Integrated Ocean Governance: Addressing Transboundary Pollution and Climate Risks

Seawater is fluid and interconnected as an integrated whole. Pollutants including plastic waste, ALPS-treated water and ship-source pollution readily spread across national boundaries. Coupled with climate change, these pollutants give rise to compound ecological risks that pose threats to marine ecosystems and the shared interests of humankind. As the core legislation governing transboundary marine governance, the Ecological and Environmental Code adopts a moderate codification approach, which results in fragmented and principle-oriented provisions insufficient to address complex transboundary governance challenges. From the theoretical perspective of strong governance, this paper takes the Code as its primary textual basis and draws on international hard law and non-hard-law instruments for international marine governance to identify three fundamental flaws within the existing governance framework. First, the definition of transboundary jurisdiction remains ambiguous. The Code contains no regulatory provisions on extraterritorial harm originating from domestic territory, and the division of powers and responsibilities for special maritime zones such as exclusive economic zones, the area and the high seas remains unclear. Second, the transboundary legal liability regime is incomplete. Regulatory oversight leans heavily toward domestic pollution incidents; liable parties, law-enforcement mechanisms and remedy mechanisms are underdeveloped, liability forms are overly simplistic, and the regime fails to respond to emerging cumulative pollution risks. Third, transboundary cooperation is stipulated merely as a general principle. Operable supporting mechanisms including risk-notification procedures, transboundary environmental impact assessment (TEIA) and unified monitoring standards are absent, nor are there dedicated cooperation rules for semi-enclosed seas. To tackle these institutional deficiencies, this paper puts forward systematic optimization pathways. In terms of jurisdiction, it advocates incorporating the no-harm principle, refining functional maritime jurisdiction and eliminating fragmentation in supervisory boundaries across maritime spaces. Regarding liability regimes, it recommends expanding the scope of liable parties, introducing diversified liability forms such as ecological restoration, and broadening the coverage of regulated pollution types. For coordination mechanisms, it proposes establishing permanent transboundary cooperation mechanisms, improving supporting institutional arrangements and strengthening collaborative governance of semi-enclosed seas. Such institutional improvements represent a paradigm shift from “weak governance” to “strong governance” in marine environmental governance.