姜玉環(huán) 張繼偉

《〈聯(lián)合國海洋法公約〉下國家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性的養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用協(xié)定》（以下簡稱“《BBNJ 協(xié)定》”），自2004 年聯(lián)合國大會啟動非正式磋商進(jìn)程以來，歷經(jīng)近二十年、共五屆政府間正式談判，于2023 年6 月19 日正式達(dá)成，并有望于近幾年內(nèi)獲得生效實(shí)施。BBNJ 協(xié)定的制定被視為當(dāng)今國際海洋法領(lǐng)域最重要的立法進(jìn)程，將重構(gòu)全球海洋利益格局，深度影響國際海洋秩序的調(diào)整。1參見賈宇：《塑造國際海洋法律秩序的中國貢獻(xiàn)——紀(jì)念《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》開放簽署40 周年》，載《亞太安全與海洋研究》2022 年第5 期，第1-21 頁。該協(xié)定包含了海洋遺傳資源、劃區(qū)管理工具、環(huán)境影響評價、能力建設(shè)與技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓四個議題的“一攬子”規(guī)則，將為國家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域（以下簡稱“ABNJ”）海洋遺傳資源利用、海洋生態(tài)系統(tǒng)劃區(qū)保護(hù)與管理、環(huán)境影響評價和相關(guān)能力建設(shè)等事項(xiàng)提供統(tǒng)一的國際法律框架。環(huán)境影響評價作為基于活動的預(yù)防性管理工具，是《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》（以下簡稱“《公約》”）明確規(guī)定的一般義務(wù)，同時，作為一項(xiàng)整體性規(guī)則在國際司法實(shí)踐中被確認(rèn)為一般國際法。2Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, p. 83-84, para. 205.BBNJ環(huán)評規(guī)則發(fā)展和重構(gòu)了現(xiàn)行環(huán)評制度框架，拓展和豐富了環(huán)評國際規(guī)則的內(nèi)涵與外延，對BBNJ 國際法律制度體系的構(gòu)建與變革將發(fā)揮重要的作用。

主權(quán)國家是海洋資源開發(fā)的權(quán)利主體和海洋環(huán)境保護(hù)的義務(wù)主體，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則將通過調(diào)整與規(guī)范國家對其管轄或控制下的活動相關(guān)權(quán)利、義務(wù)和責(zé)任關(guān)系，為各國更全面、有效地落實(shí)環(huán)評相關(guān)義務(wù)提供有力的國際法框架，進(jìn)而對各國的現(xiàn)實(shí)和長遠(yuǎn)利益產(chǎn)生直接或間接影響。中國是新興海洋利用大國，黨的二十大報(bào)告提出“發(fā)展海洋經(jīng)濟(jì)，保護(hù)海洋生態(tài)環(huán)境，加快建設(shè)海洋強(qiáng)國”的戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)，明確要求“統(tǒng)籌推進(jìn)國內(nèi)法治和涉外法治”，主張“維護(hù)以國際法為基礎(chǔ)的國際秩序”。因此，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則將為中國獲取深遠(yuǎn)海戰(zhàn)略資源利益和拓展海洋發(fā)展空間帶來一定挑戰(zhàn)的同時，也為中國主動對接高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)國際規(guī)則、積極引領(lǐng)國際規(guī)則制定、推動國際海洋法治體系變革并不斷增強(qiáng)在國際法律事務(wù)中的話語權(quán)和影響力提供重要機(jī)遇?；谏鲜霰尘?，本文重點(diǎn)解讀BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則的發(fā)展特征和內(nèi)容要點(diǎn)，并從多個視角探討其生效實(shí)施對國家的潛在影響，進(jìn)而從中國的角色和利益出發(fā)，提出應(yīng)對這一國際規(guī)則的策略建議。

一、BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則的主要特征

BBNJ 協(xié)定是在符合《公約》相關(guān)規(guī)定、不違背其宗旨和原則及其所建構(gòu)的權(quán)力和利益平衡基礎(chǔ)上達(dá)成的。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則旨在對《公約》環(huán)評程序框架加以細(xì)化與補(bǔ)充，同時，結(jié)合現(xiàn)代環(huán)保理念，進(jìn)一步豐富拓展環(huán)評的制度內(nèi)涵與功能價值，整合與延展BBNJ 環(huán)評制度對環(huán)境影響的預(yù)防、減緩和管理等多重目標(biāo)。新的BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則主要特征包括：

（一）確立和發(fā)展了ABNJ 落實(shí)環(huán)評義務(wù)的規(guī)則框架

《公約》第204 至206 條是環(huán)評實(shí)施、監(jiān)測和報(bào)告等國際法義務(wù)的直接來源。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則首要目的是落實(shí)《公約》環(huán)評相關(guān)規(guī)定，使其原則性規(guī)定更具可操作性和可監(jiān)督。BBNJ 環(huán)評制度正式確立了ABNJ 環(huán)境影響評價的國際規(guī)則框架，明確了活動管轄國的強(qiáng)制性前置環(huán)評義務(wù)，細(xì)化了環(huán)評實(shí)施程序和具體規(guī)范要求，為各國切實(shí)履行環(huán)評義務(wù)提供了明確和具體的法律依據(jù)與指南。從規(guī)則構(gòu)成和屬性來看，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則體系的構(gòu)建從義務(wù)本位出發(fā)，既包含一般性原則與方法、實(shí)體性和程序性規(guī)則（以程序義務(wù)為主、實(shí)體義務(wù)為輔），也包括一系列配套環(huán)境標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和方法指南。隨著國家管轄外區(qū)域環(huán)評國際實(shí)踐的廣泛開展，環(huán)評在國際海洋法律體系中的國際習(xí)慣法地位將得到顯著強(qiáng)化。

BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則的發(fā)展性主要體現(xiàn)在：一是細(xì)化和補(bǔ)充《公約》環(huán)評框架的具體范圍和內(nèi)容，對第206 條等相關(guān)條款中的模糊性措辭加以澄清和具體化，例如：對于“有合理根據(jù)”，BBNJ 協(xié)定要求活動發(fā)起國依法設(shè)置國內(nèi)篩選程序，依據(jù)相關(guān)準(zhǔn)則要求，開展詳細(xì)的初步環(huán)境分析，并經(jīng)國際公共評議及咨詢程序進(jìn)一步確保相關(guān)決策的根據(jù)在法律上是充分與合理的；對于“在實(shí)際可行范圍內(nèi)”，協(xié)定中多處使用的“酌情”“如有”和“適當(dāng)情況下”等用語，考慮到國內(nèi)自由裁量權(quán)，在一定程度上兼顧了具有不同技術(shù)能力的國家自主性與靈活性；對于“用公認(rèn)的科學(xué)方法”開展評估，協(xié)定為指導(dǎo)環(huán)評閾值的衡量與判定，細(xì)化明確了需要考慮的非詳盡要素，并授權(quán)附屬科技機(jī)構(gòu)制定一系列國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和指南（包括確定最佳實(shí)踐），為締約國提供通用的科學(xué)方法建議和指導(dǎo)。盡管如此，文書中仍有制度上和技術(shù)上的含糊之處尚未清晰闡釋，有待于未來隨著海洋科技進(jìn)步、開發(fā)利用活動的廣泛開展和保護(hù)治理實(shí)踐的深化拓展而逐步完善，這也充分表明了環(huán)評規(guī)則體系的動態(tài)發(fā)展特征。二是在《公約》環(huán)評一般性義務(wù)框架基礎(chǔ)上，吸收借鑒南極環(huán)評等相關(guān)實(shí)踐做法，在機(jī)制創(chuàng)新方面實(shí)現(xiàn)突破，例如：協(xié)定分層設(shè)置了“超出輕微或短暫影響”的篩選閾值和重大不利影響的環(huán)評閾值，相應(yīng)要求開展初步環(huán)境分析和全面的環(huán)境影響評價；規(guī)定了活動環(huán)評之外針對相關(guān)規(guī)劃和方案的戰(zhàn)略環(huán)境評估要求，拓展了環(huán)評類型和適用對象范圍；吸納《公約》第十二部分關(guān)于活動影響預(yù)防與管理相關(guān)義務(wù)內(nèi)容，在環(huán)評過程中綜合考慮國家管轄內(nèi)、外活動的“雙向”跨界影響情形，并將規(guī)則內(nèi)容范圍延伸到環(huán)評后續(xù)活動的實(shí)施監(jiān)管階段等?？傮w而言，相關(guān)規(guī)則的突破性以協(xié)定所遵循的“不損害各國根據(jù)《公約》享有的權(quán)利、管轄權(quán)和義務(wù)”這一原則為邊界，對BBNJ 養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用方面的全球利益和國家責(zé)任之間的關(guān)系加以調(diào)適以尋求達(dá)到保護(hù)與發(fā)展的整體平衡。

（二）統(tǒng)籌與協(xié)調(diào)ABNJ 環(huán)評法律框架和機(jī)制

BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則的另一重要立法目的是“為國家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域的活動建立協(xié)調(diào)一致的環(huán)境影響評價框架”。環(huán)評框架的“一致”（coherent）性，是對協(xié)定第五條所確立的“不損害相關(guān)法律文書和框架以及相關(guān)全球、區(qū)域、次區(qū)域和領(lǐng)域機(jī)構(gòu)，并促進(jìn)一致性和協(xié)調(diào)性”這一原則的具體實(shí)現(xiàn)。

首先，在適用范圍上，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則適用于ABNJ 開展的所有活動，除協(xié)定一般性排除適用條款中的政府非商業(yè)性船舶或飛機(jī)情形，3《〈聯(lián)合國海洋法公約〉下國家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性的養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用協(xié)定》第四條。以及有條件排除其他相關(guān)環(huán)評法律框架規(guī)制下的活動（如公海捕魚、航行和傾廢、深海采礦等）重復(fù)環(huán)評情形，4《〈聯(lián)合國海洋法公約〉下國家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性的養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用協(xié)定》第29 條第4 款。其他非政府公務(wù)性、未納入相關(guān)法律規(guī)制的各類活動，以及未來新興活動類型，如海洋生物采探、深海旅游、海洋新能源開發(fā)、海洋地球工程、海底工程、海上試驗(yàn)等，均落入BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則適用范圍，因此，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則實(shí)際上構(gòu)成ABNJ 活動環(huán)評的兜底性機(jī)制（或默認(rèn)機(jī)制）。

其次，在促進(jìn)協(xié)調(diào)性方面，BBNJ 協(xié)定除了避免同一活動重復(fù)環(huán)評加重締約方負(fù)擔(dān)，在不削弱其他相關(guān)國際環(huán)評法律框架和機(jī)構(gòu)職權(quán)范圍的前提下，還對其他環(huán)評框架下活動的監(jiān)測和審查報(bào)告的公布作出補(bǔ)充性要求，對可能存在執(zhí)行差、監(jiān)管弱等問題的相關(guān)環(huán)評框架起到一定的輔助性和督導(dǎo)性作用；同時，支持科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)與相關(guān)國際機(jī)制協(xié)調(diào)制定環(huán)評有關(guān)國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和指南，5《〈聯(lián)合國海洋法公約〉下國家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性的養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用協(xié)定》第29 條第3 款。實(shí)際上有利于形成環(huán)評方面的“全球最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”，6雖然BBNJ 協(xié)定談判過程中，各方就環(huán)評規(guī)則和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是否構(gòu)成“全球最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”存在顯著分歧，這一措辭并未納入最終案文中，但是協(xié)定中通過鼓勵締約方在規(guī)范擴(kuò)散方面發(fā)揮能動作用、確立與相關(guān)國際機(jī)構(gòu)在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定過程中的協(xié)作機(jī)制、明確不同環(huán)評框架的協(xié)調(diào)適用規(guī)則，以及基于環(huán)評全球數(shù)據(jù)庫制定最佳實(shí)踐等途徑，全方位強(qiáng)化BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則適用的普遍性和基礎(chǔ)性?？陀^上將推動其他關(guān)聯(lián)領(lǐng)域環(huán)評制度的完善以及相關(guān)主管國際組織環(huán)境規(guī)制的強(qiáng)化。

第三，在促進(jìn)一致性方面，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則中判定相關(guān)活動是否需要重復(fù)環(huán)評的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與本協(xié)定環(huán)評啟動門檻一致，并依托本協(xié)定信息交換機(jī)制建立了所有ABNJ 活動環(huán)評報(bào)告的匯交與信息公開機(jī)制，便利了科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)總結(jié)最佳實(shí)踐做法和制定通用技術(shù)指南，同時，協(xié)定還鼓勵締約國在其他法律框架下應(yīng)用BBNJ 環(huán)評相關(guān)要求和技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。上述舉措從實(shí)質(zhì)上加強(qiáng)了現(xiàn)有相關(guān)環(huán)評法律機(jī)制之間的聯(lián)動和一體化進(jìn)程，將加快推動ABNJ 環(huán)評國際規(guī)則體系的重構(gòu)。

（三）提供了國際行為體參與活動決策進(jìn)程的程序機(jī)制

BBNJ 環(huán)評的定義和程序強(qiáng)調(diào)知情決策（informed decision-making）這一核心內(nèi)涵，突出體現(xiàn)透明度和公眾參與等現(xiàn)代環(huán)保理念。環(huán)評制度中的公共參與程序既是確保廣泛利益相關(guān)方知情、表達(dá)關(guān)切和參與決策過程的重要機(jī)制，也是國際社會對活動國履行環(huán)境義務(wù)全過程進(jìn)行跟蹤監(jiān)督的有力手段。不同于各國國內(nèi)環(huán)評制度，BBNJ 環(huán)評程序中公共參與主體、內(nèi)容、方式和效力具有其特殊內(nèi)涵。

BBNJ 環(huán)評的一般利益相關(guān)方是“今世后代全人類”，包括持有相關(guān)傳統(tǒng)知識的土著人民和當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)，相關(guān)全球、區(qū)域、次區(qū)域和領(lǐng)域機(jī)構(gòu)，民間社會，科學(xué)界和公眾。根據(jù)特殊地理?xiàng)l件及潛在受影響情況，毗鄰沿海國和毗鄰活動國等最受影響國家是最重要的公共參與主體，不同主體參與方式和影響程度會有所差異。BBNJ 協(xié)定中還專門強(qiáng)調(diào)了小島嶼發(fā)展中國家和專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)環(huán)繞公海的周邊國家在環(huán)評公告協(xié)商進(jìn)程中的特殊需要7《〈聯(lián)合國海洋法公約〉下國家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性的養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用協(xié)定》第32 條第6 款。，一方面充分顧及到沿海國作為最受環(huán)境不利影響的主體權(quán)利和利益，另一方面也強(qiáng)化了對地理有利沿海國以直接利益相關(guān)方身份深度參與活動決策進(jìn)程的機(jī)制保障。

國際環(huán)境問題中的公眾參與內(nèi)容和方式通常包括四個方面：一是信息的獲取、收集和傳播（信息的單向流動），二是協(xié)商咨詢（信息的雙向互動），三是參與決策過程（共同分析和聯(lián)合評估），四是參與實(shí)施過程（監(jiān)督實(shí)施和訴諸救濟(jì)）。8參見姜玉環(huán)、張繼偉：《國家管轄范圍以外海洋環(huán)境影響評價公眾參與制度初探》，第二屆海洋開發(fā)與管理學(xué)術(shù)年會論文，2018 年，第49-57 頁。BBNJ 環(huán)評制度中不同的公共參與及協(xié)商咨詢途徑貫穿活動事前、事中全過程，包括篩選決定公布與公共評議、環(huán)評報(bào)告草案公布與公共評議及科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)審議、環(huán)評報(bào)告和決策公布、監(jiān)測和審查報(bào)告公布等，還包括第三方或跨界影響雙方聯(lián)合環(huán)評、締約方大會應(yīng)請求提供決策咨詢意見等情況，以及后續(xù)活動實(shí)施過程中發(fā)現(xiàn)未預(yù)見重大環(huán)境影響的通知情形等，充分體現(xiàn)了BBNJ 環(huán)評國際參與內(nèi)容和方式的多樣化。

不同利益相關(guān)方公共參與結(jié)果的作用及效力具有不同階段的差異性，例如，對于可能最受影響的利益相關(guān)方實(shí)質(zhì)性評論意見，活動發(fā)起國應(yīng)考慮、書面答復(fù)并處理相關(guān)意見，尤其對于涉及活動對國家管轄范圍以內(nèi)區(qū)域的影響，處理方式可能包括酌情采取額外的應(yīng)對措施或修改活動內(nèi)容；科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)提出的意見與建議具有更高程度的權(quán)威性，活動發(fā)起國必須加以考慮。BBNJ 環(huán)評實(shí)施過程中公共評議的內(nèi)容可能廣泛涉及活動及其影響的方方面面，協(xié)定要求利益相關(guān)方發(fā)表評論看法應(yīng)根據(jù)現(xiàn)有最佳科學(xué)和科學(xué)信息（包括在可獲得的情況下的土著人民和當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)的相關(guān)傳統(tǒng)知識）來表達(dá)關(guān)切，以避免公共參與程序的濫用和隨意性。通過BBNJ 環(huán)評公告和參與協(xié)商程序提交的相關(guān)科學(xué)信息，可以為環(huán)評實(shí)施主體提供補(bǔ)充性資料，助其完善環(huán)評文件；同時，公參主體的實(shí)質(zhì)性意見和建議也可能對主管當(dāng)局的審議和決策產(chǎn)生一定影響，而在活動實(shí)施過程中利益相關(guān)方的監(jiān)督和針對緊急情況的通知行為也可能對主管當(dāng)局采取的監(jiān)管措施和相關(guān)決定產(chǎn)生影響，甚至改變。

（四）成為督促各國強(qiáng)化活動監(jiān)管的重要手段

環(huán)評是一種基于活動的預(yù)防性管理工具，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則實(shí)際上是以前置性環(huán)評義務(wù)作為抓手，要求締約方建立涵蓋所有公?；顒拥牡怯浕蛟S可管理制度，并通過確立具體的程序義務(wù)和實(shí)體義務(wù)，為締約方（尤其是海洋利用國）開展公海經(jīng)濟(jì)活動加裝“環(huán)保護(hù)欄”，以平衡各國海洋資源開發(fā)利用權(quán)利與海洋環(huán)境保護(hù)義務(wù)，促進(jìn)養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用目標(biāo)的均衡實(shí)現(xiàn)。具體操作上，一方面，通過程序性的“國際化”監(jiān)督機(jī)制設(shè)計(jì)，賦予BBNJ 框架下科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)對是否達(dá)到環(huán)評啟動門檻的決定及理由、環(huán)評報(bào)告草案、監(jiān)測和審查報(bào)告的技術(shù)性審議評估及建議權(quán)，強(qiáng)化從活動事前環(huán)評階段到事中監(jiān)管全過程的透明度和國際社會公共參與機(jī)制，對活動發(fā)起國環(huán)評實(shí)施流程的推進(jìn)，以及最終環(huán)評報(bào)告的形成構(gòu)成管理上的約束。另一方面，通過細(xì)化的實(shí)質(zhì)性義務(wù)規(guī)定，增強(qiáng)活動設(shè)計(jì)、環(huán)評結(jié)果效用及活動決策的可說明性，確保船旗國行使資源開發(fā)權(quán)利和管轄權(quán)過程中充分考慮環(huán)境問題。如，要求環(huán)評主體在影響評估基礎(chǔ)上提出影響預(yù)防、減緩和管理措施并納入環(huán)境管理計(jì)劃，并對授權(quán)活動開展的決策施加限定條件，即僅當(dāng)考慮到緩解或管理措施的情況下，締約方確認(rèn)已盡一切合理努力確保該活動能夠以符合防止對海洋環(huán)境造成重大不利影響的方式進(jìn)行時才可作出批準(zhǔn)決定。9《公海生物多樣性條約》第三十四條第二項(xiàng)。另外，對于國家管轄內(nèi)開展的對國家管轄外海域具有潛在重大不利跨界影響的活動，BBNJ 協(xié)定也規(guī)定了環(huán)評報(bào)告、監(jiān)測報(bào)告等相關(guān)信息的公開要求。雖然相關(guān)要求主要依賴沿海國的履行，對活動決策與監(jiān)管進(jìn)程的約束弱于對域外活動的規(guī)制，但是仍然可以為某類嚴(yán)重事故或污染活動的監(jiān)管提供又一國際規(guī)則依據(jù)。

二、BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則主要內(nèi)容評析

BBNJ 環(huán)境影響評價規(guī)則共13 條，具體條款內(nèi)容包括：目標(biāo)、適用范圍、與其他相關(guān)法律框架的關(guān)系、啟動門檻、實(shí)施程序、公告和協(xié)商要求、環(huán)評報(bào)告內(nèi)容、決策、后續(xù)活動及其影響的監(jiān)測和報(bào)告及審查、科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和準(zhǔn)則、戰(zhàn)略環(huán)境評估。從BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則的執(zhí)行層面來看，主要組成內(nèi)容包括環(huán)評的啟動機(jī)制、運(yùn)行機(jī)制和監(jiān)管機(jī)制，而基于透明度規(guī)則的環(huán)評公共咨詢機(jī)制貫穿于環(huán)評執(zhí)行進(jìn)程的不同環(huán)節(jié)。

（一）啟動機(jī)制

環(huán)評的啟動機(jī)制是觸發(fā)BBNJ 環(huán)評程序的重要初始環(huán)節(jié)，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則基于活動潛在影響的程度建立了分層閾值、分級篩選的啟動機(jī)制和相應(yīng)的分級評估要求，主要通過締約方國內(nèi)程序?qū)嵤ㄒ妶D1）。具體流程包括：

圖1 BBNJ 環(huán)評啟動機(jī)制實(shí)施流程示意圖13“CHM”指信息交換機(jī)制，“STB”指科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)。

1. 初始階段

基于活動領(lǐng)域和區(qū)域及環(huán)境因素確定適用的法律框架，查明是否需要根據(jù)BBNJ 協(xié)定或其他相關(guān)法律框架開展篩選及環(huán)評。根據(jù)協(xié)定第二十九條第四款，兩種限定情形下不必重復(fù)開展BBNJ 環(huán)評：一種情形是，締約方認(rèn)定已按照相關(guān)法律框架開展了與本協(xié)定環(huán)評要求等同10“等同”（equivalent）的定義和內(nèi)涵并未明確界定，各方在談判過程中對這一限定性措辭的含義表達(dá)了疑惑，存在功能上的等同和實(shí)質(zhì)性等同等不同觀點(diǎn)，考慮到環(huán)評報(bào)告和相關(guān)監(jiān)測報(bào)告的提交公布要求，環(huán)評報(bào)告內(nèi)容的等同是基本條件。此用語的模糊性既為締約方的規(guī)則適用帶來一定的解釋和發(fā)展空間，也為不同環(huán)評法律框架之間的互動關(guān)系提供了一個重要連接點(diǎn)。的評估，且評估結(jié)果納入相關(guān)決策過程考慮；或者締約方認(rèn)定已進(jìn)行過評估，且實(shí)際遵守了相關(guān)法律框架或機(jī)構(gòu)關(guān)于防止、減輕或管理低于“重大不利影響”這一門檻的潛在影響相關(guān)規(guī)章或標(biāo)準(zhǔn)要求。實(shí)踐中，國際海事組織監(jiān)管的公海傾廢、國際海底管理局監(jiān)管的深海采礦、聯(lián)合國糧農(nóng)組織及區(qū)域漁業(yè)管理組織負(fù)責(zé)的公海深海底魚捕撈等傳統(tǒng)活動，以及其他相關(guān)區(qū)域條約框架下實(shí)行環(huán)評的活動，滿足這一條件即無需依據(jù)BBNJ 協(xié)定重復(fù)進(jìn)行篩選或環(huán)評，但需要履行通過信息交換機(jī)制公布環(huán)評報(bào)告、監(jiān)測和審查報(bào)告的義務(wù)。第二種情形是，締約方認(rèn)定相關(guān)全球、區(qū)域、次區(qū)域或領(lǐng)域機(jī)構(gòu)已對計(jì)劃活動或活動類別的潛在影響進(jìn)行過評估，同時，源于評估的規(guī)章或標(biāo)準(zhǔn)設(shè)計(jì)旨在防止、減輕或管理低于“重大不利影響”這一門檻的潛在影響，且已得到遵守。實(shí)踐中，國際海事組織監(jiān)管下的公海航行活動的環(huán)境規(guī)制和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，相關(guān)國際或區(qū)域法律框架或機(jī)構(gòu)11其他政府間國際或區(qū)域組織，如《保護(hù)東北大西洋海洋環(huán)境公約》《南太平洋地區(qū)自然資源和環(huán)境保護(hù)公約》、北極理事會、區(qū)域漁業(yè)管理組織等，未來可能針對特定類型活動潛在影響開展的評估和實(shí)行的管理措施，也可能滿足此種情形。值得注意的是，滿足何種情況的決定權(quán)在締約方。針對海洋科學(xué)研究、海底電纜敷設(shè)等活動類型環(huán)境影響的評估以及所制訂的相關(guān)規(guī)制或標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，以及未來BBNJ 締約方會議針對特定區(qū)域某類活動潛在影響的評估及其相關(guān)環(huán)境標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等，在締約方認(rèn)定已得到遵守的條件下，可免除重復(fù)開展BBNJ 環(huán)評的義務(wù)。

2. 篩選階段

基于篩選閾值及相關(guān)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)確定納入環(huán)評篩選程序的活動，BBNJ 環(huán)評篩選階段的適用門檻是“可能對海洋環(huán)境產(chǎn)生超出輕微或短暫的影響，或影響未知或知之甚少”，達(dá)到這一閾值的活動需要開展初步環(huán)境影響分析，未達(dá)到的活動及其他無需進(jìn)行評估的活動可以直接實(shí)施。如何判斷是否達(dá)到篩選以及環(huán)評的閾值，需要由國內(nèi)主管當(dāng)局綜合考慮協(xié)定中所列非詳盡衡量因素12《〈聯(lián)合國海洋法公約〉下國家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性的養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用協(xié)定》第30 條第2 款。，或可制定具體的國內(nèi)閾值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或清單等指南，指導(dǎo)活動主體和國內(nèi)主管部門的篩選工作。

3. 決策階段

基于篩選階段的初步環(huán)境影響分析結(jié)果確定是否達(dá)到環(huán)評的啟動門檻，進(jìn)而決定開展環(huán)評或?qū)嵭行畔⒐_的簡易程序。觸發(fā)環(huán)評的閾值與《公約》保持一致，即“可能對海洋環(huán)境造成重大污染或重大有害變化”?；顒影l(fā)起國的國內(nèi)主管部門基于篩選結(jié)果做出是否需要啟動環(huán)評的決策，并通過BBNJ 信息交換機(jī)制公布決定。對于不需要環(huán)評的決定及其初步分析理由等相關(guān)信息需要經(jīng)過40 天的國際公共參與和評議程序，活動發(fā)起國主管部門在考慮、回復(fù)或處理各國關(guān)切以及BBNJ 科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)意見或建議的基礎(chǔ)上對其篩選決定進(jìn)行復(fù)查，最終確定是否直接實(shí)施活動或需要開展環(huán)評。

（二）運(yùn)行程序

環(huán)評的范圍界定、評估和評價、預(yù)防和減緩措施及環(huán)境管理計(jì)劃的擬定，以及與利益攸關(guān)方的協(xié)商等內(nèi)容屬于締約方自由裁量范疇。締約方應(yīng)確保BBNJ 環(huán)評程序啟動后的具體運(yùn)行實(shí)施包含以下主要流程（見圖2）：首先，活動主體開展評估范圍確定、影響評估、提出減緩和管理措施、編寫環(huán)評報(bào)告，同時，在評估中需要考慮累積影響和對國家管轄范圍以內(nèi)區(qū)域的影響。其次，活動發(fā)起國通過信息交換機(jī)制發(fā)布環(huán)評報(bào)告草案，14在提交BBNJ 信息交換機(jī)制進(jìn)行國際公告協(xié)商進(jìn)程前，通常需要將草案先提交國內(nèi)主管部門進(jìn)行初步審查。進(jìn)行有期限的國際公共參與和協(xié)商程序，BBNJ 科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)對環(huán)評報(bào)告草案進(jìn)行審議和評估并向活動發(fā)起方提出建議。再次，活動發(fā)起方完善形成最終環(huán)評報(bào)告并向國內(nèi)主管當(dāng)局提交，以供國內(nèi)決策過程審議和審查。然后，國內(nèi)主管當(dāng)局依國內(nèi)程序?qū)彶楹螅鞒鍪欠衽鷾?zhǔn)活動的決策并公布決定情況，最終環(huán)評報(bào)告也應(yīng)通過信息交換機(jī)制提交和予以公布。

圖2 BBNJ 環(huán)評程序?qū)嵤┝鞒淌疽鈭D

對于環(huán)評結(jié)果在活動決策中的效力，相關(guān)法律框架下均將環(huán)評結(jié)果作為決策應(yīng)考慮的重要因素之一。通常情況下，環(huán)評結(jié)果顯示擬議活動將對海洋環(huán)境和生物多樣性造成重大不利影響的，活動將不被批準(zhǔn)，但不同環(huán)評相關(guān)制度框架存在一定差異。現(xiàn)有國際實(shí)踐中的事前環(huán)評主要有兩種形式：一種做法是將環(huán)評作為活動許可決策的前置性要件，如海上傾廢活動環(huán)評、南極活動環(huán)評，其中，南極環(huán)評制度要求擬議活動相關(guān)決定“應(yīng)基于全面環(huán)境評價及其他有關(guān)的考慮作出”。另一種做法是環(huán)評報(bào)告不作為活動實(shí)施申請的決策前置程序要件，而是要求在活動開展前提交，如深海礦物勘探活動環(huán)評，但是深海采礦活動實(shí)行集中式的國際機(jī)構(gòu)決策和統(tǒng)一監(jiān)管模式，環(huán)評報(bào)告作為勘探活動開展的前置條件，不影響其對相關(guān)決策的強(qiáng)效力。BBNJ 協(xié)定與其他相關(guān)國際環(huán)評法律框架的做法基本一致，即要求締約方在決策中“充分考慮”環(huán)評結(jié)果，考慮到緩解或管理措施，并且，強(qiáng)調(diào)僅當(dāng)確定已盡一切合理努力確保該活動能夠以符合防止對海洋環(huán)境造成重大不利影響的方式進(jìn)行時，才可作出批準(zhǔn)活動實(shí)施的決定。

（三）監(jiān)管機(jī)制

BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則部分根據(jù)《公約》第204 至205 條等相關(guān)規(guī)定，對活動實(shí)施后續(xù)的締約方監(jiān)測、報(bào)告和審查監(jiān)管，以及國際審查監(jiān)督機(jī)制作出更加明確和詳細(xì)的規(guī)定（見圖3）。其中，監(jiān)測的對象為締約方授權(quán)或參與的活動的環(huán)境影響，納入監(jiān)測的活動范圍不以是否開展了環(huán)評的活動為限，而是所有活動；監(jiān)測的內(nèi)容將包括經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會、文化和人類健康等更廣泛的影響。BBNJ 協(xié)定賦予科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)對監(jiān)測報(bào)告的國際審查職權(quán)，以及可視情況對其開展評估的機(jī)制，若其認(rèn)為可能存在環(huán)評階段未預(yù)見的、或因違反管轄國批準(zhǔn)要求而造成重大不利環(huán)境影響的情形，科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)具有通知和建議權(quán)，其他締約方也可向活動發(fā)起國登記關(guān)切、發(fā)表意見。同時，活動發(fā)起國主管當(dāng)局作為活動影響及監(jiān)測報(bào)告的審查主體，若確定可能存在未預(yù)見或新的重大不利影響，應(yīng)當(dāng)履行國際通知義務(wù)，并采取和評估其采取的相關(guān)必要行動措施。與本條密切相關(guān)的是《公約》第198 條關(guān)于即將或?qū)嶋H發(fā)生損害的通知要求，兩者的細(xì)微差異在于，后者對于活動發(fā)起國通知義務(wù)的條件要求是獲悉存在污染損害的迫切危險(xiǎn)或已實(shí)際遭受污染損害，而BBNJ 協(xié)定規(guī)定的條件是確定存在未預(yù)見或違反規(guī)定產(chǎn)生的重大不利影響，即該種重大不利影響為實(shí)際發(fā)生，其它締約國告知發(fā)起國的條件是其認(rèn)為“可能”存在此類重大不利影響，因此，BBNJ 協(xié)定的規(guī)定拓展了環(huán)評制度公共參與的內(nèi)容和方式，意圖通過多種路徑加強(qiáng)活動實(shí)施期間對于重大不利影響的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)防和公共監(jiān)督。

圖3 BBNJ 環(huán)評后續(xù)監(jiān)管機(jī)制實(shí)施流程示意圖

三、BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則對國家的影響

國際規(guī)則的制定和實(shí)施與主權(quán)國家之間存在著密切而復(fù)雜的互動關(guān)系。BBNJ 國際規(guī)則的創(chuàng)制既反映了全球海洋治理法律體系發(fā)展演進(jìn)的歷時性變化趨勢，也體現(xiàn)了具有不同利益和話語權(quán)力的國家間橫向博弈過程。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則制定過程中，具有不同能力水平和實(shí)力地位的國家對規(guī)則創(chuàng)制的作用方式及效果各異，當(dāng)國際規(guī)則形成后，其實(shí)施效力也與參與規(guī)則制定的國家話語權(quán)大小緊密相關(guān)，不同國家受國際規(guī)則影響的路徑和程度也因價值導(dǎo)向和利益需求及國內(nèi)政治語境等因素而異。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則通過影響國家的國際話語、發(fā)展利益和國內(nèi)制度等方面，塑造和構(gòu)建新的BBNJ 全球治理結(jié)構(gòu)和秩序。

（一）對國家話語的影響

國家話語權(quán)被視為一國在國際事務(wù)互動中表達(dá)意見的權(quán)利，體現(xiàn)了在國際社會中掌控國際輿論和影響國際局勢發(fā)展的能力和權(quán)力。15參見劉小燕、崔遠(yuǎn)航：《政府話語權(quán)威與國際規(guī)則的經(jīng)緯邏輯》，載《社會科學(xué)》2018年第10 期，第170-182 頁。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則對國家話語的影響主要體現(xiàn)在對國家主體在新的國際機(jī)制與治理實(shí)踐中具有的制度話語和輿論性話語（或道義話語）。首先，主權(quán)國家在BBNJ 環(huán)評機(jī)制中的地位和作用顯著依賴于國家對于BBNJ 資源開發(fā)利用與保護(hù)的技術(shù)與能力。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則未從實(shí)質(zhì)上打破以《公約》為核心所構(gòu)建的國際海洋法律秩序及其利益平衡，基本堅(jiān)持了以資源開發(fā)利用為導(dǎo)向的國家的主導(dǎo)性主體地位。同時，通過“國際化”監(jiān)督及透明度機(jī)制安排，努力平衡資源開發(fā)權(quán)利與環(huán)境保護(hù)義務(wù)。公海深海資源開發(fā)與生物多樣性保護(hù)的科學(xué)信息和新興技術(shù)將占據(jù)BBNJ 環(huán)評制度演進(jìn)和技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)體系塑造的中心位置，具有較強(qiáng)深海資源開發(fā)利用技術(shù)、生態(tài)環(huán)境保護(hù)技術(shù)和科技支撐能力的國家，在未來BBNJ 可持續(xù)利用的治理結(jié)構(gòu)中更容易獲得引領(lǐng)性地位，而包括小島嶼國家在內(nèi)的以海洋保護(hù)為導(dǎo)向的國家或利益團(tuán)體將借助BBNJ 國際框架逐步增強(qiáng)其在BBNJ 養(yǎng)護(hù)領(lǐng)域的道義性話語權(quán)力。

其次，多元主體參與BBNJ 環(huán)評事務(wù)及治理的能動性不斷增強(qiáng)，話語地位和影響力不斷提升。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則基本上實(shí)行國家主導(dǎo)實(shí)施、國家自主決策的模式，但同時也確認(rèn)了除主權(quán)國家外其他多元主體可享有國際利益相關(guān)行為體身份，建立了多環(huán)節(jié)的公共參與路徑及機(jī)制保障，強(qiáng)化最受影響主體發(fā)言權(quán)和科技機(jī)構(gòu)評議監(jiān)督權(quán)的效力，以制衡船旗國管轄權(quán)的話語權(quán)威，平衡國家個體利益與全球整體利益?？梢灶A(yù)見，基于預(yù)防性方法和現(xiàn)代環(huán)保理念，實(shí)行生態(tài)環(huán)境友好型開發(fā)方式及全過程的環(huán)境監(jiān)管，將成為BBNJ 全球治理進(jìn)程中的主流意識形態(tài)，因此，具備完善和先進(jìn)環(huán)保制度的國家、具有海洋生物多樣性相關(guān)多領(lǐng)域?qū)ｉL的國際組織、區(qū)域治理重要載體性組織、與全人類共同利益及價值融合更為緊密的行為體，將更能有力占據(jù)道義制高點(diǎn)，在BBNJ 全球治理秩序發(fā)展演變中獲得更大的主動權(quán)和感召力。

（二）對國家利益的影響

國際規(guī)則與國家利益是有機(jī)聯(lián)系的，國家在與特定規(guī)則的互動基礎(chǔ)上明確其身份和利益。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則通過平衡資源開發(fā)權(quán)利和環(huán)境保護(hù)義務(wù)，對全球整體利益和國家特殊利益及其相互關(guān)系產(chǎn)生多樣化的影響。

首先，國家利益是主權(quán)國家對外行為的根本訴求，維護(hù)和確保負(fù)責(zé)任地利用人類所處的海洋環(huán)境，促進(jìn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展是全人類（包括今世后代）共同利益。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則的制定形成既體現(xiàn)了整體性的全球環(huán)境和發(fā)展利益價值導(dǎo)向，為構(gòu)建全球BBNJ 利益共同體、責(zé)任共同體和命運(yùn)共同體提供國際法支持，有助于推動形成ABNJ 資源開發(fā)與環(huán)境治理一體化發(fā)展的新格局。同時，BBNJ 協(xié)定通過增加能力建設(shè)相關(guān)國際合作規(guī)則對部分發(fā)展中國家的個體利益給予特殊考量，16《BBNJ 協(xié)定》第三十一條第二款關(guān)于聯(lián)合環(huán)境影響評價，尤其是對小島嶼發(fā)展中國家管轄或控制下的計(jì)劃活動；該條第三款在科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)下設(shè)立一個專家名冊，為能力不足國家提供環(huán)評技術(shù)支持。符合其倡導(dǎo)的理想狀態(tài)下公平和公正的國際經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序，以促進(jìn)全人類整體發(fā)展利益和全球環(huán)境利益的協(xié)調(diào)發(fā)展，也充分呼應(yīng)了人類命運(yùn)共同體理念有關(guān)“共同繁榮”的國際法基本內(nèi)涵。17參見施余兵：《國家管轄外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性談判的挑戰(zhàn)與中國方案——以海洋命運(yùn)共同體為研究視角》，載《亞太安全與海洋研究》2022 年第1 期，第35-50 頁。簡言之，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則基于對全球長遠(yuǎn)利益關(guān)照下的短期局部國家利益調(diào)適，體現(xiàn)BBNJ 領(lǐng)域當(dāng)前利益和長遠(yuǎn)利益、全球利益和國家利益的對立統(tǒng)一。

其次，不同發(fā)展水平和實(shí)際條件的國家在BBNJ 養(yǎng)護(hù)與可持續(xù)利用領(lǐng)域具有不同的利益導(dǎo)向和現(xiàn)實(shí)需要，兼顧平衡各方利益訴求是規(guī)則制定、實(shí)施和發(fā)展中面臨的主要挑戰(zhàn)。環(huán)評實(shí)質(zhì)性規(guī)則中對不同國家地位的區(qū)分并未完全采用發(fā)展中國家和發(fā)達(dá)國家的“二分法”，僅原則性要求加強(qiáng)發(fā)展中締約國能力建設(shè)支持，具體通過科學(xué)和技術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)與信息交換機(jī)制為能力有限的締約國提供獲取環(huán)評實(shí)施相關(guān)科學(xué)信息和專家人力資源等公共產(chǎn)品與服務(wù)機(jī)會，但是對于發(fā)展中國家最需要的科研水平、開發(fā)技術(shù)等關(guān)鍵發(fā)展能力的提升仍缺乏有針對性的援助。同時，文書強(qiáng)調(diào)發(fā)展中國家內(nèi)部亞國家群組的差異性及其利益分化，考慮到了具有不同地理區(qū)位和地緣條件的國家特殊利益和需要，包括小島嶼國家和專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)環(huán)繞公海的周邊國家，可通過國際公共參與機(jī)制將其自然權(quán)力轉(zhuǎn)化為制度性權(quán)力。根據(jù)受活動潛在影響的可能性和性質(zhì)，毗鄰沿海國和毗鄰活動國被確認(rèn)為BBNJ 環(huán)評進(jìn)程中最主要的利益相關(guān)方，環(huán)評規(guī)則基于國際合作原則要求相關(guān)方在環(huán)評和活動實(shí)施過程中積極磋商，以有效平衡船旗國與沿海國有關(guān)環(huán)境事項(xiàng)的管轄權(quán)，同時兼顧各國開發(fā)利用海洋資源的合法利益。未來，隨著BBNJ 領(lǐng)域多元行為體不斷發(fā)展壯大并發(fā)揮重要作用，各國將更傾向于通過合作組合方式解決關(guān)乎全球共同利益的問題，通過雙贏或多贏增進(jìn)共享利益。

最后，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則對不同身份定位的國家利益影響途徑和驅(qū)動因素各異。環(huán)評的實(shí)施建立在大量的調(diào)查、監(jiān)測和研究等人力、資金和資源投入基礎(chǔ)上，發(fā)展中國家對深海的認(rèn)知程度、活動范圍和能力、開發(fā)技術(shù)水平等方面與發(fā)達(dá)國家存在差距。隨著海洋開發(fā)與保護(hù)全球治理越來越朝著高目標(biāo)、高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、高技術(shù)方向發(fā)展，環(huán)境標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與開發(fā)技術(shù)日益融合，后續(xù)一系列環(huán)評實(shí)施流程標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、執(zhí)行績效標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和環(huán)境質(zhì)量目標(biāo)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或準(zhǔn)則的制定，勢必對發(fā)展中國家海洋資源開發(fā)權(quán)利和利益的實(shí)現(xiàn)及環(huán)境保護(hù)義務(wù)的有效履行，以及自主創(chuàng)新能力提出更高要求。在適用統(tǒng)一的環(huán)評標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及最佳環(huán)境做法18另如，根據(jù)國際海洋法法庭海底分庭咨詢意見第161 段，在“區(qū)域”內(nèi)活動的最佳環(huán)境做法上，擔(dān)保國并不會因?yàn)榘l(fā)展中國家的身份獲得優(yōu)惠待遇。也就是說，“區(qū)域”環(huán)境保護(hù)制度將會最佳環(huán)境做法上采取統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。相關(guān)規(guī)則進(jìn)展值得重視。情境下，發(fā)展中國家獲取同樣的資源利益將意味著需要付出更大成本代價。在BBNJ 能力建設(shè)機(jī)制難以提供實(shí)質(zhì)性能力支持情況下，廣大發(fā)展中國家，尤其是最不發(fā)達(dá)國家可能在未來公海國際經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序中處于更加不利的競爭地位。對于海洋利用大國，BBNJ 環(huán)評作為基于活動的前置性許可管理工具，將通過一系列實(shí)質(zhì)性和程序性要求，確立涵蓋環(huán)境條件、特殊區(qū)域和活動方式（或技術(shù)手段）的綜合性準(zhǔn)入約束，形成“有牙齒”的活動規(guī)制及技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)則體系。在區(qū)域戰(zhàn)略環(huán)評、累積影響評估和劃區(qū)管理工具相關(guān)規(guī)則的共同作用下，傳統(tǒng)活動的范圍、方式、強(qiáng)度及其影響管理均將受到相應(yīng)約束，進(jìn)而對海洋活動大國的發(fā)展空間產(chǎn)生影響或制約。同時，BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則也將促使傳統(tǒng)海洋資源開發(fā)方式朝著綠色和生態(tài)友好型優(yōu)化升級，以滿足國際社會日益高漲的對公海深海環(huán)境實(shí)行更高保護(hù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的呼聲。對于沿海國，BBNJ 是集政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、科技和環(huán)境問題于一體的議題，深遠(yuǎn)海是維護(hù)海上安全和拓展海洋權(quán)益的重要戰(zhàn)略疆域。毗鄰公海的地理有利國一方面作為臨近公?；顒迎h(huán)境影響敏感國，更易造成環(huán)境利益的減損，另一方面，作為環(huán)評中的主要利益相關(guān)方，可借助透明度規(guī)則和國際公共咨詢協(xié)商程序，為其拓展環(huán)境管轄權(quán)與決策參與及監(jiān)督權(quán)提供合法依據(jù)和正式機(jī)制，進(jìn)而獲得有利的制度性話語或相關(guān)政治利益。反觀地理不利沿海國，相關(guān)權(quán)利的保障相對較弱，未來拓展深遠(yuǎn)海發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略空間將面臨更多因素制約或不確定性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，參與BBNJ 國際治理、維護(hù)海洋權(quán)益的過程中需付出相應(yīng)的規(guī)則或機(jī)制成本。

（三）對國內(nèi)制度的影響

國際規(guī)范的國內(nèi)合法性是衡量其對國家影響的重要變量，國家制度層面的接受和認(rèn)可是國際規(guī)則權(quán)威性的重要來源。國際規(guī)則在與國內(nèi)制度的互動過程中，不斷塑造和協(xié)調(diào)國家行為體的行為、目標(biāo)和政策。BBNJ 環(huán)評制度是規(guī)范和調(diào)整國家行為體履行環(huán)評義務(wù)相關(guān)行為的原則、規(guī)則、程序和機(jī)制等組成的系統(tǒng)，將影響各類活動環(huán)境規(guī)制的國際制度環(huán)境、國內(nèi)制度建設(shè)和國家規(guī)則實(shí)踐。

從國家遵約角度，BBNJ 協(xié)定明確要求締約方應(yīng)酌情采取必要的立法、行政或政策措施執(zhí)行協(xié)定。雖然各國已經(jīng)普遍建立了較為完善的國家管轄范圍內(nèi)環(huán)評法律制度，BBNJ 環(huán)評的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化評估流程也吸納了國內(nèi)環(huán)評的一般做法，但不同國家在理解和遵守國際規(guī)范方面存在客觀差異。環(huán)評制度從義務(wù)本位出發(fā)，為各國轉(zhuǎn)化、引入和適用新規(guī)則明確了責(zé)任范圍。締約方在BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則下的義務(wù)可以分為確保義務(wù)和直接義務(wù)，前者包括根據(jù)協(xié)定要求建立國內(nèi)適用于國家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域的環(huán)評制度、實(shí)施程序、信息公開和協(xié)商機(jī)制、活動影響審查機(jī)制等，后者包括締約方主管當(dāng)局根據(jù)協(xié)定具體規(guī)則開展篩選、發(fā)布環(huán)評報(bào)告、作出活動授權(quán)決策、監(jiān)測活動影響、定期提交監(jiān)測報(bào)告和公布審查報(bào)告，以及在發(fā)生新的重大不利影響情況下的審查、通知和采取行動的義務(wù)。上述義務(wù)的執(zhí)行需要國家在形成國內(nèi)統(tǒng)一政治認(rèn)同的基礎(chǔ)上，對國際規(guī)則進(jìn)行國內(nèi)規(guī)則的轉(zhuǎn)化與銜接，即國內(nèi)制度化。同時，不同國家在不同問題領(lǐng)域?qū)H規(guī)則的確認(rèn)程度和國內(nèi)制度化水平會存在差異，各國根據(jù)國內(nèi)社會關(guān)系和發(fā)展需要推進(jìn)國內(nèi)制度改革的目標(biāo)和速度，推動國內(nèi)BBNJ 環(huán)評制度體系的建設(shè)與完善。此外，還需增強(qiáng)漁業(yè)、航運(yùn)、深海資源開發(fā)和保護(hù)等相關(guān)部門目標(biāo)與BBNJ 框架下全球目標(biāo)的符合性，進(jìn)一步完善域外各類活動的有效治理體系，不斷融入國際規(guī)范體系之中。

從活動規(guī)制角度，在締約方確保義務(wù)下，活動提議方通常是環(huán)評、信息公開和協(xié)商、監(jiān)測等義務(wù)的實(shí)際實(shí)施主體。為了確?；顒又黧w的行為符合BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)范要求，締約方需要建立配套的BBNJ 環(huán)評國內(nèi)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和規(guī)范體系，以落實(shí)環(huán)評規(guī)則規(guī)定的國家義務(wù)，增強(qiáng)對其管轄和控制下的活動的歸口管理和環(huán)境規(guī)制。BBNJ 協(xié)定框架下將制定關(guān)于篩選閾值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、跨界影響和累積影響評估、公告和協(xié)商、監(jiān)測和報(bào)告、戰(zhàn)略環(huán)評等一系列程序性和技術(shù)性實(shí)施標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和指南文件及最佳實(shí)踐做法，可能直接涉及環(huán)評過程中實(shí)施主體的權(quán)利義務(wù)范圍和行為效力，這些國際性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或指南也將為活動主體實(shí)施環(huán)評的方式和方法提供基本遵循和重要指引。

四、中國的應(yīng)對策略

國內(nèi)法治與國際法治存在相互配合與相互滲透的緊密關(guān)系。19參見葉泉：《論全球海洋治理體系變革的中國角色與實(shí)現(xiàn)路徑》，載《國際觀察》2020年第5 期，第74-106 頁。國際規(guī)則影響國內(nèi)制度，國內(nèi)法律實(shí)踐也會影響或改造國際規(guī)范。國家融入國際治理體系的過程，不僅是國際治理新要素給國家?guī)硇伦兓倪^程，也是國家影響國際要素的過程。立足中國在BBNJ 領(lǐng)域的角色和利益，推動BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則的實(shí)施與發(fā)展完善，符合中國負(fù)責(zé)任大國的利益和立場，契合構(gòu)建全球海洋命運(yùn)共同體的使命擔(dān)當(dāng)。中國是BBNJ 協(xié)定及環(huán)評規(guī)則制定的積極參與者和推動者，面對新的機(jī)遇和挑戰(zhàn)，中國需要進(jìn)一步統(tǒng)籌國際國內(nèi)環(huán)評規(guī)則發(fā)展，提升海洋治理能力和水平。

（一）國際應(yīng)對

首先，加強(qiáng)國際環(huán)評規(guī)則的解釋和運(yùn)用能力。BBNJ 環(huán)評程序性規(guī)則較為明確和細(xì)化，很多技術(shù)性規(guī)則和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)具有中性特征，并非只能簡單機(jī)械地適用，在解釋時具有較強(qiáng)的可塑性，如閾值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、影響評估、減緩措施等。在全球海洋資源能源綠色低碳轉(zhuǎn)型發(fā)展的大趨勢下，隨著中國在深遠(yuǎn)海領(lǐng)域科技水平的不斷提升和開發(fā)實(shí)踐的不斷積累，可以預(yù)見，綠色開發(fā)技術(shù)將成為未來國家間海洋權(quán)益博弈的核心要素，規(guī)則、科技、道義和輿論互動關(guān)系錯綜交織，將成為影響未來BBNJ領(lǐng)域海洋事務(wù)發(fā)展的重要內(nèi)容。無論如何，作為海洋活動大國，中國必須提升綠色技術(shù)創(chuàng)新水平，注重“海洋命運(yùn)共同體”的理念轉(zhuǎn)化和國際話語銜接，20同上注。提升“最佳可得技術(shù)”“最佳環(huán)境實(shí)踐”“良好行業(yè)做法”的引領(lǐng)能力，加強(qiáng)自身對環(huán)評國際規(guī)則的解釋和運(yùn)用能力，有效運(yùn)用國際法規(guī)則應(yīng)對履行國際義務(wù)過程中面臨的各種環(huán)境壁壘、21參見王傳良、張晏瑲：《人類命運(yùn)共同體理念與現(xiàn)代海洋法的發(fā)展——以“BBNJ 國際協(xié)定”的制訂為視角》，載《江蘇大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)（社會科學(xué)版）》2023 年第1 期，第73-85 頁。法律挑戰(zhàn)和輿論壓力，維護(hù)自身海洋權(quán)益。

其次，增強(qiáng)整合適用環(huán)評相關(guān)法律制度能力。隨著海洋領(lǐng)域諸多國際規(guī)則的不斷醞釀和形成，BBNJ 規(guī)則與其他規(guī)則之間的主導(dǎo)權(quán)之爭將日益顯著。BBNJ領(lǐng)域相關(guān)主管國際組織的職能范圍存在交叉或重疊，區(qū)域漁業(yè)管理組織等區(qū)域性機(jī)構(gòu)也開始重視BBNJ 交叉議題的處理，22參見李潔：《BBNJ 全球治理下區(qū)域性海洋機(jī)制的功用與動向》，載《中國海商法研究》2021 年第4 期，第80-87 頁。不同環(huán)評規(guī)則的具體目標(biāo)和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)門檻存在差異。BBNJ 協(xié)定及環(huán)評規(guī)則初步明確了與相關(guān)法律文書和框架以及相關(guān)全球、區(qū)域和領(lǐng)域機(jī)構(gòu)的關(guān)系，環(huán)評規(guī)則的有效實(shí)施不能是對現(xiàn)有環(huán)評框架的替代或重復(fù)，而需要有效的加以協(xié)調(diào)與整合。在BBNJ 養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用領(lǐng)域全球競合態(tài)勢明顯、規(guī)則體系尚未完善的情況下，增強(qiáng)關(guān)聯(lián)議題領(lǐng)域的復(fù)雜規(guī)則整合適用能力，是推動多層次、多中心全球海洋治理協(xié)同發(fā)展的客觀要求。

第三，增強(qiáng)參與和影響環(huán)評國際軟法制定能力。BBNJ 環(huán)評技術(shù)建議、程序規(guī)范和行為指南等“軟法”是BBNJ 環(huán)評制度的重要組成部分。環(huán)評“軟法”文件以其較強(qiáng)的道德或利益導(dǎo)向和實(shí)踐督導(dǎo)功能，將對正式國際規(guī)則的完善和有效適用發(fā)揮重要的補(bǔ)充與輔助作用。在發(fā)達(dá)國家掌握技術(shù)優(yōu)勢和國際規(guī)則主導(dǎo)權(quán)的情況下，發(fā)展中國家及新興海洋大國積極參與環(huán)評國際軟法制定相關(guān)的國際磋商及談判進(jìn)程，是借助國際法力量維護(hù)自身利益的重要途徑。環(huán)評領(lǐng)域已有國家實(shí)踐廣泛而豐富，技術(shù)性軟法規(guī)則的形成和發(fā)展將迅速推進(jìn)，中國作為發(fā)展中大國，應(yīng)積極參與并提升環(huán)評軟法規(guī)則制定和支撐國際組織決策、程序和人事制度建設(shè)的能力，提高環(huán)評相關(guān)補(bǔ)充性及支持性制度的設(shè)計(jì)能力，增強(qiáng)廣大發(fā)展中國家在規(guī)則解釋和修訂的核心機(jī)制中的代表性和話語權(quán)。

第四，促進(jìn)多元主體廣泛參與BBNJ 治理進(jìn)程。BBNJ 國際協(xié)定的立法進(jìn)程充分展現(xiàn)了主權(quán)國家之外的國際、區(qū)域組織或機(jī)構(gòu)等國際行為體的重要角色和作用。借助開放、包容的多邊國際規(guī)則平臺，多元化的主體越來越深入?yún)⑴c到國際規(guī)則和治理體系的塑造與演變過程中。公共參與和知情決策是BBNJ 環(huán)評程序的核心價值，廣泛利益相關(guān)方的全過程參與得到環(huán)評規(guī)則的正式確認(rèn)和機(jī)制保障。因此，國家需要與非政府組織、科研機(jī)構(gòu)、學(xué)術(shù)研究團(tuán)體、開發(fā)者等多元行為體保持密切和有效的合作與互動關(guān)系，并借助國內(nèi)多元利益相關(guān)主體在國際規(guī)則和規(guī)范制定與實(shí)施過程中的廣泛、深度和多層次介入，推廣有益治理經(jīng)驗(yàn)，開拓和引領(lǐng)全球、區(qū)域和雙邊治理框架下環(huán)境規(guī)則的形成與發(fā)展。

（二）國內(nèi)應(yīng)對

第一，加快國內(nèi)規(guī)則銜接。國內(nèi)BBNJ 領(lǐng)域涉外環(huán)評制度方面存在立法空白或規(guī)范層級較低的問題，不能滿足未來BBNJ 協(xié)定生效后的履約要求和實(shí)踐需要。國內(nèi)國際規(guī)則的有機(jī)銜接和雙向互動是提升域外活動監(jiān)管法制化水平、應(yīng)對法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)挑戰(zhàn)和對外制度規(guī)則博弈的重要基礎(chǔ)，需要加快推進(jìn)國內(nèi)相關(guān)法律法規(guī)和規(guī)范的制修訂工作，形成涵蓋海洋環(huán)境保護(hù)、深海資源開發(fā)等在內(nèi)系統(tǒng)完備的BBNJ 環(huán)評啟動與實(shí)施規(guī)則、國際透明度規(guī)則、國際咨詢協(xié)商機(jī)制、域外活動監(jiān)管規(guī)則等法律體系和配套技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)范體系，實(shí)現(xiàn)域外活動環(huán)評和監(jiān)管有法可依。

第二，完善管理協(xié)調(diào)制度。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則的實(shí)施實(shí)質(zhì)上以環(huán)境問題的規(guī)制為抓手，影響和塑造未來國際海洋經(jīng)濟(jì)、政治和法律秩序，涉及主權(quán)國家資源利益分配和發(fā)展空間格局。因此，需要從國家層面推進(jìn)海洋治理體制機(jī)制改革，完善BBNJ 事務(wù)綜合協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)制和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)應(yīng)對機(jī)制，23參見戴瑛：《總體國家安全觀視角下的BBNJ 國際協(xié)定及中國應(yīng)對》，載《廣西社會科學(xué)》2023 年第1 期，第26-33 頁。統(tǒng)籌發(fā)展和安全，集中調(diào)度與協(xié)調(diào)各類政策工具，確保有效運(yùn)用國內(nèi)法和國際法規(guī)則維護(hù)國家在BBNJ 領(lǐng)域的主權(quán)、安全和發(fā)展利益。BBNJ 環(huán)評管理制度建設(shè)與實(shí)施需要協(xié)調(diào)好多領(lǐng)域行業(yè)規(guī)制之間的關(guān)系，涉及自然資源、生態(tài)環(huán)境、漁業(yè)、海事等部門環(huán)境規(guī)制目標(biāo)和手段，需要完善跨部門履約協(xié)調(diào)協(xié)作機(jī)制，整合調(diào)動各類專業(yè)人才、數(shù)據(jù)信息和資金等優(yōu)勢資源，促進(jìn)BBNJ 事務(wù)管理的協(xié)同增效。

第三，加強(qiáng)技術(shù)保障體系建設(shè)。隨著深遠(yuǎn)海資源開發(fā)的環(huán)保規(guī)制趨于嚴(yán)苛，綠色開發(fā)技術(shù)和生態(tài)友好做法越來越成為BBNJ 養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用領(lǐng)域的基本要求，貫穿于開發(fā)準(zhǔn)入、技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、行為準(zhǔn)則和監(jiān)督管理的全過程和各領(lǐng)域。健全的科技創(chuàng)新體系、綠色開發(fā)技術(shù)和裝備體系、環(huán)境管理監(jiān)督與服務(wù)保障系統(tǒng)等是確保BBNJ 環(huán)境影響評價與管理的有效實(shí)施，以及資源開發(fā)與環(huán)境保護(hù)順利開展的必要保障。

五、結(jié) 語

BBNJ 協(xié)定的達(dá)成及其后續(xù)實(shí)施將推動以《公約》等國際法為核心的全球海洋法律體系發(fā)展變革進(jìn)程。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則以前置性環(huán)評程序?yàn)樽ナ纸⒘私y(tǒng)一的BBNJ 環(huán)境管理制度框架，為落實(shí)《公約》環(huán)評義務(wù)、協(xié)調(diào)相關(guān)法律框架的關(guān)系，推動BBNJ 養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用目標(biāo)的均衡實(shí)現(xiàn)，提供明確具體的規(guī)則、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和程序依據(jù)和指南。

BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則著重規(guī)范和調(diào)適主權(quán)國家享有的資源開發(fā)權(quán)利和環(huán)境保護(hù)義務(wù)之間的關(guān)系，直接影響各國在全球海洋治理領(lǐng)域的國際話語、海洋權(quán)益和國內(nèi)制度等方方面面，將推動塑造并形成未來公海深海資源和生物多樣性治理的法律秩序和政治經(jīng)濟(jì)格局。BBNJ 環(huán)評規(guī)則體系的發(fā)展走向，以及關(guān)聯(lián)領(lǐng)域的平行進(jìn)程對國家的影響機(jī)制和路徑值得持續(xù)關(guān)注和深入研究。從維護(hù)國家深遠(yuǎn)海戰(zhàn)略資源利益、拓展海洋經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展空間的角度出發(fā)，需要立足世情國情，整合資源和技術(shù)優(yōu)勢，強(qiáng)弱項(xiàng)、補(bǔ)短板、填空白，推動國家在BBNJ 領(lǐng)域的特殊利益和國際社會共同利益的有效融合與共同發(fā)展。

BBNJ Environmental Impact Assessments:Rules, Impacts and Response

JIANG Yuhuan, ZHANG Jiwei*

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

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

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

?THE AUTHORS AND CHINA OCEANS LAW REVIEW

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

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

I. Main Features of the BBNJ EIA Rules

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

A.EstablishingandDevelopingtheLegalFrameworkforImplementing EIAObligationsinABNJ

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

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

B.IntegratingandCoordinatingtheLegalFrameworkandMechanism ofEIAinABNJ

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

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

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

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

C.ProvidingaProceduralMechanismforInternationalActorsto ParticipateintheDecision-makingProcessofActivities

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

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

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

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

D.ServingasanImportantMeanstoUrgeStatestoStrengthenthe SupervisionofActivities

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

II. Comments on the Main Contents of BBNJ EIA Rules

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

A.TriggerMechanism

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

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

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

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

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

B.ImplementationProcedures

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

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

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

C.SupervisionMechanisms

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

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

III. The Impact of BBNJ EIA Rules on the States

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

A.ImpactonNationalDiscourse

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

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

B.ImpactontheNationalInterest

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

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

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

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

C.ImpactontheDomesticInstitutions

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

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

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

IV. Response from China’s Perspective

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

A.InternationalCountermeasures

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

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

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

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

B.DomesticResponse

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

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

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

V. Conclusions

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

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

Translators: CHEN Cong, YAN Lilan

Editor (English): HUANG Yuxin