PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 2, 2025Frontiers in Marine Science11 citationsOpen Access

Dilemma in global governance of marine plastic pollution and regulatory coordination: convention reconstruction via integrated international law

View Full Paper
BLBiao LuoXCXia CaoKSKangwen Sun

Key Points

  • An integrated framework is proposed to bridge the gap in regulations for marine plastic pollution, enhancing global governance efforts.
  • The study identifies specific gaps between soft law priorities and the absence of hard law, particularly in microplastic control.
  • Key provisions suggested include enforcing the precautionary principle as a no-regression clause to set global plastic production caps.
  • A multi-stakeholder governance model, authorized to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, is advocated to address fragmentation in governance.

Abstract

Global governance of marine plastic pollution is facing fragmented regulations and conflicting enforcement. Drawing on Art. 207 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), this study, by examining overlapping jurisdiction across 17 international instruments, including the London Dumping Convention, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Convention), and the limited effectiveness of regional regimes such as the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention),identifies a gap between “soft law priorities” and “hard law absence”, particularly regarding microplastic control. To address this, the paper proposes an integrated framework—an umbrella convention plus specialized protocols: vertically, aligning the Global Plastic Treaty (GPT) with the Paris Agreement’s carbon market mechanisms; horizontally, enhancing cross-border technology transfer and extended producer responsibility (EPR) through the Basel Convention amendments and mutual recognition of regional standards. Key GPT provisions include: 1) transforming the precautionary principle into a no-regression clause, setting global plastic production caps with regular reviews; and 2) clarifying the Marine Protected Area (MPA)-specific rules under the Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) with enforceable thresholds and a “do no harm” clause. The study further advocates mandatory jurisdiction authorized to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under a multi-stakeholder governance model, following China’s “Blue Circle” pilots. All these options will hopefully help overcome land–sea governance fragmentation and lead to coherent global regulation of marine plastic pollution.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Luo et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68de68ea83cbc991d0a2129chttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2025.1687898
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1International legal regulation of marine plastic pollution: basic theories, specific issues, and China’s responses2026
  2. 2Marine plastic pollution governance: the role and challenges of international law2026 · 3 citations
  3. 3Governing microplastics in the North-East Atlantic: The importance of regional frameworks in the absence of a global treaty2026 · 1 citations
  4. 4Negotiating Plastics Futures: The Law of the Sea and the Role of Non-State Stakeholders2025
  5. 5Divergences and challenges in the negotiation of the global plastics treaty: China’s pathway in advancing global ocean plastic pollution governance2025