第二屆“國家管轄范圍以外區域海洋生物多樣性的國際立法”學術研討會綜述

馮金龍 雷麗萍

當前，國家管轄范圍以外區域海洋生物多樣性養護和可持續利用問題國際協定（以下簡稱“BBNJ 協定”）談判是最重要的國際海洋立法進程之一。為了系統分析BBNJ 協定談判的現狀及目前所面臨的諸多法律挑戰，并嘗試從法律和科學等多個視角為我國參加相關談判提供智力支持。2022 年11 月11 日，由中國海洋發展基金會、自然資源部海洋發展戰略研究所、廈門大學法學院主辦，廈門市海洋發展局、福建海洋可持續發展研究院（廈門大學）協辦，廈門大學南海研究院、福建省社會科學研究基地海洋法與中國東南海疆研究中心承辦的第二屆“國家管轄范圍以外區域海洋生物多樣性的國際立法”學術研討會（以下簡稱“研討會”）通過線上方式成功舉辦。在國際交往因疫情受限的背景下，作為廈門國際海洋周暨廈門國際海洋論壇的一部分，本屆研討會采用線上方式舉行，會議語言為中英文雙語并配有同聲傳譯，共有15 位海內外專家學者圍繞會議主題、聯系實踐做主旨報告并進行討論交流。

本屆研討會開幕式由自然資源部海洋發展戰略研究所所長張海文主持，自然資源部國際合作司司長陳丹紅、外交部條約法律司副司長茍海波、中國海洋發展基金會副理事長兼秘書長潘新春、廈門大學法學院副院長朱曉勤出席會議并致辭。

一、包括海洋保護區在內的劃區管理工具與跨領域問題

本屆研討會的第一個議題為“包括海洋保護區在內的劃區管理工具與跨領域問題”，由自然資源部國際合作司處長王安濤主持，上海海洋大學海洋文化與法律學院教授唐議、中國大洋礦產資源研究開發協會高級工程師高巖、日本東北大學副教授西本健太郎（Kentaro Nishimoto）、武漢大學中國邊界與海洋研究院教授蔣小翼、華東政法大學國際法學院副教授鄭雷、皮尤慈善信托基金會（Pew Charitable Trusts）公海海洋生物保護官員、澳大利亞臥龍崗大學博士研究生尼古拉·克拉克（Nichola Clark）、海南大學公共管理學院教授姜秀敏以及廈門大學南海研究院博士研究生莊媛圍繞該議題分別進行了富有成果的討論。

（一）國家管轄范圍以外包括海洋保護區的劃區管理工具全球規則——BBNJ 協定與相關法律文書、框架和機構的合作與協調

上海海洋大學海洋文化與法律學院教授唐議做了題為“國家管轄范圍以外包括海洋保護區的劃區管理工具全球規則——BBNJ 協定與相關法律文書、框架和機構的合作與協調”的報告。唐議教授首先指出，包括海洋保護區（Marine protected area，以下簡稱“MPA”）的劃區管理工具（Area-based management tools，以下簡稱“ABMTs”）是指導BBNJ 協定談判的2011 年“一攬子計劃”的四要素之一，也是受到國際社會高度關注的議題。

其次，唐議教授介紹了現有關于國家管轄范圍以外ABMTs的相關法律文書、框架以及全球、區域和次區域、部門機構（以下簡稱“IFB”）的現狀。例如，1994年《關于執行1982 年12 月10 日〈聯合國海洋法公約〉第十一部分的協定》中規定了特別環境利益區、影響參照區、保護參照區，當前在克拉里昂—克利珀頓區建有9 個特別環境利益區。1995 年《聯合國魚類種群協定》盡管沒有直接規定ABMTs，但彌補了《聯合國海洋法公約》（以下簡稱“《公約》”）在魚類種群養護與管理方面的不足?！秶H防止船舶造成污染公約》及相關協定中規定了特別區域、特別敏感區，當前在地中海、南極建有2 個特別區域?！秶H捕鯨管制公約》規定了鯨保護區，區域漁業管理組織或安排設置了保護脆弱海洋生態系統的禁漁區，區域海洋協定或項目中規定了海洋保護區，南極海洋生物資源養護委員會規定了禁漁區和海洋保護區，并于2010 年和2017 年分別建立了一個海洋保護區。

再次，唐議教授回顧了從2017 年籌備委員會會議到第五次政府間會議談判中關于ABMTs 的IFB 的演進過程，案文條款在形式和內容上均變化頻繁。從發展的脈絡來看，在預備委員會通過的建議當中將ABMTs 的IFB 作為單獨一個部分，在第一次和第二次政府間會議談判當中作為要處理的事項，在第三次和第四次政府間會議談判中主席文件作為單獨一條。最新的主席案文中，ABMTs 的IFB 不再單獨作為一條，而是并入到第19 條“決策”當中。唐議教授認為，最新的主席案文對原第15 條與第19 條進行了充分、全面的融合，使得關于包括MPA在內的ABMTs 的國際合作與協調更加務實，體現在BBNJ 協定的締約方會議與相關IFB 的職權分工中，然而國際合作與協調的重要性在形式上被弱化，因為它不再作為單獨的一條，而是被融合在第19 條當中。最新的主席案文試圖擴大BBNJ 協定的締約方會議在建立包括MPA 的ABMTs 和相關措施方面的授權。

此外，唐議教授認為應在案文中明確規定，只有在沒有相關IFB 具有建立包括MPA 的ABMTs 或相關措施職權的情況下，BBNJ 協定的締約方會議才能就建立包括MPA 在內的ABMTs 和相關措施作出決定。締約方會議在建立包括MPA 的ABMTs 和相關措施方面的決策機制應當是協商一致。他以MPA 與漁業資源養護的關系為例，認為更加專業的區域漁業機構能夠更恰當地處理漁業問題，而不是通過一個龐大的全球性的綜合機構，尤其是在多數票決的決策機制下，這很難解決實際問題。

（二）國際海底區域區域環境管理計劃的進展

中國大洋礦產資源研究開發協會高級工程師高巖做了題為“國際海底區域區域環境管理計劃的進展”的報告。高巖高工首先介紹了區域環境管理計劃（Regio nal environmental management plan，以下簡稱“REMP”）的背景知識，深海采礦活動可能導致生物多樣性的喪失，作為管理深海礦產資源的權威組織，國際海底管理局應組織和控制與礦產資源有關的活動，同時要確保有效保護環境免受區域內環境可能所產生的有害影響，這是《公約》第145 條規定的關于國際海底管理局任務的一個重要部分。REMP 為國際海底管理局、擔保國和承包商做出明智的決策，其提供明確和一致的機制來確定需要保護的地區或地點，并提供適當水平的保護，ABMTs 也將在制定和實施REMP 中發揮重要的作用。

其次，高巖高工介紹了東太平洋克拉里昂—克利帕頓斷裂區多金屬結核保留區（Clarion-Clipperton Zone，以下簡稱“CC 區”）開發的REMP，大致可分為四個階段：第一階段是夏威夷大學組織的卡普蘭項目，在科學認識的基礎之上設計特別環境利益區（Areas of particular environmental interest，以下簡稱“APEI”）并且提出REMP 的建議，最重要的部分是建立一個由9 個APEI 組成的保護區網絡，在這個提案被國際海底管理局采納之后，建立了CC 區的REMP，而后經過三年的實施和五年的審查，增加四個APEI 的提案在2021 年獲得批準。APEI 也是深海的第一個ABMT，通常是被描述為擁有自我維持的種群和廣泛的生境變化的大區域。自2016 年起，CC 區的REMP 開始審議。審查包括四個部分：（1）審查和分析來自CC 區的最新海底生態系統數據；（2）分析CC 區內海底和海底邊界層生物多樣性、群落結構、物種范圍、遺傳連通性、生態系統功能和生境異質性的模式；（3）評估與勘探合同區域相關的APEI 的代表性；（4）確定可添加更多具有代表性的APEI 的區域。

高巖高工還介紹了北大西洋中脊開發的REMP，這一計劃始于2018 年在波蘭舉辦的專家研討會，2019 年在葡萄牙舉辦了專家研討會，2021 年又舉辦了線上研討會，在2021 年5 月份法律和技術委員會組成工作組起草REMP，并將草案提交給理事會，2022 年9 月獲得理事會的批準。其中，包括11 個需要保護的地點和3 個需要保護的區域，9 個需要采取預防措施的地點和區域。

最后，高巖高工總結了REMP 的經驗：一是先就使用場地和網絡標準實驗的粗規模APEI 的區域，需要與保護的細規模場地的REMP 相組合，從而滿足廣泛的代表生境保護和脆弱場地保護的需要；二是分區的方案，比如像核心區、緩沖區，簡單的保護區需要保護連續的生境和梯度，保護生物和遺傳連接性；三是REMP在不同地區和礦產類型會有不同，需要采取不同的方法和門檻，以確保有效的管理，即在不同的區域需要不同的REMP。

（三）BBNJ 協定是如何影響相關法律文書、框架與機構的？——關于劃區管理工具條款的評析

日本東北大學副教授西本健太郎（Kentaro Nishimoto）做了題為“BBNJ 協定是如何影響相關法律文書、框架與機構的？——關于劃區管理工具條款的評析”的報告。西本副教授首先闡釋了當前ABMTs 的三種模式，分別是全球模式、混合模式以及區域模式。盡管這三個模式推動了BBNJ 協定談判方的前進，但是距離BBNJ 協定達成越來越近之時，需要關注此協定會給締約方帶來何種義務。

其次，西本副教授分析了當前BBNJ 協定案文中與IFB 協調的機制，其中一個就是建立機構協調程序，例如在第48 條第5 項中要求建立適當程序等方式，促進與相關IFB 之間的合作與協調。盡管這個規定不夠明確，但相應的機制已經在BBNJ 協定中得到體現。

再次，西本副教授又分析了BBNJ 協定對IFB 可能產生的影響。例如第6 條關于國際合作的規定，要求同時也是相關法IFB 的締約方，在參與IFB 之下的決策時，應努力促進本協定的宗旨。這是在第四次政府間會議談判后新加入案文草案的，確立起國際合作的一般義務適用于整個條約的原則，同時合作的情形是具體的，即在參與IFB 決策時；而締約方的義務則由于使用“努力”一詞被減輕。又如第20 條第1 款采用了“確?！币辉~，來確定IFB 以及BBNJ 協定的一致性，第20 條第4 款要求締約方應促進其加入IFB 采取措施，以支持落實締約方會議根據該部分規定所作出的決定和所給出的建議，這比第6 條中的要求更為嚴苛。另外，BBNJ 協定下的締約方大會對包括在區域漁業管理組織內的IFB 應采取哪些措施上發揮了較強的協調作用，為實現跨不同部門在國家管轄范圍以外區域的協調治理方面邁出了重要的一步，而案文第20 條第4 款將為確保實現協調一致的治理提供法律的基礎。與此同時，它也會產生一些負面的影響，因為它會和現有區域漁業管理組織產生沖突，具體體現在BBNJ 協定如果獲得通過并生效，但沒有得到廣泛批準的話，區域漁業管理組織內部就會存在立場兩極化的風險。

最后，西本副教授建議應繼續研究全球、區域或部門的方法，將它們進行適當的融合，既能夠致力于國家管轄范圍以外區域治理的協調性，同時也不損害IFB。根據最新案文草案所采用的方法，BBNJ 協定所規定的在IFB 進行決策時合作的義務，是促使各國朝著該協定所引領的方向做出努力的重要機制。然而，盡管人們希望這將有助于協調一致的海洋治理，但BBNJ 協定會給現有IFB 的決策帶來更多困難。

（四）BBNJ 協定劃區管理工具的臨時與緊急措施

武漢大學中國邊界與海洋研究院教授蔣小翼做了題為“BBNJ 協定劃區管理工具的臨時與緊急措施”的報告。蔣小翼教授首先概述了BBNJ 協定談判中關于臨時與緊急措施的進展，此想法最初是由一些非政府組織在籌備委員會會議期間提出的，但是直到第四次政府間會議，新西蘭在其文本提案中提及，小組委員會才對臨時和緊急措施進行了討論，但未引起足夠的重視。在第五次政府間會議中，代表們圍繞臨時和緊急措施進行了激烈的討論并達成了一定共識，然而一些關鍵問題還有待進一步討論。

其次，蔣小翼教授探討了臨時和緊急措施的必要性。如今，與氣候變化有關的事件和由人類所引起的緊急情況越來越多且更加難以預測，這些緊急事件所造成的生態破壞是難以恢復的，對海洋的前沿利用，如與氣候相關的海洋地球工程、海底采礦等帶來了新的挑戰。建立MPA 的過程既耗時又復雜，因此在MPA 管理生效之前，有必要采取應對緊急情況的措施，適當的緊急措施將有助于BBNJ 的養護。

最后，蔣小翼教授對臨時和緊急措施的三個關鍵問題作了分析：第一，預防性的方法和原則需要整合或納入相關文本，要求考慮環境科學和風險管理方面的不確定性，不應以缺乏充分的科學確定性為由，推遲采取具有成本效益的措施來防止環境退化；第二，應精簡當前案文中關于門檻的規定，可以改成“只有在緊急、特殊和不尋常的情況下才能采取緊急措施”，門檻應當是明確且嚴格的，否則這些措施可能會干擾公海上的正常行動；第三，盡管締約方會議應當采取緊急措施，但這些措施不應損害《公約》和其他IFB 賦予權利，例如，BBNJ 協定中的緊急措施不應損害國家的合法權益和國家對船舶的專屬管轄權。

（五）BBNJ 議題中相關國際組織的環境養護職能合作與協調問題研究

華東政法大學國際法學院副教授鄭雷做了題為“BBNJ 議題中相關國際組織的環境養護職能合作與協調問題研究”的報告。鄭雷副教授首先概述了BBNJ 議題中所涉及的國際組織，一是國際海事組織，其主要職能是負責航運安全以及防止船舶污染海洋和大氣，國際海事組織的工作同樣支持聯合國可持續發展目標的實現；二是區域漁業組織，現有對公海漁業的管理主要依靠區域漁業管理組織，區域漁業組織已成為實現《公約》中保護與合作原則的重要國際機構；三是《生物多樣性公約》，作為一項具有法律約束力的國際條約，其主要解決三個問題：保護生物多樣性、可持續利用生物多樣性以及公正合理分享由利用遺傳資源所產生的惠益；四是區域性公海保護區，目前已有四個區域性的公海保護區；五是國際海底管理局，其對“區域”的專屬管轄權，任何國家不應對“區域”的任何部分或其資源主張或行使主權或主權權利，任何國家或自然人或法人，也不應將“區域”或其資源的任何部分據為己有。

其次，鄭雷副教授論述了協調相關國際組織職能的三種模式：第一，全球模式，指全球性機構主導并負責管理實施BBNJ 中公海保護區的模式，該模式不僅有利于BBNJ 的統一執行和監管，也有助于保障各國廣泛參與到公海保護區的建立過程中，能夠避免區域性公海保護區建立時，區域外國家無法參與的問題，而其弊端是建立新的全球機構會不可避免地增加新的管理成本，同時新的機構是否能夠協調好與既有國際機構之間的關系還存在不確定性；第二，混合模式，該模式分為兩種：一是由全球決策，區域機構執行，由于全球決策機構的存在，這可能有利于保障成員國的參與權，有利于公海保護區全球的整體規劃和設計，消除“馬賽克化”，但無法影響各國既有國際組織的執行，同時由于要設立新的全球決策機構，可能會增加新的成本，二是由全球層面提供指導，區域機構執行和決策，這樣能夠做到公海保護區全球的整體規劃和設計，但需要既有國際組織的支持和配合，由于沒有全球機構的存在，區域外國家可能無法影響一些區域性國際組織建立公海保護區的決策，無法讓區域外國家有效參與；第三，“部門+區域模式”，指區域性機構主導并執行，BBNJ 新文書將提供關劃區管理工具的一般原則和處理辦法，同時確認區域和部門組織在決策、監測和審查方面的充分權威，而不是由全球機制監督，該模式有利于BBNJ 的靈活執行，能夠充分利用現有的國際組織，一般不會發生新機構與既有機構之間的沖突問題，但它不利于整合現有的公海保護區或類似實踐，不利于消除海洋保護區的“馬賽克化”，也不利于促進海洋保護區的整體管理。

最后，鄭雷副教授提出了合作的可能路徑：一是堅持養護和可持續利用的平衡，二是適用合作義務，三是在可對相關海域進行可持續利用的情況下，強化公海經濟利用組織的環保標準，四是與現有國際組織的職權不沖突，并彌補現存國際機制中真正的空白。

（六）BBNJ 協定的體制安排

皮尤慈善信托基金會公海海洋生物保護官員、澳大利亞臥龍崗大學博士研究生（尼古拉·克拉克）Nichola Clark 做了題為“BBNJ 協定的體制安排”的報告?？死耸紫冉榻B了BBNJ 協定的體制安排概況，包括締約方會議、科學和技術機構、秘書處以及其他可能的附屬機構，例如能力建設和海洋技術轉讓、供資、遵約、惠益分享、監測和審查等委員會。但是，這些BBNJ 協定下的機構將如何與其他IFB 進行協調，以及BBNJ 協定將在海洋治理組織中處于何種地位，是機構討論中的重要議題。其次，克拉克分析了2022 年BBNJ 協定談判中關于體制安排的主要進展：第一，談判中的體制安排方面最大的變化之一是從“全球”“區域”“混合”術語本身轉向了這些不同機構的功能和權力上；第二，BBNJ 協定下的其他附屬機構正在獲得支持，包括惠益分享、能力建設和技術轉讓、信息交換機制、供資機制、執行和遵守機制等。

最后，克拉克列舉了若干體制安排方面懸而未決的關鍵問題：第一個需要關注的問題是“不損害”，如何在不損害的情況下進行合作與協調需要一種微妙的平衡，其中不損害就是不與IFB 重疊，還有就是不能弱化IFB；第二個需要關注的問題是決策方式，有些國家主張通過投票決定，有些則主張通過協商一致的方式；第三個需要關注的問題是所謂的“退出機制”，大多數區域組織、澳大利亞、新西蘭表示反對這一機制，相關問題是否有一種不損害條約工作的“退出機制”程序？是否只適用于ABMTs，還是整個條約？這些在案文當中還沒有相應的規定；第四個需要關注的問題是細節性問題，一方面是諸如議事規則、委員會組成、委員會特別是科學委員會成員的資格要求被推遲決議，另一方面是諸如秘書處和科學委員會的形式還未確定。

（七）BBNJ 國際協定與中國對公海漁業資源保護的貢獻

海南大學公共管理學院教授姜秀敏做了題為“BBNJ 國際協定與中國對公海漁業資源保護的貢獻”的報告。姜秀敏教授首先分析了《公約》下公海漁業資源治理的三個新挑戰：一是《公約》的理論核心受到質疑，最高可持續產量原則是《公約》的核心概念，其定義為在正常情況下該海域漁業可獲得的最高可持續產量，然而最高可持續產量原則忽略了漁業自身種群的信息，例如產卵期、年齡結構、增長率等；二是《公約》規則供應不足，例如未規定魚類洄游研究和歷史性權利的相關概念，沒有考慮到日益嚴重的氣候問題，忽視海洋環境保護等；三是《公約》中法律裁決面臨困境等，許多國際組織對《公約》下的裁決存在爭議，一些締約國在生物資源保護和邊界劃定方面違反《公約》的規定。

其次，姜秀敏教授從下述四個方面闡述了BBNJ 協定中關于公海漁業資源養護的爭論：一是海洋遺傳資源問題，海洋遺傳資源具有很高的經濟價值，然而在國家管轄范圍以外區域的海洋遺傳資源開發被視為長期和不確定的項目，而且大多數收益被視為非貨幣性的，導致它成為一個焦點問題；二是公海保護區問題，原先存在著三種不同的管理模式，目前混合方式和區域方式已逐步成為新協定的共識，除此之外，BBNJ 協定在海洋保護區制度中存在缺乏管理計劃等缺陷，直接導致現行公海保護區管理方式多為事后管理；三是環境影響評價制度，以歐盟為代表的“環保派”是BBNJ 國際立法的主要推動者，其目的是借助自身的技術優勢來維護國家利益；以美國、俄羅斯為代表的“利用派”則主張公海自由，希望維持現有海洋秩序，歡迎相關國家參與環境評價；77 國集團和中國主張利益共享，即需要考慮到不同國家的特點；四是能力建設和技術轉讓問題，發展中國家呼吁BBNJ 協定在《公約》能力建設和技術轉讓相關條款的基礎上建立強制性的技術規定，而發達國家則希望有條件的轉讓。

最后，姜秀敏教授還對中國參與公海漁業資源養護的可行性進行了分析，如中國在國際事務中發揮著獨特的建設性作用，且在保護海洋漁業資源方面有著豐富的經驗。姜秀敏教授隨后提出了中國參與公海漁業資源保護的合作途徑，包括在引領全球海洋治理整體布局下開展多層次的友好合作、促進國際軟法在漁業政策執行領域上的硬法化以及構建我國漁業治理體系等。

（八）BBNJ 國際協定中的傳統知識權利主體問題

廈門大學南海研究院博士研究生莊媛做了題為“BBNJ 國際協定中的傳統知識權利主體問題”的報告。莊媛首先分析了BBNJ 協定談判中各國關于傳統知識權利主體的分歧，以太平洋小島嶼發展中國家為代表的談判方認為土著人民和當地社區（Indigenous Peoples and local communities，以下簡稱“IPLCs”）是BBNJ國際協定中傳統知識的唯一權利主體類型，可稱之為“單一權利主體模式”。以中國為代表的談判方認為BBNJ 國際協定中的傳統知識權利主體應當實現多元化定位，不僅包含IPLCs，還應當包括國家在內的其他個人或實體，可稱之為“多元權利主體模式”。

其次，莊媛對界定BBNJ 國際協定中傳統知識權利主體的理論標準進行了探討，主要從主體適格性標準和主體確定性標準兩個方面進行論述。在主體適格性標準上，單一權利主體模式和多元權利主體模式涵蓋的權利主體類型中，IPLCs和國家都具有集體性質，且國家在法律關系中通常被視為公權力主體。即使如此，只要以上主體能夠以非強權者的身份享有傳統知識專有權，參與傳統知識法律關系，就具有成為BBNJ 國際協定中傳統知識權利主體的法律資格。在主體確定性標準上，就傳統知識權利主體模式選擇的理論標準而言，單一權利主體模式和多元權利主體模式涵蓋的權利主體類型在符合私權性質的要求時，都能滿足主體適格性標準。鑒于BBNJ 國際協定中的傳統知識存在歸屬于民族、國家等其他權利主體類型的可能性，只有多元權利主體模式符合主體確定性標準。

再次，莊媛概述了界定BBNJ 國際協定中傳統知識權利主體的立法實踐。在國家立法實踐上，采取單一權利主體模式的有巴西、秘魯、菲律賓、孟加拉國和哥斯達黎加等，采取多元權利主體模式泰國、南太平洋地區和肯尼亞等。在國際立法實踐上，采取單一權利主體模式的代表是《生物多樣性公約》及其框架下的《名古屋議定書》，采取多元權利主體模式的代表是《保護非物質文化遺產公約》與世界知識產權組織（WIPO）框架下的《傳統知識的保護：條款草案》。雖然單一權利主體模式和多元權利主體模式都存在豐富的既有實踐，但是多元權利主體模式給予傳統知識權利主體更為廣泛的定義，能夠全面涵蓋各國立法例中的權利主體類型，并符合國際立法實踐的發展趨勢，相較于單一權利主體模式更具包容性、靈活性和前瞻性。

最后，莊媛就識別BBNJ 國際協定中傳統知識權利主體的制度方案發表了看法，從確定傳統知識權利主體的一般原則和例外情形兩個方面進行分析。在一般原則層面，傳統知識在一般情形下應當歸屬于創造傳統知識的主體，具體類型應由持有傳統知識的群體范圍決定。由于BBNJ 國際協定中的傳統知識是人類活動與海洋生態環境相互作用的產物，持有傳統知識的主體通常是沿海IPLCs，少數情況下也可能是個人、家庭、民族、國家等其他實體。在例外情形層面，當發生無法明確BBNJ 國際協定中傳統知識的具體持有人或其他例外情形時，傳統知識的權利主體應當歸屬于傳統知識所在的國家。

二、環境影響評價、能力建設和海洋技術轉讓以及跨領域問題

議題二“環境影響評價、能力建設和海洋技術轉讓以及跨領域問題”由廈門大學南海研究院副院長施余兵教授主持。中國海洋大學法學院教授董躍、自然資源部第三海洋研究所助理研究員姜玉環、浙江大學光華法學院博士后王森、海南大學法學院教授張麗娜、上海交通大學凱原法學院研究員、北大深研院國際法學院客座教授Onur Sabri Durak、挪威特羅姆瑟大學法學院挪威海洋法中心教授Vito De Lucia、廈門大學南海研究院博士研究生肖桐圍繞該議題展開了交流與討論。

（一）BBNJ 國際造法中的國內法因素：以中國為例

中國海洋大學法學院教授董躍做了題為“BBNJ 國際造法中的國內法因素：以中國為例”的報告。董躍教授指出，從研究背景來看，由于BBNJ 國際文本談判涉及國際法新興領域，目前對于BBNJ 各個議題的主要理據仍是由各國外交主張加以表達。國內法在國際造法領域發揮著重要的作用，然而各國對于BBNJ 均沒有專門的立法，只有關聯的法律，例如深海區域礦產資源法、海洋科研的法律規范等。隨后，董躍教授提出在BBNJ 國際造法之中，應當如何看待各國國內法作用的問題，并特別指出預留了立法空間的相關法律，例如中國的《深海海底區域資源勘探開發法》（以下簡稱“《深海法》”）起到何種作用的問題。

隨后，董躍教授就上述問題展開詳細闡述，介紹了中國《深海法》的預留空間與預設立場：在預留空間方面，從適用范圍、具體制度兩方面展開，認為預留空間中最重要的是適用范圍，即《深海法》的適用范圍并不單純指向礦產資源，也包括生物資源。就具體制度而言，行政許可制度、環境保護制度、科學研究制度、監測及執法等幾項制度均可直接適用于未來中國深海生物資源活動；在預設立場方面，《深海法》規定了和平利用、合作共享、保護環境、維護人類共同利益的基本原則，體現了國家主導的基本立場，在國際法框架性規定之下，由國家來行使決策權，確立相關細則，保障實施效果，同時堅持環境保護與開發利用并重，環境保護要求應當與人類認識水平相適應。

最后，董躍教授闡述了深海國內立法與BBNJ 國際造法的關系。既有深海立法對于BBNJ 國際造法的影響包括宣示、示范和增效。通過國內立法宣示對于國際法相關問題的基本立場；以國內法制度如環境影響評價制度為示范，推動國際法及其他國家立法仿效；對于國際造法的潛在發展做出回應，以國家實踐推動相關國際法的生效，例如海洋保護區制度、特殊區域環境損害責任等。關于BBNJ 國際造法進程對于各國國內立法的考量，董躍教授提出，國內立法體現了未來國際法實施的基礎法律環境；要避免國際造法中脫離實踐的“理想主義”，也要充分考慮到絕大多數締約國的國內立法及實施的實踐情況；一些焦點問題，如果從各國現有立法實踐角度考察，可能會得到與目前主流觀點不太一致的結論；未來BBNJ 國際造法想要順利完成并且有良好的實踐效果，必須尊重各國既有的國內法實踐。

（二）BBNJ 協定下的環境影響評價

自然資源部第三海洋研究所助理研究員姜玉環做了題為“BBNJ 協定下的環境影響評價”的報告。她首先簡要介紹了BBNJ 協定下環境影響評價（Environmental Impact Assessment，以下簡稱“EIA”）的基本內涵界定和要素，指出最新案文對于EIA 的定義反映了國家實踐中環評的共通特點：EIA 作為前置性程序，與環境跟蹤監測評估、后評估或補充環評等措施相區分。EIA 的內容是預測、分析和評估計劃活動的潛在影響，以及提出防止與減緩措施。從這個意義來看其是基于活動的管理工具，目的功能是確保主管當局知情決策。從實踐經驗來看，環評的有效性需要考慮兩個方面因素，一是技術維度，評估的過程是運用專業知識的技術服務活動；二是管理層面，審批程序屬于行使公共權力的行政行為。

姜玉環助理研究員結合BBNJ 協定政府間會議談判的總體進展，具體闡述了EIA 規則部分的五個核心問題，包括適用范圍、門檻、關系以及國際化、戰略環評等，回顧現存的爭議問題及相關因素的考慮。她指出，正在談判的BBNJ 協議環境影響評價在關鍵問題上取得了總體良好的進展，各方在EIA 程序框架及報告核心組成內容等條款上達成初步一致，例如EIA 一般義務、基本流程、報告內容及對累積和跨界影響的考慮。同時，新的具體提議被納入文本（如序言、目的、SEA部分）。仍然有爭議的中心問題包括：門檻、與相關法律框架的關系、決策、戰略環評等。對于即將舉行的續會，需要進一步精簡案文，提高清晰度、完整性和平衡。

姜玉環助理研究員對報告內容進行總結并提出對未來的展望：首先，EIA 相關新的國際公認科學方法準則有助于促進BBNJ 可持續性利用，同時該框架也是具有價值的公參程序；其次，EIA 規則方法的制定與適用應考慮現實條件和發展需求的限制，尤其需要考慮對發展中國家能力建設的支持；第三，EIA 是決策支持程序，也是預防性措施。BBNJ 的EIA 規則基本上搭建了以EIA 為支柱的BBNJ環境管理系統；第四，EIA 不是國內環評的一種復制，也不是其他現有框架的替代或升級，平衡性和協調性將決定其未來的有效性。國家協調管轄內外以及協調區域政策，是未來協定實施的重要路徑，也可能有助于解決跨界問題；最后，仍然存在很多爭議性問題有待解決，為了達成協議需要以更加包容和透明的方式改進工作方法，以確保照顧到所有關切，只有這樣才能實現BBNJ 的目標。

（三）南極條約體系下的環評制度及對第三方的影響

浙江大學光華法學院博士后王森做了題為“南極條約體系下的環評制度及對第三方的影響”的報告。王森博士在報告中首先對南極條約體系進行概述，包括四個要點：一是南極條約體系并不歧視《公約》項下的條約，這點從《南極條約》第6條可以看出；二是南極條約體系在其管轄范圍內有自己具體的特殊規則；三是《公約》與南極條約體系應該有一個互相尊重的框架；四是有很多國家既是《公約》也是南極條約體系的締約國。

王森博士隨后著重闡述了南極條約體系下的環境影響評價制度?！蛾P于環境保護的南極條約議定書》（以下簡稱“馬德里議定書”）第3 條第 2 款（c）項：在南極條約地區的活動應根據充分信息來規劃和進行，其充分程度應足以就該活動對南極環境及依附于它的和與其相關的生態系統以及對南極用來從事科學研究的價值可能產生的影響作出預先評價和有根據的判定?！恶R德里議定書》第8條第1款：下列第2 款所涉及的擬議中的活動應在依照附件一所確定的就該活動對南極環境或依附于它的或與其相關的生態系統的影響進行預先評價的程序并根據此類活動是否確定為具有下列幾種影響來進行：（a）小于輕微或短暫的影響；或（b）輕微或短暫的影響；或（c）大于輕微或短暫的影響?！恶R德里議定書》附件1“環境影響評價”中包括初始階段、初步環境評價、全面環境評價、基于全面環境評價的決定、監測、信息與傳播、緊急情況、修正或修改等八個條款。其中提到：本議定書第八條所提及的擬議中的活動對環境的影響應在活動開始之前按照有關的國內程序加以考慮。如果一項活動被確定具有小于輕微或短暫的影響，則準備初步環境評價報告即可；如果一項活動被確定具有大于輕微或短暫的影響，則應準備全面環境評價報告。王森博士對以上條文進行了詳細分析，指出這些條文提供了很詳細的環評規則，以及2016 年的1 號決議是關于環評的一些指導原則，并提出其對南極條約體系下EIA 的評價：EIA 是促進改善南極洲環境保護的一個關鍵因素，在南極條約體系之下的EIA 適用于所有在南極洲的活動，捕魚、捕鯨、緊急行動等除外。由于當時許多南極條約協商國（以下簡稱“ATCPs”）尚未制定相關國內法，因此促進了南極條約體系之下的EIA 發展。南極條約體系之下的EIA 發展至今，將被視為一個成熟的模式，可供其他制度學習。

王森博士還就南極條約體系對非締約第三方的影響展開論述，指出在整個南極條約體系機制中，需要監管締約方以及非締約方，這是基本規定。在南極條約體系之下，還有許多方面需要進一步改進。大多數ATCPs 同時也是《公約》的締約方，都非常積極地參與到BBNJ 的談判過程中，為了避免不必要的重復，他們可能更愿意等待BBNJ 的結果出來。

（四）BBNJ 協定下能力建設和海洋技術轉讓的模式

海南大學法學院教授張麗娜做了題為“BBNJ 協議下能力建設和海洋技術轉讓的模式”的報告。張麗娜教授在報告中首先對能力建設和海洋技術轉讓（Capacity building and technology transfer，以下簡稱“CB&TT”）做了簡要介紹。CB&TT是BBNJ 政府間會議談判的四個議題之一，政府間委員會參與國一致同意，CB&TT 對于提高發展中國家履行BBNJ 管理義務能力至關重要，因此CB&TT也被稱為BBNJ 其他三個要素的推動者，然而各國對于CB&TT 模式的看法仍有分歧?，F有CB&TT 模式是基于《公約》框架的，海洋技術的發展與轉讓在《公約》框架中出現在第十四部分，主要包括一般性規定、國際合作、國家及區域海洋科技中心、國際組織之間的合作等內容?！豆s》第十四部分涉及CB&TT 的內容包括：一是要促進海洋技術知識的獲取、評估和傳播；二是要發展海洋技術；三是要促進海洋技術的轉讓；四是要發展人力資源；以及五是要促進國際合作。同時《公約》項下還有其他條款也涉及CB&TT，包括第十一部分“區域”、第十二部分“海洋環境的保護和保全”以及第十三部分“海洋科學研究”。

張麗娜教授隨后分析了目前現存模式存在的缺陷。具體來說，一是《公約》的規定并未得到有效執行，雖然《公約》已經預見需要通過科學合作、能力建設和技術轉讓等相關規定來解決問題，但在《公約》生效40 年間，相關規定仍未得到充分執行，即便在能力建設方面做出了一定努力，但效果并不顯著。她認為締約方的義務太過薄弱，均基于自愿而非強制；二是《公約》沒有提供關于體制機制方面的任何細節，除了第十三部分關于國際海底管理局作用的規定之外，《公約》未提供任何關于CB&TT 體制機制方面的細節；三是《公約》沒有設置常設的金融機制，要使能力建設工作卓有成效，持續且穩定的融資至關重要，而《公約》主要依靠的是對自愿信托基金和援助基金的自愿捐款，然而這些捐款并未為實施《公約》提供足夠的資金；四是《公約》不涉及信息交換機制，其實信息交換機制具有非常重要的功能，缺乏信息交換機制將不利于實現《公約》項下的能力建設和技術轉讓目標。

張麗娜教授隨之提出了完善建議：為了有效地實施CB&TT，從需求評估到規劃、實施、評估和跟進形成連續循環是關鍵。同時，締約方各國應對CB&TT 負責，建立輔助性機構來負責模式運行。要在新的BBNJ 協定下完成許多工作，這需要獲得大量工作資金的支持，所以必須建立相應財務機制來保證協定執行。在BBNJ 協定下的CB&TT 需要信息交換機制的協助，信息交換機制可以作為一個中央集成化平臺，使各方能夠獲得、提供并且傳播與CB&TT 相關的信息。

（五）非公約締約方對BBNJ 談判的立場：以土耳其為例

上海交通大學凱原法學院研究員、北大深研院國際法學院客座教授Onur Sabri Durak 做了題為“非公約締約方對BBNJ 談判的立場：以土耳其為例”的報告。Onur Sabri Durak 教授首先介紹國家管轄范圍以外的區域幾乎涵蓋了世界上大部分海域，其海洋資源和生物多樣性在生態和社會經濟層面極具重要性，然而這些海域面臨著污染、過度開發、氣候變化、生物多樣性減少等前所未有的壓力。面對這些挑戰，并且考慮到未來在食品、醫藥、能源等方面對海洋資源日益增長的需求，絕大多數國家都同意根據《公約》制定新的執行協議，以保護和可持續利用這些區域的資源。該協議將進一步落實《公約》的現有原則，以實現對公?；顒痈尤娴墓芾?，原則包括合作義務、保護并維護海洋環境的義務以及對活動進行事先影響評估的義務。Onur Sabri Durak 教授提出新的法律文書將如何適用于非公約締約國以及如果相向或相鄰國家之間沒有劃定領海界限要如何確定BBNJ 等相關問題。他還談及方法論—事實分析，即不提供理論性或規范性的分析與討論。

隨后Onur Sabri Durak 教授主要介紹了土耳其與《公約》之間的關系，指出鑒于獨特的地理條件，在1982 年12 月8 日全體會議上，土耳其明確表示將不簽署或者批準《公約》。此前，土耳其在《公約》談判期間提出5 項提案，涉及領海（水域）的寬度、大陸架的劃定、封閉海和半封閉海、島嶼的海洋區域、海岸相向或相鄰國家之間的領海劃界等內容，此外還提出了包括海峽國際航行的法律制度、領海上空的空域劃界等考慮。土耳其在通過國際法保護海洋環境方面其自己的立場：首先土耳其并不反對《公約》中關于保護和維護海洋環境的規定，同時簽署了《國際防止船舶造成污染公約》（又稱“《MARPOL 公約》”）、《保護地中海海洋環境和沿海地區公約》（又稱“《巴塞羅那公約》”）、《地中海特別保護區和生物多樣性議定書》、《保護黑海免受污染公約》（又稱“《布加勒斯特公約》”）、《保護黑海生物多樣性和景觀公約》、《南極條約》、《關于環境保護的南極條約議定書》等。Onur Sabri Durak 教授闡述了土耳其維護生物多樣性的措施與意義。每個生物地理區域都有其獨特的生態系統，生態系統和棲息地的多樣性也承載著物種多樣性。土耳其豐富且獨特的生物多樣性得到相關保護和監測活動的支持，同時在國家和國際項目以及非政府組織協調下，1991 年到2020 年期間的瀕危物種（蠵龜、綠海龜等）將繼續存在。土耳其的諾亞方舟數據庫（國家生物多樣性數據庫）將同時為科學家和商業界提供數據，從而使植物在食品、醫藥、繪畫材料、能源和國防等多領域發揮功用。此外土耳其還開展了“重要海洋生物多樣性地區外來入侵物種的威脅評估”項目，以便通過識別重要海洋生物多樣性地區的外來入侵物種減少或消除其影響，消減自然物種及棲息地的壓力并對其進行監測。

Onur Sabri Durak 教授詳細介紹了土耳其對于國際生物多樣性制度的遵守情況。隨后他回顧了土耳其代表團參與BBNJ 協議談判的歷程，指出土耳其在第四屆會議上重申的內容。他最后提出，土耳其不是《公約》締約國，也不太可能成為締約國；盡管土耳其積極參與BBNJ 談判，并且提交了很多提案，但是根據目前的案文，土耳其最終也不大可能會簽署或者批準BBNJ 協定，除非BBNJ 協定的現行案文在未來會做出實質性修改。

（六）未來BBNJ 協定對現有文書、框架和機構的潛在影響：以北極理事會為例

挪威特羅姆瑟大學法學院挪威海洋法中心教授Vito De Lucia 做了題為“未來BBNJ 協定對現有文書、框架和機構的潛在影響：以北極理事會為例”的報告。Vito De Lucia 教授首先概述了BBNJ 談判的情況，回顧BBNJ 談判歷程的時間線，指出BBNJ 談判的目標是希望能夠制定一套綜合性法律和治理體制來實現對BBNJ 的養護和可持續性利用；隨后分析了BBNJ 與北極地區在地理上的相關性，分享BBNJ 協定在北極地區的重要性，指出北極地區具有獨特的生物多樣性的同時存在脆弱性，復雜的全球部門和區域文書網絡存在嚴重的碎片化和監管及治理漏洞。

北極理事會依據《渥太華宣言》成立于1996 年，包含8 個成員國。北極理事會的目標是就共同的北極問題，特別是可持續發展和環境保護問題進行合作、協調和互動。北極理事會下設6 個工作小組，負責研究、討論以及政策形成、關于生態系統方法論的重要工作等，但不承擔制定政策的職能。

就BBNJ 協定存在的一些潛在影響，Vito De Lucia 教授首先強調的是設立MPA 的合法權限；其次，BBNJ 協定可能會降低北極理事會的相關性，因此需要重新界定和考慮北極理事會的角色和作用，考慮是否需要將其轉變為正式的政府間組織；最后，北極理事會很重要的潛在作用是能夠和新的BBNJ 協定機構開展科學合作。實際上北極理事會能夠在科學知識的基礎之上進一步助力BBNJ，包括具體條款談判所涉及的科學內容。在科學知識、咨詢方面的作用，北極理事會有非常全面的方法論體系，包括生態系統方法、MPA、生態系統評估以及監測等，同時也設立了很多工作組，每個工作組發揮其各自的作用。北極理事會的作用還包括協調跨越管轄范圍的區域行動。

（七）論遵約措施在BBNJ 國際協定下的作用

廈門大學南海研究院博士研究生肖桐做了題為“論遵約措施在BBNJ 國際協定下的作用”的報告。肖桐認為，遵約措施是整個遵約體系當中一個關鍵要素，直接推動整個遵約體系的工作，也間接推動了BBNJ 協定的執行。在報告中，肖桐首先簡要回顧了BBNJ 談判中遵約措施的背景，并主要強調了BBNJ 談判中達成的共識以及爭論焦點。

肖桐還介紹了遵約措施的理論方法，包括自由主義理論和制度主義理論。在自由主義理論下，一個國家無法履行遵約義務并不是出于蓄意，而是由于缺乏技術、財政或行政支持；在制度主義理論下，國家不履行遵約義務是由于違約的收益高于成本（“成本效益理論”）。由以上兩個理論引申出激勵性措施和懲罰性措施，就像“胡蘿卜加大棒”。激勵性措施在遵約方面發揮了顯著作用，并在最新草案中已經提及，包括最常見的遵約措施例如技術和財政援助措施，其主要的功能就是確保遵約體系運作。BBNJ 草案文本中僅提及激勵性措施而未提及懲罰性措施，但懲罰性措施也應當出現在BBNJ 遵約機制中，因為懲罰性措施可以提高整個遵約體系的效率。懲罰性措施包括聲譽措施和終止措施。聲譽理論由伯克利法學院教授Andrew Guzman 提出，其主要觀點是如果一國違反了國際法，將影響該國聲譽，從而對該國以后和其他國家的互動產生負面影響。聲譽措施在多邊環境協定中并不少見，例如《蒙特利爾協定書》《巴塞爾公約》以及《卡塔赫納生物安全議定書》中均采取聲譽措施。終止措施有兩種，一是終止協定中規定的具體權利和特權；二是終止貿易許可，終止措施在許多多邊環境協定當中也均有涉及，比如《瀕危野生動植物種國際貿易公約》《蒙特利爾議定書》以及《京都議定書》等?！毒┒甲h定書》的遵約委員會已經對多國實施了終止措施，要求這些國家必須達到協議規定，其中70%的國家均已提交新的履約措施，這說明終止措施是能夠發揮作用的。

肖桐認為，在整個遵約體系中激勵性措施是促進遵約的基本措施，也是首選措施，可以保證整個系統的積極工作，同時也需要輔之以懲罰性措施來提高效率?，F在距離達成BBNJ 協定又更近了一步，在最終實現之前還需要收集更多信息，不論在協定通過之前還是之后，各個締約方之間都將產生越來越多爭論。

三、總 結

在會議總結環節，自然資源部海洋發展戰略研究所所長張海文研究員代表主辦方進行了總結發言。張海文所長認為，BBNJ 的養護和可持續利用關乎人類社會的可持續發展，相關國際協定的立法進程關乎整個國際社會的共同利益，本次研討會正值第五次政府間會議談判續會召開前的空檔，意義十分重大。張海文所長總結了兩大議題中各發言人的報告，各項議題均有多位專家學者貢獻了最新研究成果，在一定程度上為我國參加相關談判提供了智力支持和談判建議。

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