China’s approach to tackling marine plastic pollution: an institutional analysis centered on the ecological and environmental code

The governance of marine plastic pollution has long been hindered by two significant challenges: the fragmentation of international norms and the disconnect between domestic legislation. The first challenge arises from the lack of alignment among international agreements—such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the London Convention, and the Basel Convention—regarding their scope and regulatory subjects. The second challenge is reflected in the dispersed nature of relevant regulations across various statutes and the inadequacy of the land-sea separation approach, which fails to effectively address the predominantly land-based origins of plastic pollution. The enactment of the 2026 Ecological and Environmental Code presents a new normative foundation aimed at alleviating these contradictions. This paper focuses on the Ecological and Environmental Code and employs three methodological approaches—normative analysis, comparative law, and legal hermeneutics—to explore its institutional framework. The analysis centers on two fundamental principles: integrated land-sea management and whole-life-cycle governance. It examines the Code’s provisions across three critical stages: source reduction, process control, and end-of-pipe disposal. The paper compares this Code with relevant extraterritorial legislative examples from the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. The study reveals that the Code effectively connects its General Provisions, the Pollution Prevention and Control Chapter, the Green and Low-Carbon Development Chapter, and the Legal Liability Chapter through internal coordination. This integrated land-sea management approach spans the regulatory chain from production to ocean discharge. The Code’s “multi-chapter synergy” structure offers distinct systemic advantages for comprehensive governance of marine plastic pollution across its life cycle, partially overcoming limitations in existing environmental law, which often neglects whole-life-cycle governance. Nonetheless, in comparison to standalone extraterritorial legislation, the Code shows institutional gaps in areas such as source-based total quantity control, specific operational rules for the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regime, dynamic management of new pollutant lists, and alignment with international conventions. This paper suggests recommendations for improvement in three key areas: governance philosophy, institutional specifics, and performance mechanisms. These recommendations aim to serve as a theoretical reference for future revisions of the Code and for negotiations related to the Global Plastics Treaty, while also facilitating the effective alignment of domestic regulations with upcoming international frameworks.