会议上重申的内容。他最后提出，土耳其不是《公约》缔约国，也不太可能成为缔约国；尽管土耳其积极参与BBNJ 谈判，并且提交了很多提案，但是根据目前的案文，土耳其最终也不大可能会签署或者批准BBNJ 协定，除非BBNJ 协定的现行案文在未来会做出实质性修改。

（六）未来BBNJ 协定对现有文书、框架和机构的潜在影响：以北极理事会为例

挪威特罗姆瑟大学法学院挪威海洋法中心教授Vito De Lucia 做了题为“未来BBNJ 协定对现有文书、框架和机构的潜在影响：以北极理事会为例”的报告。Vito De Lucia 教授首先概述了BBNJ 谈判的情况，回顾BBNJ 谈判历程的时间线，指出BBNJ 谈判的目标是希望能够制定一套综合性法律和治理体制来实现对BBNJ 的养护和可持续性利用；随后分析了BBNJ 与北极地区在地理上的相关性，分享BBNJ 协定在北极地区的重要性，指出北极地区具有独特的生物多样性的同时存在脆弱性，复杂的全球部门和区域文书网络存在严重的碎片化和监管及治理漏洞。

北极理事会依据《渥太华宣言》成立于1996 年，包含8 个成员国。北极理事会的目标是就共同的北极问题，特别是可持续发展和环境保护问题进行合作、协调和互动。北极理事会下设6 个工作小组，负责研究、讨论以及政策形成、关于生态系统方法论的重要工作等，但不承担制定政策的职能。

就BBNJ 协定存在的一些潜在影响，Vito De Lucia 教授首先强调的是设立MPA 的合法权限；其次，BBNJ 协定可能会降低北极理事会的相关性，因此需要重新界定和考虑北极理事会的角色和作用，考虑是否需要将其转变为正式的政府间组织；最后，北极理事会很重要的潜在作用是能够和新的BBNJ 协定机构开展科学合作。实际上北极理事会能够在科学知识的基础之上进一步助力BBNJ，包括具体条款谈判所涉及的科学内容。在科学知识、咨询方面的作用，北极理事会有非常全面的方法论体系，包括生态系统方法、MPA、生态系统评估以及监测等，同时也设立了很多工作组，每个工作组发挥其各自的作用。北极理事会的作用还包括协调跨越管辖范围的区域行动。

（七）论遵约措施在BBNJ 国际协定下的作用

厦门大学南海研究院博士研究生肖桐做了题为“论遵约措施在BBNJ 国际协定下的作用”的报告。肖桐认为，遵约措施是整个遵约体系当中一个关键要素，直接推动整个遵约体系的工作，也间接推动了BBNJ 协定的执行。在报告中，肖桐首先简要回顾了BBNJ 谈判中遵约措施的背景，并主要强调了BBNJ 谈判中达成的共识以及争论焦点。

肖桐还介绍了遵约措施的理论方法，包括自由主义理论和制度主义理论。在自由主义理论下，一个国家无法履行遵约义务并不是出于蓄意，而是由于缺乏技术、财政或行政支持；在制度主义理论下，国家不履行遵约义务是由于违约的收益高于成本（“成本效益理论”）。由以上两个理论引申出激励性措施和惩罚性措施，就像“胡萝卜加大棒”。激励性措施在遵约方面发挥了显著作用，并在最新草案中已经提及，包括最常见的遵约措施例如技术和财政援助措施，其主要的功能就是确保遵约体系运作。BBNJ 草案文本中仅提及激励性措施而未提及惩罚性措施，但惩罚性措施也应当出现在BBNJ 遵约机制中，因为惩罚性措施可以提高整个遵约体系的效率。惩罚性措施包括声誉措施和终止措施。声誉理论由伯克利法学院教授Andrew Guzman 提出，其主要观点是如果一国违反了国际法，将影响该国声誉，从而对该国以后和其他国家的互动产生负面影响。声誉措施在多边环境协定中并不少见，例如《蒙特利尔协定书》《巴塞尔公约》以及《卡塔赫纳生物安全议定书》中均采取声誉措施。终止措施有两种，一是终止协定中规定的具体权利和特权；二是终止贸易许可，终止措施在许多多边环境协定当中也均有涉及，比如《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》《蒙特利尔议定书》以及《京都议定书》等。《京都议定书》的遵约委员会已经对多国实施了终止措施，要求这些国家必须达到协议规定，其中70%的国家均已提交新的履约措施，这说明终止措施是能够发挥作用的。

肖桐认为，在整个遵约体系中激励性措施是促进遵约的基本措施，也是首选措施，可以保证整个系统的积极工作，同时也需要辅之以惩罚性措施来提高效率。现在距离达成BBNJ 协定又更近了一步，在最终实现之前还需要收集更多信息，不论在协定通过之前还是之后，各个缔约方之间都将产生越来越多争论。

三、总 结

在会议总结环节，自然资源部海洋发展战略研究所所长张海文研究员代表主办方进行了总结发言。张海文所长认为，BBNJ 的养护和可持续利用关乎人类社会的可持续发展，相关国际协定的立法进程关乎整个国际社会的共同利益，本次研讨会正值第五次政府间会议谈判续会召开前的空档，意义十分重大。张海文所长总结了两大议题中各发言人的报告，各项议题均有多位专家学者贡献了最新研究成果，在一定程度上为我国参加相关谈判提供了智力支持和谈判建议。

The Second Symposium on International Legislation on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction: Conference Report

FENG Jinlong, LEI Liping*

Abstract: On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University and the World Ocean Week in Xiamen, the Second Symposium on International Legislative on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction was successfully held on 11 November 2022. During the symposium,distinguished experts and scholars present engaged in thorough exchanges and discussions regarding two pivotal topics: “Area-based management tools, including marine protected areas” and “environmental impact assessments, capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology, and cross-cutting issues”. The symposium aims to establish an academic exchange platform for a systematic analysis of the current status of negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, as well as the numerous legal challenges currently faced. It also seeks to offer intellectual support to facilitate China’s participation in relevant discussions.

Key Words: Areas beyond national jurisdiction; Marine protected areas;Environmental impact assessment; Capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology; Cross-cutting issues

* FENG Jinglong, South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University, E-mail: realjinlongfeng@126.com; LEI Liping, School of Law, Xiamen University, E-mail: 1048589463@qq.com.

©THE AUTHORS AND CHINA OCEANS LAW REVIEW

Currently, the negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (hereinafter “BBNJ”) stands as one of the utmost critical processes in international marine legislation. For the purpose of systematically analyzing the current status of BBNJ negotiations, addressing the various legal challenges involved, and providing intellectual support and negotiation recommendations to facilitate China’s participation in these negotiations from legal, scientific, and other perspectives, the Second Symposium on International Legislation on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction was successfully held online on 11 November 2022. Hosted by China Oceanic Development Foundation, China Institute for Marine Affairs, Ministry of Natural Resources, and the School of Law, Xiamen University, the symposium was organized by Xiamen Municipal Bureau of Ocean Development and Fujian Institute for Sustainable Oceans (Xiamen University)and undertaken by the South China Sea Institute and the Center for Oceans Law and the China Seas, Xiamen University. The event constituted a part of the marine conference forum of the World Ocean Week in Xiamen. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic hindering international interactions, the symposium was held online in both English and Chinese, with simultaneous interpretation provided.It gathered a total of 15 experts and scholars from China and abroad, who delivered keynote speeches and engaged in discussions and exchanges, focusing on the conference theme and the practical implications.

The opening ceremony was presided over by ZHANG Haiwen, Director of China Institute for Marine Affairs, Ministry of Natural Resources. The conference featured speeches from distinguished guests, including CHEN Danhong, Director-General of the Department of International Cooperation, Ministry of Natural Resources, GOU Haibo, Deputy Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PAN Xinchun, Vice President and Secretary-General of China Oceanic Development Foundation, and ZHU Xiaoqin, Vice Dean of the School of Law, Xiamen University.

I. Area-based Management Tools, Including Marine Protected Areas, and Cross-cutting Issues

The first session of the conference focused on “area-based management tools,including marine protected areas, and cross-cutting issues”. It was chaired by WANG Antao, Director of the Department of International Cooperation, Ministry of Natural Resources, and featured insightful discussions by a distinguished panel of experts, including Professor TANG Yi from Shanghai Ocean University, Senior Engineer GAO Yan from China Ocean Mineral Resources R&D Association,Associate Professor Kentaro Nishimoto from Tohoku University in Japan, JIANG Xiaoyi from China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies, Wuhan University,Associate Professor ZHENG Lei from East China University of Political Science and Law, Nichola Clark, Officer on the Protecting Ocean Life on the High Seas at Pew Charitable Trusts and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Wollongong,Australia, Professor JIANG Xiumin from the School of Public Administration,Hainan University, and doctoral candidate ZHUANG Yuan from the South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University.

A.CooperationandCoordinationofBBNJAgreementandRelevantIFBs ontheGlobalRulesforABMTsIncludingMPAsinABNJ

Prof. TANG Yi from Shanghai Ocean University delivered a presentation titledCooperationandCoordinationofBBNJAgreementandRelevantIFBs ontheGlobalRulesforABMTsincludingMPAsinABNJ. Prof. Tang began by highlighting that area-based management tools (hereinafter “ABMTs”), including marine protected areas (hereinafter “MPAs”), constitute one of the four elements of the 2011 package that guides negotiations on theBBNJagreement, and it is also a highly discussed topic in the international community.

Prof. Tang then provided an overview of the current status of relevant legal instruments, frameworks, and international, regional, sub-regional and sectoral institutions (hereinafter “IFBs”) concerning the ABMTs for areas beyond national jurisdiction. For instance, theAgreementRelatingtotheImplementationofPart XIoftheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSeaof10December1982,adopted in 1994, provides for the concepts of areas of particular environmental interest, impact reference zones, preservation reference zones. Currently, there are 9 areas of particular environmental interest established in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ). TheUnitedNationsFishStocksAgreement, adopted in 1995,though not directly stipulating ABMTs, addresses the shortcomings of theUnited NationsConventionontheLawoftheSea(hereinafter “UNCLOS”) regarding the conservation and management of fish stocks. TheInternationalConventionfor thePreventionofPollutionfromShips(hereinafter “MARPOL”) and its associated agreements establish the special areas and particularly sensitive sea areas. Currently, there are two special areas established in the Mediterranean and Antarctica. TheInternationalConventionfortheRegulationofWhalingstipulates whale sanctuaries, and regional fisheries management organizations/arrangements establish closed fishing zones to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems.Additionally, regional marine agreements/projects stipulates MPAs, and the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resource (CCAMLR)designates both closed fishing zones and MPAs, with one MPA established in 2010 and one in 2017.

Furthermore, Prof. Tang reviewed the progression of IFBs related to ABMTs,from the Preparatory Committee meetings in 2017 to the negotiations of the 5th Session of the Intergovernmental Conference. Throughout this process, there were frequent changes in both the form and content of the treaty provisions. In terms of development, the IFBs for ABMTs were initially presented as a distinct component within the recommendations endorsed by the Preparatory Committee. They were subsequently addressed as separate items in the negotiations during the 1st and 2nd Sessions of the Intergovernmental Conference. In the negotiations of the 3rd and 4th Sessions of the Intergovernmental Conference, the Chair’s text treated them as standalone clauses. In the latest Chair’s text, the IFBs for ABMTs are no longer treated as a distinct article but have been integrated into Article 19 titled “Decisions”.According to Professor Tang, the most recent Chair’s text has comprehensively merged the original Article 15 with Article 19, resulting in a more practical approach to international cooperation and coordination on ABMTs, including MPAs. This is reflected in the allocation of responsibilities between the Conference of the Parties (hereinafter “COP”) to theBBNJAgreementand the relevant IFBs.However, the significance of international cooperation and coordination has been somewhat diminished in terms of its formal representation, as it is no longer presented as a distinct article, but rather integrated into Article 19. The most recent Chair’s text attempts to broaden the authority of the COP to theBBNJAgreementin terms of establishing ABMTs, including MPAs, and related measures.

In conclusion, Prof. Tang held that the text should explicitly stipulate that the COP to theBBNJAgreementcan only make decisions regarding the establishment of ABMTs, including MPAs, and related measures when no relevant IFBs possess the authority to do so. The COP should reach a consensus when making decisions about establishing ABMTs, including MPAs, and related measures. Taking the relationship between MPAs and the conservation of fisheries resources as an example, Professor Tang emphasized that regional fishery organizations with specialized expertise are better positioned to handle fishery issues appropriately,rather than relying on a large global comprehensive organization, especially in cases where decisions are made through majority voting mechanisms, which may not effectively address practical problems.

B.ProgressofRegionalEnvironmentalManagementPlaninthe InternationalSeabedArea

Senior Engineer GAO Yan from China Ocean Mineral Resources R&D Association delivered a presentation titledProgressofRegionalEnvironmental ManagementPlanintheInternationalSeabedArea. Dr. Gao first introduced the background of the Regional Environmental Management Plan (hereinafter “REMP”), highlighting the potential loss of biodiversity due to deep-sea mining activities. As the authoritative organization for managing deep-sea mineral resources, the International Seabed Authority (hereinafter “ISA”) is responsible for organizing and regulating activities related to mineral resources. Simultaneously,it must effective protection of the environment from potentially harmful impacts in the Area, which is a crucial aspect of the tasks assigned to the ISA as specified in Article 145 of UNCLOS. The REMP serves as a tool for the ISA, sponsoring States, and contractors to make informed decisions. It offers a clear and consistent mechanism to identify areas or sites in need of protection, while also providing an appropriate level of protection. Additionally, ABMTs will play a crucial role in the development and implementation of the REMP.

Furthermore, Dr. Gao elaborated on the REMP for the exploitation of polymetallic nodule deposits in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (hereinafter “CCZ”)of the eastern Pacific Ocean. The process can be broadly divided into four phases.The first phase involved the Kaplan Project organized by the University of Hawaii,which designed Areas of Particular Environmental Interest (hereinafter “APEIs”)based on scientific understanding and proposed the REMP. A crucial aspect of this proposal was the establishment of a network of protected areas composed of nine APEIs. After the ISA adopted this proposal, the REMP for CCZ was established.Subsequently, following three years of implementation and five years of review, a proposal to add four more APEIs was approved in 2021. APEIs represent the first ABMTs in the deep sea, often characterized as large regions with self-sustaining populations and diverse habitat variations. Since 2016, the review of the REMP for CCZ has been underway. The review process comprises four key components: (a)Examination and analysis of the latest data on benthic ecosystems in the CCZ; (b)Analysis of the patterns of biodiversity, community structure, species distribution,genetic connectivity, ecosystem functionality, and habitat heterogeneity in both the seabed and benthic boundary layer of the CCZ; (c) Assessment of the representativeness of APEIs associated with the contracted exploration area; and(d) Identification of regions where additional representative APEIs could be added.

Dr. Gao also showcased the REMP for the exploitation of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in the northern Atlantic Ocean. The process commenced with an expert workshop held in Poland in 2018, followed by another workshop in Portugal in 2019. In 2021, an online workshop was organized, and in May of the same year, a working group formed by the Legal and Technical Commission drafted the REMP and submitted the proposal to the Council. It was subsequently approved by the Council in September 2022. The plan includes eleven sites and three areas that require protection, as well as nine sites and areas that necessitate precautionary measures.

In conclusion, Dr. Gao provided a summary of experiences gained from the REMP initiatives. Firstly, Dr. Gao highlighted the importance of combining the broad-scale APEIs designated for experimentation using sites and network criteria with the finer-scale APEIs requiring protection, so as to address the need of comprehensive protection for a wide range of habitats and vulnerable sites.Secondly, there should be the zoning approach, such as core zones and buffer zones.Simple protected areas need to encompass continuous habitats and gradients to preserve both biological and genetic connectivity. Thirdly, REMP implementation may vary across different regions and types of mineral resources, necessitating tailored approaches and thresholds to ensure effective management. This implies that different REMPs will be in need for different regions.

C.HowWouldtheBBNJAgreementAffecttheOperationofIFBs:An AssessmentoftheArticlesonABMTs

Associate Professor Kentaro Nishimoto from Tohoku University in Japan delivered a presentation titledHowwouldtheBBNJAgreementaffecttheoperation ofIFBs:AnassessmentofthearticlesonABMTs. In his report, Prof. Nishimoto first elucidated the three models of ABMTs currently in consideration, namely the global model, hybrid model, and regional model. Despite the progress made by these three models in advancing the negotiations on theBBNJAgreement, it becomes increasingly important, as the conclusion of the agreement approaches, to focus on the obligations that this agreement will entail for the States Parties.

Next, Prof. Nishimoto conducted an analysis of the mechanisms for coordinating with IFBs within the currentBBNJAgreementtext. One of these mechanisms involves establishing institutional coordination procedures, such as establishing appropriate procedures as required in Article 48(5) of the text to enhance cooperation and coordination with relevant IFBs. While this provision may not be entirely explicit, the corresponding mechanisms have already been incorporated into theBBNJAgreement.

Prof. Nishimoto then analyzed the potential effects that theBBNJAgreementcould have on IFBs. For instance, the provisions of Article 6 concerning the international cooperation mandate that the states parties to the Agreement who are also parties to relevant IFBs shall strive to advance the objectives of this Agreement while engaging in decision-making under those IFBs. This addition was made to the draft text following the 4th session of the Intergovernmental Conference. It establishes the principle that the overall obligation of international cooperation applies to the entire treaty. The specific circumstances of cooperation are limited to participating in the decision-making under relevant IFBs, and the obligations of the parties are lessened by the use of the term “endeavor”. Additionally, Article 20(1)employs the term “ensure” to establish the consistency between IFBs and theBBNJ Agreement. Article 20(4) mandates that the parties shall take measures to support the implementation of decisions and recommendations made by the COP under this section upon their participation in IFBs. This requirement is more stringent and demanding compared to what is stipulated in Article 6. Furthermore, the COP plays a crucial role in coordinating efforts within theBBNJAgreementto determine appropriate measures to be taken by IFBs, including regional fisheries management organizations. This facilitates a significant stride towards achieving coordinated governance across various sectors in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Notably,Article 20(4) of the text will establish the necessary legal framework to ensure the attainment of coordinated governance. Simultaneously, there is also a possibility of negative consequences associated with this. Conflicts might arise with existing regional fisheries management organizations. This conflict is manifested in the risk of polarization of positions within regional fisheries management organizations if theBBNJAgreementis ratified and comes into effect without widespread approval.

In conclusion, Associate Professor Nishimoto suggested that we should continue exploring global and regional/sectoral approaches, finding an appropriate fusion to promote coordinated governance in areas beyond national jurisdiction,all while safeguarding the effectiveness of IFBs. With the methods adopted in the latest draft of theBBNJAgreement, the obligation to cooperate in decision-making within IFBs becomes a crucial mechanism to steer nations towards the direction set by theBBNJAgreement. However, the decision-making process of IFBs will be influenced. While this mechanism aims to facilitate coordinated and consistent ocean governance, theBBNJAgreementmay introduce additional complexities to the decision-making processes of existing IFBs.

D.InterimandEmergencyMeasuresoftheABMTsundertheBBNJ Agreement

Prof. JIANG Xiaoyi from China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies,Wuhan University, delivered a presentation titledInterimandEmergencyMeasures oftheABMTsundertheBBNJAgreement. Prof. Jiang first provided an overview of the advancements made in the negotiations on theBBNJAgreementregarding interim and emergency measures. This concept was initially put forth by several non-governmental organizations during the Preparatory Committee meetings.However, the interim and emergency measures were not discussed until they were mentioned by New Zealand in its text proposal during the small working group meetings in the 4th session of the Intergovernmental Conference. Despite this, the matter did not receive sufficient attention at that time. During the 5th Session of the Intergovernmental Conference, the delegates engaged in intense discussions regarding provisional and emergency measures and reached a certain degree of consensus. However, there were still several critical issues that remained to be further deliberated.

Next, Professor Jiang discussed the necessity of implementing provisional and emergency measures. With the increasing frequency and unpredictability of events related to climate change and human-induced emergencies, ecological damages caused by these situations are often irreversible. The forefront utilization of the ocean, such as climate-related ocean geoengineering and deep-sea mining,presents new challenges. Establishing MPAs can be a lengthy and intricate process.Therefore, it is crucial to have emergency response measures in place before MPA management takes effect. The adoption of appropriate emergency measures will greatly aid in the preservation of marine biodiversity in BBNJ.

In conclusion, Prof. Jiang thoroughly examined three crucial aspects pertaining to provisional and emergency measures. First, it is essential to integrate or incorporate precautionary approaches and principles into applicable documents. This entails considering uncertainties in environmental science and risk management, and refraining from using the absence of complete scientific certainty as a justification for delaying cost-effective measures aimed at preventing environmental degradation. Secondly, the provisions regarding thresholds in the current text should be simplified. It could be substituted with “emergency measures may only be taken in urgent, exceptional, and uncommon circumstances”. This would ensure that the thresholds are well-defined and stringent, as any laxity in these measures could disrupt regular activities on the high seas. Thirdly, while the COP should adopt emergency measures, these measures should not infringe upon the rights granted by UNCLOS and other IFBs. For instance, emergency measures within theBBNJAgreementshould not infringe upon a State’s lawful rights and exclusive jurisdiction over its vessels.

E.FunctionalCooperationandCoordinationofRelevantInternational OrganizationsRelatingtoBBNJInstrument

Associate Professor ZHENG Lei from East China University of Political Science and Law delivered a presentation titledFunctionalCooperation andCoordinationofRelevantInternationalOrganizationsRelatingtoBBNJ Instrument. Prof. Zheng began by providing an overview of the international organizations involved in the BBNJ issues. The first one is the International Maritime Organization (hereinafter “IMO”), whose main functions include ensuring maritime safety and preventing ship pollution in oceans and the atmosphere.The work of IMO also contributes to the achievement of the United Nations’Sustainable Development Goals. The second one is regional fisheries organizations,which currently play a major role in managing fisheries in the high seas. These organizations have become important international institutions for implementing the principles of protection and cooperation outlined in UNCLOS. The third one is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), a legally binding international treaty that addresses three main issues: biodiversity conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from the utilization of genetic resources. The fourth one is regional high seas protected areas, of which there are currently four. The fifth one is the ISA, which has exclusive jurisdiction over the Area. No State should claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources. Similarly, no State, natural person, or legal entity should claim any part of the Area or its resources as their own.

Next, Prof. Zheng went on to discuss three models for effectively coordinating the functions of relevant international organizations. Firstly, the global model involves a global institution taking the lead and responsibility for managing and implementing high seas protected areas within the BBNJ framework. This approach facilitates unified enforcement and regulation of BBNJ, ensuring broad participation of states in the establishment of high seas protected areas. It also addresses the concern that when regional high seas protected areas are established,states outside the region might face exclusion. However, this model requires the creation of a new global institution, which inevitably incurs additional management expenses. Moreover, there is uncertainty regarding whether the new institution can align and cooperate effectively with the existing international institutions. Secondly,the hybrid model has two variations. Hybrid Model A involves global decisionmaking and implementation by regional organizations. With the presence of global decision-making bodies, this approach can safeguard member states’ participation rights and facilitate comprehensive planning and design of high seas protected areas on a global scale. This model could eliminate fragmentation (“mosaic effect”), but it may not have an impact on implementation by existing international organizations of member states and could potentially lead to additional expenses due to the establishment of a new global decision-making body. Hybrid Model B involves global guidance with regional organizations responsible for execution and decision-making. While it allows for global planning and design of high seas protected areas, it requires the support and cooperation of existing international organizations. Without a global body in place, states outside the region might struggle to exert influence over the decision-making processes of certain regional international organizations on establishing protected areas in the high seas. This could limit effective participation from non-regional states. Thirdly, the “sectoral+ regional model” involves regional organizations taking the lead and executing the initiatives. Under this model, the new BBNJ instrument will establish general principles and approaches for area-based management tools, while acknowledging the complete authority of regional and sectoral organizations in decision-making,monitoring, and review processes, without oversight from a global mechanism.This model felicitates flexible implementation of BBNJ and effectively leverages existing international organizations, generally avoiding conflicts between new and established organizations. However, it might not be conducive to integrating existing high seas protected areas or similar practices. It could hinder efforts to eliminate the “mosaic effect” of MPAs and to promote comprehensive management of MPAs.

In conclusion, Prof. Zheng proposed several potential paths for collaboration:firstly, to maintain a balance between conservation and sustainable utilization;second, to apply cooperative obligations; third, to strengthen the environmental protection standards set by high seas economic utilization organizations in areas where sustainable utilization of marine resources is feasible; fourth, to avoid encroaching upon the authority of existing international organizations, while simultaneously addressing any genuine deficiencies in existing global mechanisms.

F.InstitutionalArrangementsfortheBBNJAgreement

Nichola Clark, Officer on the Protecting Ocean Life on the High Seas at Pew Charitable Trusts and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Wollongong, Australia,delivered a presentation titledInstitutionalArrangementsfortheBBNJAgreement.Clark began by providing an overview of the institutional arrangements of theBBNJAgreement. These include the Conference of the Parties, the Scientific and Technical Body, the Secretariat, and other potential subsidiary bodies like committees for capacity-building and transfer of marine technology, funding,compliance, benefit-sharing, monitoring, and review. However, the coordination between the institutions under theBBNJAgreementand other IFBs, as well as the status of theBBNJAgreementwithin the landscape of marine governance organizations, are crucial subjects of discussion within the institutional realm.Next, Clark conducted an analysis of the primary advancements concerning institutional arrangements in the negotiations on theBBNJAgreementin 2022.Firstly, one of the most significant shifts in the institutional arrangements during negotiations was a move away from the terms “global”, “regional”, and “hybrid” themselves, focusing instead on the roles and authorities of these different institutions. Secondly, additional subsidiary bodies under theBBNJAgreementwere gaining support during the negotiations, including mechanisms for benefitsharing, capacity-building, and technology transfer, information exchange, funding,implementation and compliance.

In the end, Clark highlighted several crucial unresolved issues concerning institutional arrangements. The first issue to address revolves around the concept of “without prejudice”, that is, how to find the delicate balance for cooperation and coordination without prejudice. In this context, “without prejudice” implies the need to avoid any overlap with IFBs and refrain from diminishing their strength. The second issue is the decision-making process, as some states support decision-making by voting while others prefer consensus-based approaches. The third issue pertains to the “withdrawal mechanism”, which has been opposed by several regional organizations, including Australia and New Zealand. The main questions surrounding this issue are whether there is a procedure for a withdrawal mechanism without prejudice to the effectiveness of the treaty, whether it is solely applicable to ABMTs or the entire treaty, and whether the text lacks any provision for this mechanism. The fourth issue pertains to specific details. Decisions regarding various aspects, such as rules of procedure, committee composition,and qualifications of members, particularly in the Scientific Committee, have been postponed. Additionally, the specific form of both the Secretariat and the Scientific Committee remains undecided.

G.TheFeasiblePathofChina’sParticipationintheConservationof HighSeasFisheriesResourcesundertheBBNJAgreement

Prof. JIANG Xiumin from the School of Public Administration, Hainan University, delivered a presentation titledTheFeasiblePathofChina’s ParticipationintheConservationofHighSeasFisheriesResourcesunderthe BBNJAgreement. Prof. Jiang began by analyzing three emerging challenges to the governance of fisheries resources in the high seas under UNCLOS. Firstly, the theoretical core of UNCLOS is questioned. The maximum sustainable yield (MSY)principle is a fundamental concept of UNCLOS, defined as the highest sustainable catch that can be achieved under normal conditions. However, the MSY principle overlooks critical details about the fisheries’ own stocks, such as spawning periods,age structure, growth rates, and so on. Secondly, UNCLOS is insufficient in regulatory coverage. For instance, it lacks clear definitions of concepts related to fish migration research and historical rights. It also fails to adequately address the escalating climate crisis and neglects aspects of marine environmental protection.Thirdly, the legal decisions within UNCLOS faces challenges. Numerous international organizations are contesting these decisions made under UNCLOS,and certain states parties are breaching its provisions concerning the protection of biological resources and boundary delineation.

Next, Prof. Jiang delved into four aspects of the debate concerning the conservation of high seas fisheries resources within theBBNJAgreement. First,the issue of marine genetic resources. These resources hold significant economic value, but their exploitation in areas beyond national jurisdiction is viewed as a long-term and uncertain endeavor, with most benefits considered non-monetary.This has made marine genetic resources a focal point of contention. Second, the issue of protected areas in the high seas. Originally, three distinct management models existed, but a consensus has gradually formed around hybrid and regional approaches in the new agreement. Also, theBBNJAgreementexhibits shortcomings in its MPA system, such as lack of a management plan. This directly leads to the prevailing practice of managing protected areas on the high seas primarily in a reactive manner after the fact. Third, the issue of environmental impact assessment system. Environmentalists, represented by the European Union, are among the main proponents of theBBNJAgreement. Their objective is to protect national interests by leveraging their own technological advancements. On the other hand, proponents of freedom of the high seas, typified by the United States and Russia, advocate for maintaining the existing maritime order and welcome the participation of relevant States in environmental assessments. China and the Group of 77 advocate for the sharing of benefits, considering the unique characteristics of different states. Fourth, the issue of capacity-building and technology transfer.Developing states call for theBBNJAgreementto establish mandatory technical provisions based on UNCLOS’ provisions on capacity-building and technology transfer. However, developed states prefer conditional transfers.

In summary, Prof. Jiang also conducted an analysis of the feasibility of China’s involvement in the preservation of fisheries resources in the high seas. This analysis takes into account China’s unique constructive role in international affairs and its rich experience in protecting marine fisheries resources. Prof. Jiang then suggested ways in which China can engage in collaborative efforts to safeguard high seas fisheries resources. These include fostering multi-level friendly cooperation under the framework of global marine governance, promoting the transformation of international soft law into hard law in the field of fisheries policy enforcement, and constructing a comprehensive fisheries governance system in China.

H.TheHolderofTraditionalKnowledgeintheBBNJAgreement

Doctoral candidate ZHUANG Yuan from the South China Sea Institute,Xiamen University, delivered a presentation titledTheHolderofTraditional KnowledgeintheBBNJAgreement. ZHUANG Yuan began with an analysis of the divergences among States regarding the subject matter of traditional knowledge rights during the negotiations of theBBNJAgreement. The negotiating parties,represented by the Pacific Small Island Developing States, hold that indigenous peoples and local communities (hereinafter “IPLCs”) are the sole subjects of traditional knowledge rights within theBBNJAgreement. This model can be referred to as the “single-subject model”. In the contrast, negotiating parties represented by China advocate for a diversified approach to positioning the subjects of traditional knowledge rights within theBBNJAgreement, which should encompass not only IPLCs but also other individuals or entities, including states.This model is termed the “diverse-subject model”.

Next, ZHUANG Yuan delved into the theoretical guidelines for determining the subjects of traditional knowledge rights within theBBNJAgreement. Her discourse primarily centered around two aspects: Subject eligibility criteria and subject determinacy criteria. Regarding the subject eligibility criteria, within both the single-subject model and diverse-subject model, IPLCs and States hold collective attributes, and States are generally perceived as public power subjects in legal relationships. Nevertheless, as long as the aforementioned subjects have the ability to exclusively enjoy traditional knowledge rights and engage in traditional knowledge legal relationships in a non-dominant capacity, they possess the necessary legal qualifications to be recognized as subjects of traditional knowledge rights under theBBNJAgreement. Regarding the subject determinacy criteria, the theoretical criteria for choosing the subject model of traditional knowledge rights indicate that both the single-subject model and diverse-subject model can meet the subject eligibility criteria if they comply with the requirements of private rights.Considering the potential attribution of traditional knowledge to various rights subjects like ethnic groups, States, etc., within theBBNJAgreement, only the diverse-subject model aligns with the subject determinacy criteria.

Furthermore, ZHUANG Yuan provided an overview of the legislative practices in defining the subjects of traditional knowledge rights within theBBNJ Agreement. In terms of national legislative practices, States such as Brazil, Peru,the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Costa Rica have adopted the single-subject model,while Thailand, states in the South Pacific region, and Kenya have embraced the diverse-subject model. On the international legislative front, representatives of the single-subject model include theConventiononBiologicalDiversityand theNagoyaProtocolassociated thereof, whereas the diverse-subject model is exemplified by theConventionfortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCultural Heritageand theDraftProvisionsfortheProtectionofTraditionalKnowledgeunder the WIPO framework. While both the single-subject model and diversesubject model have substantial existing practices, the diverse-subject model offers a broader definition for subjects of traditional knowledge rights. It comprehensively encompasses the types of rights-holders found in various national legislations and aligns with the evolving trends in international legislative practices. Compared to the single-subject model, the diverse-subject model is more inclusive, flexible, and forward-looking in nature.

In conclusion, ZHUANG Yuan shared her perspective on the institutional framework for determining the subjects of traditional knowledge rights within theBBNJAgreement. She thoroughly examined the general principles and any exemptions that apply to the determination of these subjects. Regarding general principles, the subject who creates traditional knowledge should be credited with it, and the particular type should be determined based on the group’s scope that possesses traditional knowledge. Since traditional knowledge in theBBNJ Agreementarises from the interplay between human activities and the marine ecosystem, it is typically held by coastal IPLCs, and in some cases, by other entities like individuals, families, ethnic groups, and states. In exceptional cases, where it is not possible to determine the specific holder of traditional knowledge within theBBNJAgreement, the traditional knowledge rights should be attributed to the state where the traditional knowledge is located.

II. Environmental Impact Assessments, Capacity-building and the Transfer of Marine Technology, and Crosscutting Issues

The second session of this conference focused on “environmental impact assessments, capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology, and crosscutting issues”, chaired by Professor SHI Yubing, Vice Dean of the South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University. This session featured insightful exchange and discussions by a distinguished panel of experts, including Professor DONG Yue from Ocean University of China, Research Assistant Professor JIANG Yuhuan from the Third Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources,Postdoctoral Fellow WANG Sen from Guanghua Law School, Zhejiang University,Professor ZHANG Lina from the Law School, Hainan University, Onur Sabri Durak, Research Professor from the Koguan School of Law, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Visiting Professor from the Peking University School of Transnational Law, Vito De Lucia, Professor from the Norwegian Center for the Law of the Sea at the Faculty of Law, The Arctic University of Norway,and doctoral candidate XIAO Tong from the South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University.

A.TheFactorsofDomesticLawFactorsintheInternationalLawmaking ProcessforBBNJ:ACaseStudyofChina

Professor DONG Yue from Ocean University of China delivered a presentation titledTheFactorsofDomesticLawFactorsintheInternationalLawmaking ProcessforBBNJ:ACaseStudyofChina. Prof. Dong highlighted that within the context of the BBNJ international text negotiations, which involve emerging areas of international law, the primary justifications for various BBNJ topics are currently expressed through the diplomatic positions of different states. While domestic law plays a crucial role in international law-making, most countries lack specific legislation related to BBNJ. Instead, they have relevant laws such as those governing deep-sea mineral resources or regulations for marine scientific research.Afterwards, Prof. Dong discussed how the role of domestic law in the context of BBNJ international instrument formation should be understood. He particularly emphasized the significance of relevant laws that reserve legislative space, such as China’sLawontheExplorationandExploitationofResourcesinDeepSeabed Areas(hereinafter “DeepSeaLaw”), and explored the role of these laws in the process.

Prof. Dong then elaborated on the aforementioned matters, providing detailed insights into the reserved space and presumed stance of China’sDeepSeaLaw.In terms of reserved space, he discussed both the scope of application and specific systems, emphasizing that the most crucial aspect of reserved space lies in the scope of application, i.e., the scope of theDeepSeaLawextends beyond mineral resources to include biological resources as well. Regarding specific systems,administrative licensing, environmental protection, scientific research, monitoring,and law enforcement are some of the systems that can be directly applied to future deep-sea biological resource activities in China. In terms of the presumed stance,Prof. Dong highlighted that theDeepSeaLawestablishes fundamental principles of peaceful use, cooperative sharing, environmental protection, and safeguarding common human interests. These principles reflect a state-driven stance, where states exercise decision-making authority within the framework of international law to establish relevant regulations to ensure effective implementation. TheDeepSeaLawalso emphasizes the balanced approach of both environmental protection and exploitation and utilization, with environmental protection requirements aligned with human understanding.

Finally, Prof. Dong provided a detailed explanation regarding the connection between domestic legislation on deep-sea matters and the formation of the BBNJ international instrument. He highlighted how existing deep-sea legislation influences the formation of the BBNJ international instrument through proclamation, demonstration, and enhancement. Through domestic legislation,states can: proclaim their fundamental stance on international legal issues related to international law; demonstrate their domestic legal systems like environmental impact assessment regulations, thereby promoting international law and other national legislation to follow suit; enhance international law by responding to potential developments in international law-making through national practices,such as the MPA system and the liability for environmental damage in special areas.When considering the role of domestic legislation in the international law-making process for BBNJ, Professor Dong proposed that domestic legislation reflects the foundational legal environment for the future implementation of international law.It is important to avoid the “idealism” that might disconnect international lawmaking from practical realities. Due consideration should be given to the domestic legislation and practical implementation of the vast majority of states parties.He also highlighted that examining certain focal issues from the perspective of each state’s existing legislative practices might yield conclusions that diverge from the current mainstream viewpoints. For the BBNJ international instrument to be successfully completed and effectively put into practice in the future, it is imperative to respect the existing domestic legal practices of all states.

B.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentundertheBBNJAgreement

Research Assistant Professor JIANG Yuhuan from the Third Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, delivered a presentation titledEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentundertheBBNJAgreement. She started by giving a concise introduction to the fundamental definitions and components of environmental impact assessment (hereinafter “EIA”) within theBBNJAgreement.She pointed out that the definition of EIA in the latest text reflects the common characteristics of EIA practices in various states, where EIA is considered as a preemptive process distinct from measures such as environmental monitoring, postassessment, or supplementary assessments. The content of EIA involves predicting,analyzing, and evaluating the potential impacts of planned activities, along with proposing measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts. In this sense, EIA serves as an activity-based management tool aimed at ensuring informed decision-making by relevant authorities. Drawing from practical experience, she emphasized two key dimensions contributing to the effectiveness of EIA. First, the technical dimension entails the use of professional knowledge and expertise in the assessment process.Second, the managerial dimension involves the administrative act of exercising public authority through approval procedures.

In light of the overall progress in intergovernmental negotiations, Prof. Jiang elaborated on five main issues within the EIA rule section. These issues include the scope of application, thresholds, relationships, internationalization, and strategic EIA. She also reviewed the existing contentious matters and considerations regarding relevant factors. She observed that the ongoing negotiations for theBBNJ Agreementhave made generally positive strides in addressing key EIA issues.Parties have achieved initial consensus on terms related to the EIA procedural framework and core components of the report. These include general obligations,basic procedures, report content, as well as considerations for cumulative and transboundary impacts. Simultaneously, fresh and precise suggestions have been incorporated into the text, such as in the preamble, purpose, and SEA section.However, there are still controversial central issues, including thresholds, the relationship with related legal frameworks, decision-making, and strategic EIAs.In preparation for the upcoming resumed negotiations, there is a need to further streamline the text, enhancing clarity, comprehensiveness, and balance.

Prof. Jiang concluded her report and offered insights into future prospects as follows. Firstly, the newly established internationally recognized scientific guidelines pertaining to EIAs can greatly contribute to the sustainable utilization of BBNJ. Additionally, this framework holds significant value as a public reference procedure. Secondly, the development and application of the EIA rules and methods should consider the limitations posed by actual circumstances and development needs, particularly the support for capacity-building in developing states. Thirdly, EIA serves as both a decision support procedure and a preventative measure. The BBNJ-EIA rules essentially establish the BBNJ environmental management system anchored in the principles of EIA. Fourthly, EIA is not a mere replication of domestic environmental impact assessments, nor is it a substitute or upgrade for existing frameworks. The effectiveness of EIA in the future will hinge upon its balance and coordination. National coordination, both within and beyond national jurisdiction, as well as the coordination of regional policies, represent important pathways for the future implementation of the agreement and may also prove instrumental in addressing transboundary challenges. In conclusion, there are still numerous contentious issues that require resolution. To achieve agreement, it is crucial to enhance working methods in a more inclusive and transparent manner,taking into account all concerns. Only through such an approach can the objectives of theBBNJAgreementbe effectively realized.

C.ReconsiderationontheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentunderthe AntarcticTreatySystemandItsEffectonThirdParties

Postdoctoral Fellow WANG Sen from Guanghua Law School, Zhejiang University, delivered a presentation titledReconsiderationontheEnvironmental ImpactAssessmentundertheAntarcticTreatySystemandItsEffectonThird Parties. Dr. Wang began by providing an overview of the Antarctic Treaty System(hereinafter “ATS”), highlighting four crucial aspects. Firstly, the ATS does not discriminate against treaties under UNCLOS, which is evident in Article 6 of the Antarctic Treaty. Secondly, the ATS operates with its own distinct and unique regulations within its jurisdiction. Thirdly, a framework of mutual respect should be established between UNCLOS and the ATS. Fourthly, numerous states are parties to both UNCLOS and the ATS.

Dr. Wang then proceeded to elaborate on the environmental impact assessment(hereinafter “EIA”) system within the ATS. According to Article 3(2)(c) of the Madrid Protocol, any activities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall be planned and conducted on the basis of information sufficient to allow prior assessments of, and informed judgments about, their possible impacts on the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems and on the value of Antarctica for the conduct of scientific research. According to Article 8(1) of the Madrid Protocol,any proposed activities referred to in paragraph 2 below shall be subject to the procedures set out in Annex I for prior assessment of the impacts of those activities on the Antarctic environment or on dependent or associated ecosystems according to whether those activities are identified as having (a) less than a minor or transitory impact; (b) a minor or transitory impact; or (c) more than a minor or transitory impact. Annex I of the Madrid Protocol - Environmental Impact Assessment contains eight articles including Preliminary Stage, Initial Environmental Evaluation (hereinafter “IEE”), Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation(hereinafter “CEE”), Decisions to Be Based on Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations, Monitoring, Circulation of Information, Cases of Emergency, and Amendment or Modification. It states that the environmental impacts of proposed activities referred to in Article 8 of the Protocol shall, before their commencement,be considered in accordance with appropriate national procedures. If an activity is determined as having less than a minor or transitory impact, an IEE report is enough. However, if an activity is determined as having more than a minor or transitory impact, a CEE report should be prepared. Dr. Wang conducted a thorough analysis of the aforementioned articles, highlighting the comprehensive nature of these provisions regarding EIA, and noting that Resolution 1, adopted in 2016, provided guiding principles for conducting EIA. He also presented his evaluation of EIA under the ATS: EIA stands as a pivotal factor in promoting improved environmental protection in Antarctica. Under the ATS, EIA applies to all activities in Antarctica, with the exception of activities such as fishing, whaling,and emergency actions. Notably, the lack of relevant domestic laws in many Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (hereinafter “ATCPs”) at the time facilitated the development of EIA under the ATS. The evolution of EIA under the ATS up to the present day has established it as a mature model, potentially serving as a valuable learning experience for other systems.

Dr. Wang also discussed the influence of the ATS on non-contracting third parties, emphasizing the importance of regulating both contracting and noncontracting parties within the ATS framework. This serves as a fundamental principle. However, there remains room for improvement within the ATS framework. Many ATCPs are also parties to UNCLOS and have actively engaged in negotiations on BBNJ. To avoid unnecessary duplication, they might be inclined to await the outcomes of the BBNJ negotiations before taking further action.

D.CapacityBuildingandtheTechnologyTransferundertheBBNJ Agreement

Prof. ZHANG Lina from the Law School, Hainan University, delivered a presentation titledCapacityBuildingandtheTechnologyTransferundertheBBNJ Agreement. Prof. Zhang began her report with a brief introduction to capacity building and technology transfer (hereinafter “CB&TT”). CB&TT is one of the four topics being discussed in the BBNJ intergovernmental negotiations. The participating states in the Intergovernmental Committee unanimously recognize the significance of CB&TT in enhancing the ability of developing states to meet their regulatory responsibilities under the BBNJ. Consequently, CB&TT is often referred to as the catalyst for the other three components of the BBNJ. Nevertheless, there is still a divergence of opinions among states regarding the model of CB&TT. The current CB&TT model is built upon the framework of UNCLOS. The development and transfer of marine technology are addressed in Part XIV of UNCLOS,encompassing general provisions, international cooperation, national and regional marine technology centers, and collaboration among international organizations.Part XIV thereof that covers CB&TT encompasses the following elements: first,to facilitate the acquisition, assessment, and sharing of knowledge related to marine technology; second, to develop marine technology; third, to promote the transfer of marine technology; fourth, to develop human resources; and fifth,to foster international cooperation. Furthermore, there are also other provisions within UNCLOS relating to CB&TT. These include Part XI “The Area”, Part XII “Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment”, and Part XIII “Marine Scientific Research”.

Prof. Zhang then proceeded to analyze the deficiencies of the current model in place. Specifically, she pointed out that firstly, the provisions of UNCLOS have not been effectively put into action. While UNCLOS has foreseen the need to address issues through scientific cooperation, capacity building, and technology transfer,among other related measures, these provisions have not been fully implemented over the 4 decades since UNCLOS came into effect. Despite some efforts in the realm of capacity building, the outcomes have not been substantial. From her perspective, the States Parties’ obligations are too weak, primarily relying on voluntariness rather than compulsion. Secondly, UNCLOS does not provide any specific details regarding institutional mechanisms, except for provisions related to the role of the ISA in Part XIII. It lacks a comprehensive framework for CB&TT mechanisms. Thirdly, UNCLOS does not set a permanent financial mechanism.To make capacity building work effective, continuous and stable financing is crucial. However, UNCLOS primarily relies on voluntary contributions to trust and assistance funds, which have not provided sufficient funding for the implementation of UNCLOS. Fourthly, UNCLOS does not provide a clearing-house mechanism,which is vital for achieving the objectives of capacity-building and technology transfer under UNCLOS.

Prof. Zhang then proposed recommendations for improvement: In order to effectively implement CB&TT, it is critical to form a continuous cycle from needs assessment to planning, implementation, evaluation and follow-up. States parties should simultaneously be held accountable to the CB&TT and establish complementary institutions to oversee the operation of the model. Considering the substantial work required under the newBBNJagreement, securing significant financial support is imperative. Therefore, establishing appropriate financial mechanisms is essential to ensure the execution of the agreement. CB&TT under theBBNJAgreementrequires assistance from a clearing-house mechanism. This mechanism can serve as a centralized platform that enables parties to access,provide, and disseminate information related to CB&TT.

E.Non-UNCLOSState’sPerspectiveontheBBNJAgreement Negotiations:RepublicofTurkey

Onur Sabri Durak, Researcher from the Koguan School of Law, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Visiting Professor from the Peking University School of Transnational Law, delivered a presentation titledNon-UNCLOSState’sPerspective ontheBBNJAgreementNegotiations:RepublicofTurkey. Prof. Onur Sabri Durak began by introducing the areas beyond national jurisdiction, which encompass the majority of the world’s oceans and are of paramount ecological and socioeconomic significance due to their marine resources and biodiversity. However,these areas are under unprecedented pressure from pollution, overexploitation,climate change, and diminishing biodiversity. Facing these challenges and considering the increasing demand for marine resources in fields like food,medicine, and energy, the vast majority of states agree on the need to develop a new implementing agreement under UNCLOS, with an aim to protect and sustainably utilize resources in these areas. The agreement will further operationalize existing principles of UNCLOS, achieving more comprehensive management of activities in the high seas. These principles include obligations of cooperation, conservation and protection of the marine environment, and the requirement for prior impact assessments of activities. Prof. Onur Sabri Durak then raised questions about how the new legal instrument would apply to non-states parties and how to determine BBNJ in the absence of defined maritime boundaries between adjacent or opposite states. He also discussed the methodology of factual analysis, highlighting a nontheoretical and non-normative analysis and discussion.

Prof. Onur Sabri Durak then shifted his discussion to Turkey’s relationship with UNCLOS. He noted that during the plenary session on 8 December 1982,Turkey, due to its unique geographical circumstances, explicitly stated its refusal to sign or ratify UNCLOS. Prior to this, Turkey had presented five proposals during the negotiations of UNCLOS, encompassing topics such as the width of territorial waters, delimitation of the continental shelf, enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, maritime zones around islands, and maritime boundary delimitation between adjacent or opposite coastal states. Additionally, Turkey raised considerations including the legal regime for international navigation through straits and the delimitation of airspace above territorial waters. Turkey has its own stance on safeguarding the marine environment in accordance with international law.Turkey does not oppose the provisions in UNCLOS concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment. In fact, Turkey has signed various agreements such as theInternationalConventionforthePreventionofPollution fromShips(MARPOL), theConventionfortheProtectionoftheMarine EnvironmentandtheCoastalRegionoftheMediterranean(namely “Barcelona Convention”), theProtocolconcerningSpeciallyProtectedAreasandBiological DiversityintheMediterranean, theConventionontheProtectionoftheBlackSea AgainstPollution(namely “Bucharest Convention”), theBlackSeaBiodiversityand LandscapeConservation, theAntarcticTreaty, and theProtocolonEnvironmental ProtectiontotheAntarcticTreaty, etc. Prof. Onur Sabri Durak provided a detailed explanation on the measures and significance of biodiversity conservation in Turkey. Every biogeographic region possesses its own distinct ecosystems, and the variety of ecosystems and habitats contributes to the diversity of species. Turkey’s abundant and distinctive biodiversity is upheld through effective conservation and monitoring efforts. Endangered species from 1991 to 2020 such as loggerhead sea turtles and green sea turtles will continue to survive under the collaborative efforts of national and international projects, as well as non-governmental organizations.Turkey’s National Biological Diversity Database, also known as Noah’s Ark, will offer valuable information to scientists and the business community alike. This will facilitate the utilization of plants in various sectors including food, medicine,painting materials, energy, and defense. Furthermore, Turkey has undertaken a project focused on the “Threat Assessment of Invasive Alien Species in Important Marine Biodiversity Areas”. The objective is to mitigate or eradicate the detrimental effects arising from invasive alien species by identifying them within important marine biodiversity areas, subsequently alleviating the strain on native species and their habitats, while also implementing monitoring measures.

Prof. Onur Sabri Durak presented a detailed overview of Turkey’s compliance with the international biodiversity framework. Afterwards, he reviewed the involvement of the Turkish delegation in the negotiations of theBBNJagreement,highlighting Turkey’s reiterated stance during the fourth session. He concluded by stating that Turkey is not a state party to UNCLOS and is unlikely to join it in the future. Despite Turkey’s active participation in the BBNJ negotiations and its submission of numerous proposals, the current text of theBBNJagreementsuggests that Turkey is unlikely to sign or ratify the agreement in the end, unless substantial amendments are made to the existing text.

F.BBNJAgreementandtheArctic

Prof. Vito De Lucia from the Norwegian Center for the Law of the Sea at the Faculty of Law, The Arctic University of Norway, delivered a presentation titled BBNJ Agreement and the Arctic. Prof. Vito De Lucia began by providing an overview of the BBNJ negotiations. He went through the timeline of the negotiation process and noted that the objective of these negotiations is to establish a thorough legal and governance framework aimed at conserving and sustainably utilizing BBNJ. He also analyzed the geographical relevance of BBNJ to the Arctic region,highlighting the significance of theBBNJAgreementin the Arctic. He noted that the Arctic region possesses unique biodiversity but is also vulnerable, with notable fragmentation and gaps in regulation and governance within the intricate network of global sectoral and regional instruments.

The Arctic Council was established in 1996 based on theOttawaDeclarationand comprises eight member states. The primary objective of the Arctic Council is to foster collaboration, coordination, and interaction among its members on various shared concerns in the Arctic region, with a particular focus on sustainable development and environmental protection. The Arctic Council comprises six working groups that are tasked with research, discussions, policy formulation, and important work on ecosystem methodology. However, the Arctic Council does not have the function of policy-making.

When considering the possible implications of theBBNJAgreement, Prof.Vito De Lucia first highlighted the legal authority to establish MPAs. Furthermore,there is a potential decrease in the relevance of the Arctic Council. Therefore,there is a need to redefine and reconsider the role and functions of the Arctic Council, including considering the possibility of transforming it into a formal intergovernmental organization. He ended his statement by acknowledging the significant potential role that the Arctic Council plays in facilitating scientific collaboration with the newly established institutions under theBBNJAgreement.The Arctic Council can definitely enhance its contribution to BBNJ by leveraging scientific knowledge, which includes scientific content involved in the negotiations regarding specific provisions. The Arctic Council has a highly comprehensive methodological framework for scientific knowledge and consultation. This includes ecosystem approaches, MPAs, ecosystem assessments, and monitoring.Additionally, there are several working groups within the council, each contributing to its specific role. The Arctic Council’s role also encompasses coordinating regional actions that span across different jurisdictions.

G.ComplianceMechanismsundertheBBNJAgreement

Doctoral candidate XIAO Tong from the South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University, delivered a presentation titledComplianceMechanismsunderthe BBNJAgreement. XIAO Tong held that compliance measures play a crucial role within the entire compliance system. They directly contribute to the functioning of the entire system and indirectly drive the successful implementation of theBBNJ Agreement. In her report, she began by giving a brief overview of the background regarding the compliance measures in the BBNJ negotiations, focusing on the consensus reached and the points of contention during these negotiations.

In addition, she provided insights into compliance measures by presenting theoretical approaches such as liberal and institutionalist theories. According to the liberal theory, a State’s failure to fulfill its treaty obligations is not intentional but rather due to a lack of technical, financial, or administrative support. According to the institutionalist theory, a State’s non-compliance occurs when the benefits of non-compliance outweigh the costs (“cost-benefit theory”). These two theories mentioned above give rise to incentives and disincentives, often referred to as “carrots and sticks. Incentives play a significant role in promoting compliance and have been addressed in the latest draft of theBBNJAgreement. These measures, including the most common technical and financial assistance, ensure the functioning of the compliance system. The draft text of theBBNJAgreementmentions only incentives and does not explicitly address disincentives. However,disincentives should also be included in the BBNJ compliance mechanism, as they can enhance the efficiency of the entire compliance system. Disincentives include reputation disincentives and termination disincentives. The concept of reputation disincentives was proposed by Prof. Andrew Guzman at Berkeley Law School. Its main idea is that if a state breaches international law, it will impact its reputation, leading to negative consequences in its future interactions with other states. Reputation disincentives are common in multilateral environmental agreements. Examples can be found in agreements such as theMontrealProtocol,theBaselConvention, and theCartagenaProtocolonBiosafety. Termination disincentives come in two forms: One is the termination of specific rights and privileges as stipulated in the agreement, and the other is the termination of trade licenses. Termination disincentives are also common in many MEAs, including theConventiononInternationalTradeinEndangeredSpeciesofWildFaunaand Flora, theMontrealProtocol, and theKyotoProtocol. The Compliance Committee of theKyotoProtocolhas enforced termination disincentives on several states,demanding their adherence to the agreement’s provisions. 70 percent of these states have submitted new compliance measures, indicating the effectiveness of termination disincentives.

XIAO Tong concluded by asserting that incentives are the fundamental and preferred approach to promoting compliance within the entire compliance system.They ensure the active functioning of the system. However, these measures should be complemented by disincentives to enhance efficiency. With theBBNJAgreementnow closer to realization, there is a need to gather more information as we move closer to its final implementation. Whether before or after the agreement is adopted,there will likely be increasing debates and discussions among the States Parties.

III. Conclusion

During the concluding remarks of the conference, ZHANG Haiwen, Director of China Institute for Marine Affairs, Ministry of Natural Resources, delivered a concluding statement on behalf of the organizers. Director Zhang emphasized that the conservation and sustainable utilization of BBNJ are crucial for the sustainable development of human society. The legislative process of relevant international agreements is of shared interest to the entire international community. Given that this symposium took place during the resumed 5th session of intergovernmental negotiations, Director Zhang deemed it to be of significant importance. Through a summary of the presentations from various speakers on different topics, Director Zhang noted that experts and scholars have contributed their latest research to each topic, offering intellectual support to facilitate China’s participation in relevant negotiations.

Translators: CHEN Cong, YAN Lilan

Editor (English): HUANG Yuxin