IMO’s Marine Environmental Regulatory Governance and China’s Role: An Empirical Study of China’s Submissions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editors and authors

The submitted article approached a relevant issue and is suitable for Sustainability. In general terms, the research was well conducted. However, there are some issues that need to be improved in this submission as follows:

ABSTRACT:

1. Authors should justify the choice of the analyzed period.
2. In addition, the starting year must be revised. There are different periods analyzed in the histogram presented in Figure 3. The first period is longer than the others.
3. Findings are presented very generally in the abstract.
4. The case study is interesting and generally well conducted. However, authors should limit the objectives and conclusions to the Chinese case. China (as well as many emerging countries) has very particular characteristics. Thus, the findings obtained for China may not be similar to those for other countries.

INTRODUCTION:

1. The first sentence of the introduction is somewhat disconnected from the text. I suggest avoiding single-sentence paragraphs.
2. The phrase “The global trend of spilling more than 7 tones is decreasing” is confusing. I suggest considering in this analysis the number of vessels and the period of time considered.
3. In the last paragraph of the introduction, the phrase “Section 2 is a literary review about research achievement related to essential issues” is too generic. The authors could better explain what was covered in the literature review and for what purpose.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

1. In the first paragraph: I suggest that the authors present exactly which databases were consulted; what was the search period; if the search terms were consulted only in the titles and abstracts or in the bodies of the articles; how many articles were identified in each database and in each year, showing year-to-year evolution; which were the main authors, countries and institutions where the studies were carried out (authors' affiliation); what were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles; how many articles were excluded for being present in more than one database or for applying the exclusion and inclusion criteria; how many articles made up the final list of analyzed studies; and what is the evolution of these articles from year to year. These elements are very important to strengthen the literature review.
2. In this same paragraph: From the final list of articles, how many were grouped in each of the categories presented? How was the evolution of the number of articles in each category during the period studied?

 

METHODOLOGY

1. There is a mistake in the first sentence of the first paragraph: the methodology of a study contemplates the data collection process, but the authors treated it as a separate item.
2. In the last sentence of the same paragraph: I suggest that the authors explain in more detail how the referred qualitative analysis was carried out.
3. The third paragraph of section 3.1 seems more theoretical background than methodological procedures. Authors should consider to replace it.
4. In section 3.2 the authors are mixing method with results. I suggest that the analyzes presented from page 7 to page 13 be placed in a new section entitled "Results" and that the numbering of the subsequent sections be adjusted. This restructuring is fundamental for the quality of the article.
5. Figure 1 and Figure 2 present the same data. Authors could choose one of the two charts.
6. In Figure 3, the first period presents a number of years (7) higher than the others (5). Authors should present equal intervals in the histogram and in all subsequent analyses. I suggest adjusting the period under review for 2001 to 2020.

DISCUSSION

1. The article lacks a definition of what the authors consider internal and external factors. This definition is essential for the study's consistency. These factors appear in the discussion without having been addressed before. The definition of these internal and external factors and the justification for their inclusion in the discussion must be included both in the method and in the theoretical background.
2. The closing argument of section 4.1 seems fragile. I suggest the authors review and improve it.
3. In section 4.2.1, the 10th China's Five-Year Plan is mentioned. There is possibly a mistake, since 2000 to 2005 add up to 6 years... I suggest considering 2001-2005 and adjusting the analyzes throughout the article.
4. In section 4.2.2 (third paragraph), as the study was limited to the case of China, I suggest avoiding generalizations to other emerging countries, as no empirical were presented. This aspect should be reviewed throughout the article.

I enjoyed reviewing this paper and I wish the author(s) the best success in their effort(s) to improve it.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General assessment

There is a good argument for carrying out an empirical study of China’s role in the development of environmental standards within the International Maritime Organisation, given its status as an emerging economic superpower with significant maritime interests.  With some further work, this piece could therefore make an interesting contribution to the literature. However, as it stands, the piece does require substantial modification in order to present a sufficiently robust analysis.  In particular, the piece needs to be better framed in order to introduce the key concepts and the nature of regulatory governance within the IMO.  Furthermore, the empirical analysis requires further development in order to support the conclusions that are drawn. 

 

Rationale for the study 

Whilst there is a good justification for studying the role of China in IMO governance, the authors could have developed the arguments underpinning the rationale for the paper. The paper asserts (on page 2) that ‘due to its broad representation, studying the roles of these states in IMO’s marine environment protection regulatory governance is critical.’  Critical to what? I would like to see further justification for the approach taken in the paper and the objectives that it seeks to attain.  At one stage, the paper implies that it is a case study of the role of developing countries in the IMO in general, but it is not clear that China is a typical developing country and therefore it is questionable whether it is a good example of this category of countries.  Can China really be compared to developing countries such as Vanuatu or Bangladesh?  Is China’s role in the IMO really a proxy for developing countries as a group?  Alternatively, it could be argued that it is China’s uniqueness as an emerging economic superpower that justifies the focus on this country. As such, the paper could make some reference to the broader literature on the important and growing role of China in international relations (some of which is mentioned towards the end of the analysis).  Furthermore, I would have liked to see a bit more detailed consideration of China’s status in relation to shipping governance.  We are told China is a major flag state, but further detail would have been helpful, i.e. how does it rank in terms of the percentage of global shipping under its flag/control?  Similarly, its interests in maritime trade more generally could have been usefully discussed, particularly in light of developments such as the Maritime Silk Road Initiative.  Whilst not directly relevant to shipping regulation per se, this Initiative demonstrates China’s interest in shipping more generally.  Furthermore, one specific factor that I would have liked to be addressed is the relationship between China and Hong Kong/Macau, given that the latter two entities are Associate Members of the IMO.  This complex relationship at least needs some explanation at the outset in order to make clear whether the analysis is solely on mainland China.

 

Framing of the analysis

The literature review which seeks to frame the empirical analysis requires some further work in order to provide a stronger foundation for understanding the regulatory role of the IMO.  For a start, a rather arbitrary selection of sources is used. For example, why focus on Cambridge University Press, but not other major law publishers, such as OUP, Brill, Edward Elgar and Hart.  On pages 3-4, the paper mentions the role of UNCLOS in global ocean governance, but it does not really explain what this instrument does and in particular what role it foresees for international organisations like the IMO (see e.g. Article 211(1)).  Indeed, the nature of the IMO as ‘a law-making forum’ (page 4) needs further discussion with reference to the relevant literature.  In what way can it be strictly said that the IMO 'makes law'?  It is also important that the paper better explains the structures of the IMO.  Given recent modifications to IMO Structures, not all of the committees mentioned on page 6 still exist. A better explanation of the relationship of these committees would have been helpful.  In addition, the paper suggests on page 2 that the MEPC must also refer issues to the Assembly and the Council before recommendations can be made to the Members. This is not necessarily the case.  The MEPC has a broad competence to adopt non-binding guidance on many issues and it may even adopt amendments to relevant treaties, which do not require further intervention from the Assembly and the Council.  The paper also needs to be careful with the terminology that is used in relation to the legal tools employed by the IMO.  For example, the paper refers to states putting forward ‘new statutes’ (page 2) but this is not a term that is generally used in the context of the IMO, which largely operates through treaties, codes of practice, or guidelines.  Later on (page 5) there is a reference to ‘IMOs’ legislation’, but again this is a term that should be avoided, as it gives the wrong impression of the IMO’s function. The processes therefore need to be better explained.

Overall, the literature review neglects several obvious and important sources relating to marine environmental governance, for example leading textbooks (e.g. Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea or Rothwell and Stephens, The International Law of the Sea), leading scholarly collections (such as the Oxford Handbook on the Law of the Sea which has a chapter dedicated to the International Maritime Organisation) or other works which address the role of the IMO in the development of the law of the sea.  A leading classic in this field is the study by M’Gonigle and Zacher called Pollution, Politics and International Law and a more recent contribution to the literature is the monograph by Tan on Vessel Source Marine Pollution.  The 2001 Article in the International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law by Louise de la Fayette on the Marine Environment Protection Committee is also still worth reading.  More generally, Harrison has a chapter on the International Maritime Organisation in his 2011 monograph on Making the Law of the Sea.  Furthermore, discussion of the decision-making procedures employed by the IMO would be useful in order to underpin the consensus nature of decision-making in most cases.

 

Analysis

The paper currently presents a very basic analysis of the submissions of China and how they have risen over time.  However, the conclusion (on page 9) that ‘the degree of China’s participation in IMO’s marine environmental regulatory governance has profoundly deepened’ does not tell us very much at all.  One of the key shortcomings of the analysis is that the reader has no real sense of how significant the numbers presented are.  In other words, even though China’s participation (at least as measured in submissions) would appear to have increased, is its level of participation significant or not?  For example, how does the peak number (29) compare to other countries (developed or developing)?  It could still demonstrate a small contribution or it may demonstrate a significant one. We simply don't know from the material presented. Have submissions risen for all states over this period so that the developments recorded in the paper are part of a broader trend?  In order to address this weakness, the paper needs to contextualise these findings in some way.  This could be through the presentation of China’s submissions as a percentage of overall submissions to see whether China’s submissions have grown as a proportion of overall submissions and whether it is a major or minor contributor.  It could also/alternatively compare China’s participation to other selected states, either other major developing countries (e.g. Panama or Liberia as major flag states) or other major economic powers (e.g. United States).  There is no single way in which this must be done - the key point is that some contextualisation would really help the reader to understand the significance of the developments that are described.

In addition, to this more general point above, there are further ways in which the analysis could be strengthened:

Page 7: It is not clear why both graphs are needed as they present identical data.

Page 9: I would like to see a bit more discussion of the concept of ‘proposal’ – I suspect that there are very different types of submissions that are subsumed by this category. For example, a proposal may simply be to further study an issue or it may be a proposal for an amendment to an existing legal instrument or for a new instrument completely. Some of these proposals have a greater influence on regulatory governance than others, which could be picked up, at least as an observation, in the analysis of the data.

Page 9: I would prefer to see the data presented in figure 5 as percentages because it is more revealing as to the success of China’s submissions. Acceptances may have gone up over the relevant period, but have they gone up as quickly as the overall rate of submissions?

Later in the analysis, the paper starts discussing the ‘influence’ of China through its submissions.  This part of the analysis requires further work, in particular a discussion of what is meant by the concept of influence and how we measure it.  Influence may be achieved in different ways and it is questionable whether the submission of proposals alone can be a measure of influence.  What factors may influence the acceptance of a proposal, for example?  Other key indicators in the context of the IMO may include participation in working groups or intersessional groups. The precise size and composition of the Chinese delegation may also be a relevant factor.  More consideration of the role of joint submissions and building alliances outside of the IMO is also an interesting factor that is mentioned, but could have been subject to further discussion.

A final factor that is worth considering in the analysis is the degree to which China’s submissions can be seen as supporting the sustainability of global shipping. In other words, it would be interesting to see a bit more explicit consideration of the nature of China’s contributions to the IMO in relation to marine environmental governance.  The mere fact that China is making submissions to the MEPC does not necessarily mean that it is promoting sustainability, as its proposals could serve to weaken or undermine environmental standards.  The analysis would appear to suggest that China is supportive of promoting environmental protection, but a clearer narrative and the presentation of better evidence to support this line of argument could help to strengthen the conclusions in this respect.

 

More minor corrections

In addition, the authors should address the following more minor comments:

Page 1: The United Nations, not the United States, issued the Second World Oceans Assessment.

Page 1: The paper refers to the global trend in spilling more than 7 tonnes is decreasing – what does this 7 tons refer to? Oil? Any substance?

Page 2: There is a quote in the second paragraph which requires a reference.

Page 2: What does it mean to say that China is a classified A member of the Council?  How are Council members chosen?  Has China always been a member of the Council?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

Substantial improvements have been made to the article, however there are some points that still need to be adjusted. Here are my considerations:

Page 1 (introduction), first paragraph: The sentence "Between 2010 and 2020, the global trend of shipping accidents causing oil spills of more than 7 tons is decreasing" is not necessary anymore, since the following sentence better explains the context found with regard to the oil spill caused by maritime accidents.

Page 3, last paragraph: authors state that “the article selects China as the main research objective”, but China was the case study, not the object of the study. Please review this point.

Page 4, first paragraph: authors could describe the content in a more sequential and linear way. In its current form, the authors first mention section 4 and then describe 2 and 3, making it difficult to read.

Page 4, first paragraph of literature review: The statement “This study focuses on the states’ influence on regulation formulation, promotion, and enforcement of marine environmental governance” is too generic and contradicts the study’s objective previously presented.

Page 7-9, Section 3: The mixture between method and theoretical background does not seem adequate to me. It seems more appropriate to place the theoretical background (section 3.3) somewhere in section 2. Furthermore, the materials and methods are still presented superficially, with some procedures being detailed only in section 4 (results) and not in the method, which is the proper section for this. I suggest that the authors consider repositioning from section 4 to section 3 the excerpts that explain the methodological procedures adopted in the study.

Page 21: Conclusions can be strengthened.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The framing of the article is greatly improved as a result of the revisions that have been made.  The article works much better with its clear focus on China, without any allusion to developing countries more broadly.  The analysis in parts 3 and 4 have also been strengthened. However, I would still suggest some further work on the literature review.  It is not a matter of necessarily adding more material at this stage, but rather adapting the style of the review.  I am not convinced that it is necessary to explain how the literature was sourced (i.e. through the use of particular search terms in databases) but rather it is a matter of simply explaining how the existing literature conceptualises the role of the IMO in regulatory governance in a clear and concise manner.  It currently reads as: X says this; Y says that.  A more flowing narrative would make it easier for the reader to follow and understand the relationship between the different points.  Care also needs to be taken to ensure that the correct names are used; the reference to Donald R. (on page 5) should be a reference to Rothwell D.  Similarly, the institutions of the authors may not be relevant, particularly as their institutions may have changed over time.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf