Structural Dilemmas in Ocean Plastic Governance: The Transition from Soft Law to Hard Law and the Reshaping of the International Order

Marine plastic pollution has evolved beyond a mere environmental issue into a concentrated manifestation of structural contradictions within the global governance system. Data shows that the surge in plastic production annually has placed the ocean under unprecedented pressure. According to projections, if the current production and waste management models continue, the annual input of plastic into the ocean could reach as high as 23 to 37 million tons by 2040, which is not only a direct threat to ecosystems but also a fundamental challenge to global sustainable development models.

The ineffectiveness of existing international legal tools precisely exposes the structural flaws in global governance. Although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a broad obligation for the prevention and reduction of marine pollution (Article 194), its wording is too grand and vague, failing to provide specific regulations addressing core characteristics such as the "persistence" of plastics, the "fragmentation of microplastics," and "transboundary transport." This limitation of the legal framework has led the international community to fall into a deep "governance paradox" when facing plastic pollution: the existing international legal system is filled with a prevalence of "soft law priority" and "hard law deficit."

The consequence of this structural disharmony is catastrophic. On one hand, the lack of specific, enforceable regulations means that the implementation of policies for source reduction is insufficient; on the other hand, the illegal transfer and trade of cross-border plastic waste exploit the gray areas of the legal framework, leading to disorderly "passing the buck" across different jurisdictions and severely weakening the coherence of global governance.

To break this deadlock, what is needed is no longer piecemeal, patch-like regulation targeting single pollution sources, but a systematic "reconstruction" of the international legal system. This means adopting a model that combines macro "umbrella conventions" with vertical "special protocols." This requires building a multi-level governance structure.

The vertical reconstruction demands deeply linking the protocols of the Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) with mature global environmental governance tools, such as the carbon market mechanism of the Paris Agreement, and transforming pre-set global production caps into legally binding "no-regression clauses." This requires the international community to find a precise balance between economic incentives and environmental limits.

Horizontal governance, meanwhile, requires overcoming trade barriers by strengthening cross-border technology transfer and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanisms. Drawing inspiration from the revised approach of the Basel Convention, promoting the establishment of a mechanism that allows for the mutual recognition of regional standards to effectively track and penalize illegal cross-border plastic transfers. More innovatively, by learning from China's pilot experience in the "Blue Belt," we can explore the possibility of granting jurisdiction to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), involving multi-stakeholder interests, to enhance enforcement rigor.

Furthermore, in specific areas of marine spatial governance, such as under the framework of the BBNJ agreement which extends beyond national jurisdiction, the rules for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) must be clarified, setting explicit boundaries with enforceable thresholds and "do no harm" principles.Furthermore, in the governance of specific marine spaces, such as the framework of the BBNJ agreement which extends beyond national jurisdiction, the rules for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) must be clarified, setting clear boundaries with enforceable thresholds and a "do no harm" principle. This is not just a technical adjustment, but a recalibration of the international maritime order. Only when the international legal framework can transform "soft law first" into actionable, enforceable "hard law" can the governance of marine plastic pollution move from a fragmented, reactive stage to a structured, forward-looking new order construction.