The delegation of China supports the statement made by the Ethiopian representative on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. China thanks the Co-Chairs and the Secretariat for their great work in preparing for this meeting, and believes that under the leadership of the Co-Chairs, this meeting will be a complete success.
The China Municipal Government attaches great importance to environmental protection, integrates the construction of ecological civilization into the overall national development strategy, promotes the innovation of ideas, systems and practices, and promotes the construction of a beautiful China. At the same time, China regards building a clean and beautiful world as an important aspect of building Community of Shared Future for Mankind, and firmly supports strengthening global environmental governance. China believes that the work of this ad hoc working group is an important link in strengthening global environmental governance, and is willing to constructively participate in substantive discussions and work closely with the co-chairs, the Secretariat and other parties to push the working group to complete its mandate successfully.
Regarding the principle of strengthening international environmental governance, China believes that the interests of all parties should be coordinated to achieve "four persistences": First, we must persist in discussing and solving environmental problems under the framework of sustainable development and realize the coordination between economic and social development and environmental protection; Second, we must adhere to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" and effectively help developing countries steadily improve their environmental governance and sustainable development capabilities; Third, we must adhere to the principle of national sovereignty over environmental resources; Fourth, we must adhere to the full participation of developing countries.
Regarding the procedural requirements for promoting the work of the Working Group, China believes that scientific and democratic decision-making, consensus-building and synergy should be adhered to.
At the same time, adhere to the following points in specific work: First, do not duplicate the work of existing international conventions or mechanisms. The main purpose of the Working Group’s work is to strengthen the implementation of existing laws and instruments. The General Assembly’s authorized resolution clearly requires the Working Group not to damage existing relevant instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and departmental institutions, and it is natural not to repeat them. Secondly, we should adhere to gradual development. According to the International Law Commission, gradual development means a moderate balance between stability and change. In order to improve international environmental governance, international environmental law can neither be stagnant nor revision. We should seek a balance between stability and change, and constantly improve international environmental governance through the continuous and gradual development of international environmental law. Third, we should focus on global issues and avoid getting involved in bilateral and regional issues. The working group should strictly follow its mandate, focus its limited time and resources on global and universal issues, and avoid discussing too many issues that should be solved at the bilateral and regional levels, which will affect the realization of the working group’s purposes and goals. Fourth, we must adhere to the principles and methods of international law. We must respect the will of the country and the actual situation, adhere to the principle of state consent, base ourselves on state practice, and avoid pushing it beyond reality.
China appreciates the efforts of the UN Secretary-General in drafting the Report on Inadequate International Environmental Governance, which provides a useful reference for the substantive discussion of the Working Group. At the same time, due to the rush of time, it is difficult for the report to exhaust all the problems in international environmental governance, and the working group process is driven by member States, so countries are not limited by the Report. Therefore, the working group should also pay attention to the shortcomings of international environmental governance raised by member States outside the report. China will make specific comments on the report under topic 5.
China firmly supports the working group to carry out its work as authorized by the General Assembly resolution, and is willing to actively participate and brainstorm with all parties to promote the working group to achieve positive results.
Chapter-by-chapter comments on UN Secretary-General’s Report on Inadequate International Environmental Governance
I. Introduction to Chapter 1
Since this part is a summary of the main points and conclusions of the report, China will not make substantive comments for the time being, but will express specific opinions on these substantive contents in relevant chapters. The introduction also involves methodological issues, and China would like to make a brief comment on this:
This part points out that "international environmental law is a public international law that countries and international organizations deal with problems in the field of environmental protection. It does not operate in isolation, but is rooted in the principles and rules of general public international law". China agrees with this, and further believes that we should use the rules and tools of international law to identify the possible shortcomings of international environmental law and put forward relevant solutions.
As pointed out in this part, "the existence of rules of customary international law needs to be confirmed by the corresponding recognized national practice and legal conviction". We should follow this rule when discussing the status of the principles of international environmental law.
In addition, China believes that the rules of treaty interpretation are closely related to dealing with the difficulties brought about by the fragmentation of international environmental law. We will elaborate on this in the follow-up review.
Second, on the shortcomings of the principles of international environmental law in Chapter II
(1) Views on the current situation of international environmental law
We need to objectively and comprehensively evaluate the development status of international environmental law. Since the Stockholm Conference on Human Environment in 1972, great progress has been made in global environmental governance, and the position of environmental issues on the international agenda has been constantly moving forward. According to the report of the Secretariat, there are currently more than 500 multilateral environmental agreements and about 200 treaty bodies, which fully reflects the diversity and prosperity of international environmental law. China appreciates these positive developments. The report of the Secretary-General points out that there are some problems in international environmental law, such as fragmentation, unclear principles of international environmental law, and lack of coordination among international environmental laws in various departments and with international law in other fields. In this regard, the China delegation’s preliminary views are as follows:
About fragmentation. China believes that there is indeed a problem of "fragmentation" in the field of international environmental law as described by the International Law Commission: the number of treaties is huge and growing, and there are many institutions involved in the codification and progressive development of international environmental law, but there is no professional institution specializing in this field. How to treat and solve the fragmentation problem?
The fragmentation of international law has both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, fragmentation reflects the rapid expansion of international law into new fields and the diversification of its objectives and means. In the field of international environmental law, due to the different nature and characteristics of environmental problems, it is necessary to customize solutions for specific problems, and fragmentation has its rationality. On the other hand, as pointed out by the Committee, fragmentation does create the danger of conflicting and incompatible rules, principles, rule systems and institutional practices. Conflicts between rules and principles that may be caused by fragmentation can be solved through mature international law tools on treaty conflicts. For example, the special law takes precedence over the common law (Lex specialis derogat legi general) and the latter law takes precedence over the former law (lex posterior derogat legi priori), and must not conflict with jus cogens (norms of jus cogens tolerate no de rogation), which is very helpful to solve the fragmentation problem. These treaty rules mentioned by the Committee are also effective means to solve the problem of fragmentation of international environmental law. China is willing to discuss specific cases of fragmentation with an open mind and seek pragmatic solutions.
In the long run, the fragmentation development trend of international environmental law will indeed lead to the increasing burden of countries’ performance and the possible decline in the clarity of related rights and obligations, which need to be solved by strengthening the coordination among international environmental treaties and mechanisms. Relevant mechanisms have carried out a lot of overall coordination work in this regard. For example, the "synergies process" initiated by the conferences of the parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions in the chemical field in 2008, and the "Environmental Treaty Project-Achieving Synergies of Biodiversity" initiated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) UNEP)2017. Relevant efforts should be continued within the existing framework. In addition, fragmentation is not a unique problem in the field of international environmental law. The practice of strengthening the coordination between mechanisms and rules in other fields besides environmental law is also worth learning. For example, in the field of international trade law, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has strengthened coordination by consulting with relevant international organizations to determine new topics to be considered, compiling overviews and reports of various organizations’ legislative and technical assistance activities related to international trade law, and conducting joint research and discussion, and achieved good results. We can refer to relevant practices, promote the coordination between environmental treaties and environmental agencies, and further strengthen the relevant coordination functions of UNEP.
The principle of international environmental law is unclear. According to the report of the Secretary-General, there are unclear problems in the legal nature, content and application of the principles of international environmental law, which have affected the predictability, certainty and effectiveness of international environmental law to some extent. China believes that some principles of international environmental law are closer to "customary international law", while others are still "soft law". Some principles are more embodied in international law instruments, while others mainly come from domestic laws of various countries. Different countries and scholars have different views on the status, content and scope of application of the same principle. Further clarification of the status, content and scope of application of the relevant principles will help to play the role of these principles.
In this regard, China has three basic views: First, the principles of international environmental law do not automatically constitute general legal principles in the sense of the origin of international law. Second, regarding whether an international environmental law principle constitutes customary international law, we should adhere to the usual practice of identifying customary international law. Some people think that the urgency of dealing with global environmental problems makes the formation of customary international law in the field of international environmental law faster. However, the draft conclusion of the International Law Commission on the identification of international customary law in 2018 reiterated that the two elements of opinio juris and state practice should be considered comprehensively to identify international customary law. According to the two factors, we will find that whether many principles have formed customary law and in what sense, in fact, it needs to be discussed rigorously. Third, even as soft law, the principles of international environmental law are meaningful. Soft law can adapt to the urgency of environmental problems better and faster, and the obligation of soft law has great inclusiveness, flexibility and even enforceability, which has potential influence on the formation of customary law.
Therefore, there is no need to be depressed because a certain principle of international environmental law is still soft law, and it should not be recognized as customary international law without sufficient national practice or legal conviction. Clarifying the status of the principles of international environmental law is of great significance in itself and should be an important direction of efforts.
Regarding the unclear status of the principles of international environmental law, China believes that the key lies in strengthening research and compilation. Relevant expert organizations have done a lot of work in this regard, but the lack of government participation has limited the awareness and influence of related work. In order to strengthen the research and compilation of international environmental law in the future, we should try our best to explore the ways of interaction between governments and experts. Take the International Law Commission as an example. The Commission is composed of experts nominated by the government. It can ask countries to provide national practice as the basis for compilation, and the compilation results will listen to the opinions of governments. This is a way for the government and international law experts to interact effectively.
Like many delegations, the delegation of China still needs further internal coordination and has not yet reached a final opinion. The most important thing at this stage is to listen to the opinions of all parties. Theoretically, there are many options to strengthen the research and compilation of international environmental law: 1. We can strengthen the relevant research and discussion through this ad hoc working group. The task of the working group is to identify the shortcomings of international environmental law and discuss countermeasures. Strengthening research is the meaning of the topic. 2. It may also be suggested that the General Assembly set up an expert group to strengthen research and compilation on specific international environmental law issues. 3. We can also learn from The Hague Conference on Private International Law and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to explore mechanisms to strengthen UNEP’s functions of research, compilation, progressive development, dissemination and coordination of international environmental law. We can further play the role of the International Law Commission in the codification and progressive development of international environmental law. In 2001 and 2006, respectively, the International Law Commission put forward draft principles on the prevention of transboundary damage and loss allocation in hazardous activities, and in recent years, it has carried out work on environmental protection and atmospheric protection in armed conflicts. Relevant work can better unify the stability and progressive development of international law, which is helpful to further clarify the legal status of relevant principles. Although the International Law Commission has a heavy workload at present, the General Assembly has the right to ask the Commission to compile specific principles of international environmental law, and the Commission should give priority to matters authorized by the General Assembly. 5. If all parties discuss that it is necessary and feasible to formulate a new instrument of international law, the new instrument can also be one of the options. 6. Of course,Taking no action is also an option. That is to say, the principles and rules of international environmental law should remain unchanged, and all parties should interpret and apply them according to their own understanding.
These are just some preliminary theoretical options. At this stage, China has no tendentious opinions and does not rule out any possible solutions. If the working group thinks that there is indeed a problem of unclear principles of international environmental law, it needs to carefully evaluate the added value and feasibility of various options and explore and determine the most effective solution.
(2) On the principles of international environmental law listed in the report.
1, about the principle of prevention (prevention)
(1) In many cases, the environmental damage is irreversible or the repair cost is high. Preventing, reducing and controlling the negative impact on the environment is the most fundamental measure to solve environmental problems.
(2) Prevention is the main means of environmental governance in various countries, and the practices are different. Prevention should be strengthened according to the domestic legislation, respective capabilities and specific conditions of each country.
(3) In international law, prevention is a principle concerning the rights and obligations of States:
The sovereign right of a country to its natural resources, and each country has the sovereign right to develop its natural resources in accordance with its own environmental and development policies. At the same time, countries also have the responsibility to ensure that the activities under their jurisdiction or control do not cause significant damage to the environment of other countries or areas beyond national jurisdiction. This obligation is due diligence, which is aimed at due diligence, not results.
(4) This principle is related to the liability for damage, but it belongs to different aspects. In relevant declarations and conventions, prevention and compensation are dealt with in different articles. The precautionary principle itself is not a secondary rule, and it does not involve the issue of damages. The issue of damages should be dealt with by the rules of domestic law and international law other than prevention.
(5) environmental impact assessment is an important aspect of strengthening prevention. It should be emphasized that the specific conditions, subjects and procedures for implementing EIA should be determined by domestic laws.
2, about risk prevention (precaution)
(1) The principle of risk prevention has been recognized to some extent, which is of positive significance, but it is difficult to reach a unified standard of rules.
First of all, environmental treaties and instruments in different departments have different requirements for the risk evaluation criteria for applying the risk prevention principle. Principle 15 of Rio Declaration: In case of serious or irreversible damage; Article 11 of the World Charter for Nature: engaging in activities that may pose a great danger to nature; Preamble to the Convention on Biological Diversity: When noting that biodiversity is threatened by serious reduction or loss.
Secondly, the existing treaties and declarations have different expressions on how to define scientific uncertainty. Rio Declaration: The lack of sufficient scientific evidence should not be used as a reason; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: It should not be based on the lack of complete scientific certainty; Convention on Biological Diversity: Lack of sufficient scientific conclusions should not be used as a reason.
Third, the risk prevention of environmental problems in different fields needs to implement different rules and standards according to the different characteristics of environmental problems in different fields.
(2) At the same time, the principle should also include the requirement of strengthening research to enhance the scientific certainty of risk assessment and relevant measures to be taken.
(3) Countries should apply this principle according to their own capabilities, specific cases, domestic laws and applicable rules of international law.
(4) In any case, in the process of decision-making and implementation of the risk prevention principle, cost-benefit analysis is needed to take social and economic factors into consideration to avoid paying too high a price for applying the risk prevention principle.
Finally, whether risk prevention is a principle or an approach is still controversial in the international community.
3. polluter pays.
(1) The polluter pays principle is first and foremost a domestic law principle on prevention. This principle is put forward in view of the externalities of environmental problems, emphasizing the internalization of costs. It is beneficial for countries to internalize the costs and expenses of pollution control by economic means, and it is of positive significance to promote the improvement of domestic laws and policies.
(2) We should be cautious about whether this principle is binding in international law.
In 2006, International Law Commission’s Third Report on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Trans-boundary Harm Arising Out of "International Liability for Harmful Consequences Caused by Acts Not Prohibited by International Law". Hazardous Activities) pointed out that "the embodiment of this principle in the Rio Declaration, regional instruments and civil society drafting documents does not mean that this principle has been widely recognized and accepted by the international community as a general principle of international law or customary international law."
This principle lacks universal practice. As stated in the report, this principle is mainly practiced in Europe, and other regions lack sufficient practice in applying this principle in inter-state relations.
There are different understandings of this principle. Different countries and regions have different understandings of this principle, including the definitions of applicable fields, polluters, pollution and payment standards.
(3) Therefore, it is difficult for this principle to provide a legal solution to the compensation for transboundary damage. This principle is related to the liability for damage to some extent, but it belongs to different levels and categories. This principle is mainly not a secondary rule, and the practice of different countries is not consistent whether it involves the issue of damages. The issue of compensation for damages should be mainly dealt with by the rules of domestic law and international law other than the polluter pays.
This principle is also difficult to provide a legal solution for climate change. With regard to climate change, we should adhere to the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities defined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, as well as the mode of national independent contribution, so as to solve this global challenge fairly and reasonably.
4. environmental democracy.
(1) "Environmental democracy" is a political and ideological expression. We suggest that we avoid using such politicized language in our work and use more international law language.
(2) Some countries’ environmental legislation recognizes the public’s participation in environmental protection and access to information and judicial relief in accordance with the prescribed procedures and methods. However, as pointed out in the conclusion of the report, these principles are only applied in the relevant regions, and different regions and countries have different degrees of differences in content, form and scope when applying the relevant principles. Therefore, China believes that relevant procedural rights should be strengthened according to the domestic legislation, respective capabilities and specific conditions of each country.
(3) It should be emphasized that domestic legislation and national conditions of each country should be respected, and consistency should not be forced, so as to avoid using these procedural rights to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries.
5. Right to a clean and healthy environment.
(1) Different countries have different environmental governance models, some of which emphasize rights and others emphasize obligations. China effectively protects the procedural rights of the public to participate in environmental governance through legislation and other measures, while emphasizing the obligation to protect the environment, because we believe that in the face of increasingly severe environmental challenges, the government and the public need to do their respective duties, take actions that help protect the environment and avoid behaviors that affect the environment. This model is effective in China. At the same time, we respect other countries for adopting different models.
(2) The environmental rights mentioned in the report are environmental rights other than procedural rights. Regarding the protection of this right, we should respect the different modes and practices adopted by countries according to their legal traditions and national conditions, and do not insist on consistency.
(3) As pointed out in the report of the Secretary-General, this principle only appears in some regional or sector-specific treaties involving environmental issues, and a universal and complete definition of its content and scope has not yet been formed.
6. non-regression and progression principle.
(1) It is the consensus of all countries to strengthen environmental protection actions and promote the continuous progress of global environmental protection, but whether and how this consensus can be translated into the principles and rules of international environmental law needs further discussion.
(2) At present, there are not many related statements about this principle, which are only involved in individual legal documents and have not been fully supported by national practice and legal conviction.
(3) The meaning of this principle needs to be further clarified, for example, what kind of non-retrogression means, standards, measures or results, which needs further discussion.
7. The principle of cooperation mentioned in the report, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, the principle of sustainable development, and the principle of national sovereignty over environmental resources not mentioned in the report constitute an important basis for countries to cooperate in dealing with environmental problems; No matter how to strengthen international environmental governance, we should not deviate from these principles.
Three, about the third chapter in various fields of regulation system.
China believes that the regulation and governance of specific environmental problems by relevant mechanisms and treaties in various fields of international environmental law is reasonable, professional and scientific. At the same time, the General Assembly authorized resolution of the Working Group requires that the working group process should not damage the existing relevant instruments and frameworks. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the working group to discuss and deal with the deficiencies and solutions of regulatory systems and governance structures in various fields, and the relevant work should be handled by instruments and institutions in various fields themselves.
In addition, the report refers to the lack of relevant departmental laws, and holds that there is a lack of international legislation in the fields of sustainable forest utilization, marine plastic waste, soil protection, human rights and climate change. China believes that these issues have been discussed under the existing mechanism and can be handled in an appropriate way through the existing mechanism. If the working group finds problems that cannot be handled by the existing mechanism, China is willing to actively discuss solutions.
IV. About Chapter IV Environment-related Instruments
With regard to trade instruments, China has noticed that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, compared with GATT, takes environmental protection factors into account more, and considers relevant environmental law principles and rules through treaty interpretation and other methods to strengthen environmental protection; In addition, regional and bilateral trade treaty legislation is increasingly included in environmental protection chapters. The trend of mutual support between international environmental law and international trade law is strengthening, and the General Assembly can encourage the above-mentioned mutual support to continue to be strengthened. At the same time, it should be emphasized that strengthening environmental protection should avoid unreasonable and invisible restrictions on free trade.
With regard to investment instruments, China notes that the documents cited in the report are old and fail to cover the new development in this field. In recent years, more and more regional and bilateral investment treaties have included rules and standards of environmental protection, which is a positive trend. In China’s view, to deal with this issue, we should take into account the balance between the environmental protection of member States and the protection of investors’ investment and management rights.
With regard to intellectual property rights, China believes that this issue is highly professional and complex, and discussions have been held under the mechanisms such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and TRIPs, and relevant discussions should continue to be promoted under the existing framework.
About human rights instruments. China has noted some international and regional developments mentioned in the report and welcomes relevant discussions under the existing platforms and mechanisms.
V. About Chapter V Governance Frame
(A) on strengthening coordination among different institutions
China agrees with the report on strengthening the coordination among different existing institutions and treaties and improving the international environmental governance system. At present, such as the "Synergy Process" initiated by the conferences of the parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions in the chemical field in 2008, the "Environmental Treaty Project-Achieving Synergy of Biodiversity" initiated by UNEP UNEP2017, and the synergy between the environment and the sustainable development mechanism in the United Nations system can be further strengthened. In addition, fragmentation is not a unique phenomenon in the field of international environmental law. We can learn from The Hague Conference on Private International Law and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to explore mechanisms to strengthen UNEP’s functions of research, compilation, progressive development, dissemination and coordination of international environmental law.
(II) On the participation of non-state actors
China supports encouraging non-state stakeholders to participate in environmental governance in accordance with domestic laws and exercise their right to know, participate and remedy in accordance with the law, and welcomes them to play a greater role in international environmental governance. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the main body of environmental treaties is the state, and non-state actors are not the main body of treaties. Their role in international environmental legislation, performance supervision and compliance procedures must be consistent with this status, and the dominant position of sovereign countries in international environmental law cannot be diluted or even destroyed.
Compliance mechanism is a mechanism to promote compliance, not a punitive mechanism, and the relevant system design cannot affect this nature of compliance mechanism. Although some conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, facilitate the participation of non-state actors in the compliance procedure to a certain extent on special issues such as benefit sharing and traditional knowledge, in general, we should still adhere to the nature and promotional characteristics of the intergovernmental process of environmental treaty compliance mechanism.
VI. On the Implementation and Effectiveness of Chapter VI
(A) on the means of implementation (means of implementation)
China believes that in the face of the increasingly diversified, specialized and complicated international environmental treaty system, the lack of capacity and means for developing countries to implement multilateral environmental agreements needs more attention from the international community. Developed countries should further strengthen their support for developing countries in terms of funds, capabilities and technology to ensure their full and in-depth participation in global environmental governance.
(2) On the dispute settlement mechanism
So far, the International Court of Justice has tried 10 cases involving the environment, and in 1993, it established a chamber for environmental cases. In 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration adopted the "Optional Rules for Arbitration of Environmental and Natural Resources Disputes", and so far six environmental-related cases have been tried. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has accepted 25 cases of maritime disputes, most of which involve marine environmental issues. The construction of domestic environmental justice mechanisms in various countries is also constantly improving. The existing international and domestic judicial mechanisms and procedures provide mechanisms for effectively handling environmental law cases between countries, between countries and investors, and between private law subjects. We should adhere to the principle of state consent and make full use of and strengthen the existing international and domestic judicial and arbitration mechanisms.
(3) Compensation for transboundary damage
1. In the last sentence of paragraph 95 of the report, it is proposed that the state should first take measures to eliminate transboundary damage, and then provide compensation for the damage. The Chinese side believes that this conclusion confuses two different levels of issues, namely, state responsibility and loss allocation of transboundary damage. The Chinese side understands that:
(1) There are relatively many national practices and legal convictions to prevent transboundary damage, but there are not enough national practices and legal convictions to compensate for damage caused by state responsibility, which is far from forming customary international law. In international practice, countries participate in the allocation of transboundary losses, but these countries always emphasize that this is an ex gratia, not a legal liability. So there is no legal certainty about state liability.
(2) With regard to transboundary harm, the State undertakes the obligation of due diligence, that is, to ensure that activities under its jurisdiction or control do not harm the environment of other countries or areas beyond the jurisdiction of the State. This is an obligation of conduct, not an obligation of result. As long as a country takes appropriate measures, it will fulfill its duty of due diligence and will not incur state responsibility.
(3) The main responsibility subject of loss allocation of transboundary damage is the operator. At present, except for some fields such as nuclear and space, the practice in other fields mainly involves civil liability, which is compensated by civil subjects. The gradual development of relevant international law should continue to adhere to this general direction.
2. This process should try to avoid the issue of compensation for transboundary damage and leave it to specific areas. The reason for this is the following：
First, due to the different nature of environmental problems, it is difficult for the international community to formulate rules for compensation for transboundary damage that are uniformly applicable to environmental problems in various fields;
Second, the draft articles on prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities in 2001 and the draft principles on allocation of loss in cases of transboundary harm caused by hazardous activities in 2006 (Draf T principles on the allocation of loss in the case of trans-boundary harm arising out of hazardous activities) embodies the latest and greatest progress on this issue. Since then, there has been no major breakthrough in state practice. No new progress will be made by repeatedly discussing the issue of transboundary harm in a general sense without reference to specific fields;
Third, transboundary harm is mainly a bilateral or regional problem, which should be solved mainly at the bilateral and regional levels. The United Nations process need not spend too much time on this.
3. In view of the above, this process can further encourage countries to formulate domestic laws on liability for damage and compensation for victims, and encourage countries to develop rules of international law on liability and compensation for transboundary damage. However, this process itself is not suitable for substantive discussion on the issue of compensation for transboundary damage.
VII. Conclusion of Chapter VII
(1) We should comprehensively evaluate the current situation of international environmental governance, objectively look at the fragmentation of international environmental law, the unclear state of its principles and the governance of international environmental law on specific issues, and pragmatically explore ways to strengthen the research, compilation and mechanism coordination of international environmental law from various angles to promote the gradual development of international environmental law.
(2) The principle of cooperation, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, the principle of sustainable development, the principle of national sovereignty over environmental resources and the right to development, which are not mentioned in the report, form the basis for countries to cooperate in dealing with environmental problems; No matter how to strengthen international environmental governance, we should not deviate from these principles. Problems such as risk prevention, polluter pays and environmental rights should be carefully studied to further clarify their status, connotation and scope of application. This process is not suitable for substantive discussion on compensation for transboundary damage.
(3) The lack of capacity and means for developing countries to implement multilateral environmental agreements needs more attention from the international community. Developed countries should further strengthen their support for developing countries in terms of funds, capabilities and technology to ensure their full and in-depth participation in global environmental governance.
(4) We should continue to encourage international environmental law and international trade and investment law to strengthen mutual support. At the same time, strengthening environmental protection should avoid invisible unreasonable restrictions on free trade and give consideration to the protection of investors’ investment and management rights.
(5) Support and encourage non-state stakeholders to participate in environmental governance according to law, and exercise the right to know, participate and remedy according to law. However, we should adhere to the nature and promotional characteristics of the intergovernmental process of environmental treaty compliance mechanism.
(6) Strengthen the coordination among different existing institutions and treaties and improve the international environmental governance system. We will continue to promote the "synergy process" in the field of chemicals and the UNEP "environmental treaty project-achieving synergy of biodiversity" initiative. We can also learn from The Hague Conference on Private International Law and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and explore mechanisms to strengthen UNEP’s functions of research, compilation, progressive development, dissemination and coordination of international environmental law.
China International Law Frontier wishes you a Happy New Year!