Sustainable ecological governance of the Yellow Sea: pathways for legal coordination and international cooperation

Abstract

Introduction:

The Yellow Sea, situated in the Northeast Asian region of the Northwest Pacific, plays a critical ecological and economic role. Ensuring the protection and restoration of its marine ecosystem is essential for sustaining marine-based economic activities. Currently, effective conservation in the Yellow Sea necessitates coordinated efforts among China, South Korea, and North Korea. This study aims to improve the governance of the Yellow Sea region and promote its long-term sustainable development.

Methods:

By employing normative analysis and comparative research methods, the study conducts a multi-level assessment of the current governance framework for the Yellow Sea.

Results:

The analysis identifies significant gaps in the current regional governance mechanism. Key findings underscore the urgency of clarifying maritime boundaries, improving North Korea’ s engagement in cooperative governance, and strengthening domestic legal frameworks across all three coastal states.

Discussion:

This study proposes a two-step pathway to advance regional governance in the Yellow Sea, guided by the principles of good ocean governance. Key recommendations include resolving China-South Korea maritime boundary delimitation, promoting sustainable fisheries management through redefined operational zones clarified legal status of transitional waters and dispute resolution clauses and gradually engaging North Korea by prioritizing low-sensitivity areas. Domestically, enhancing legislative systems is emphasized to build a systematic framework for sustainable governance. It must be noted, however, that the feasibility and effectiveness of this proposal critically depend on geopolitical stability and progress in maritime delimitation among China, South Korea, and North Korea, as well as the extent of North Korea’ s participation in regional cooperation.

1 Introduction

The Yellow Sea is located in the northeastern part of Asia and the northwestern Pacific Ocean, bordered by China, North Korea, and South Korea. It holds significant importance for all three countries in terms of the maritime economy, the marine ecological environment, and maritime rights and interests (Liu, 2013). From an ecological perspective, the rapid pace of economic development has caused severe degradation of the marine environment in the Yellow Sea, leading to a notable loss of biodiversity. The protection and restoration of the Yellow Sea's marine ecosystem are, therefore, of critical importance to the livelihoods of coastal populations and the sustainable development of the maritime economy.

The concept of "sustainable development," which reconciles humanity's considerations of development and survival, has gained worldwide recognition. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Achieving sustainable development necessitates upholding the unity of development, environmental protection, and ecological balance. Therefore, to realize sustainable development in the Yellow Sea region, efforts must proceed from balancing regional economic development with regional marine environmental protection. This involves assessing the economic benefits, social welfare impacts, and ecological costs of marine development activities to seek the optimal solution for development (Stark, 2026).

The theory of sustainable development provides the ultimate vision for Yellow Sea governance: achieving long-term harmony and unity among economic prosperity, social equity, and ecological health. As a concretization and practical pathway of the sustainable development concept in the marine economy, the blue economy aims to promote marine economic growth and create employment while maintaining, restoring, and enhancing the health and productivity of marine ecosystems through technological innovation, institutional innovation, and business model innovation (Stark, 2026). By promoting green industries such as fisheries, marine renewable energy, and ecotourism to become new engines of economic growth, the blue economy concept will serve as a powerful driving force for transforming the Yellow Sea region from an "extractive" marine economy to a "symbiotic" one. This translates the macro goal of sustainable development into concrete projects, investments, and market incentives. To realize the potential of the blue conservation economy, meaningful collaboration among local communities, researchers, investors, non-profit organizations, and governments is required to reflect the needs of all stakeholders and rights-holders. Simultaneously, thoughtful policy design is needed to value the well-being benefits derived from conservation (Stark, 2026). This demand for elements such as the rule of law, participation of diverse actors, and policy coherence highlights the relevance of good ocean governance theory. In other words, the blue economy needs to be rooted in fertile "governance soil." Generally, regional environmental governance is a process of interaction among various formal and informal coordination mechanisms within a region, where public and private actors jointly act. Such regional mechanisms can effectively guide and constrain human behavior to achieve co-management of natural resources, aiming to reduce regional environmental damage (Yasumasa, 2010). Ocean governance theory, with its core elements of "the rule of law, public participation, transparency, consensus-based decision-making, accountability, equity and inclusiveness, responsiveness, and coherence," provides a specific "yardstick" for evaluating and improving the current Yellow Sea regional governance mechanisms (Chang, 2013).

Based on this, this study aims to improve Yellow Sea governance and promote the long-term sustainable development of the Yellow Sea region. It takes the behavioral activities of diverse actors, including countries and international organizations, as its research object. In the second, third, and fourth parts, it examines the current Yellow Sea regional governance framework from international, regional, and national perspectives. In the fifth part, combining the core elements of good ocean governance theory, it analyzes the shortcomings of current Yellow Sea governance. Simultaneously, guided by the goal of "developing the blue economy and unleashing its potential," it proposes pathways for improving Yellow Sea governance.

2 Existing international agreements and practices

2.1 Global instruments

2.1.1 The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Among the three coastal countries bordering the Yellow Sea, China and South Korea have both signed and ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter "UNCLOS"). Accordingly, the provisions of UNCLOS may be directly invoked in the context of marine environmental protection between China and the South Korea (United nations convention on the law of the sea, 1982).

Part XII of UNCLOS is dedicated to the protection and preservation of the marine environment. Many of its provisions codify customary international law and apply to "States" in general, not only to States Parties to UNCLOS (Nordquist et al., 1985). It is for this reason that, although North Korea is not a party to the UNCLOS, it is still obligated to abide by customary international law, including the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment under Article 192 (United Nations Secretary-General, 1989) and the obligation not to cause damage to the environment of other countries under Article 194(2) (Lei, 2024). Part XII of UNCLOS addresses a broad range of obligations, including general duties, global and regional cooperation, technical assistance, monitoring and environmental assessment, international rules and national legislation to prevent, reduce and control pollution, enforcement, safeguards, liability, sovereign immunities, and obligations under other applicable conventions (Rosenne et al., 1991).

2.1.2 The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity

China, South Korea and North Korea are all parties to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which therefore applies to the Yellow Sea region. Since the Yellow Sea lies entirely within the national jurisdiction of its coastal countries, both its marine biodiversity and the processes and activities under the jurisdiction or control of the coastal countries fall within the scope of the Convention (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992).

The CBD sets out a comprehensive framework aimed at the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources (Tarlock, 2002). Under the Convention, China, South Korea and North Korea are required to develop or adapt national strategies, plans, or programs for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Furthermore, they are encouraged to integrate such measures into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral policies and planning. Two countries are also obligated to identify and monitor key components of biodiversity that are significant for its conservation and sustainable use, as well as activities likely to have adverse impacts on biodiversity. In addition, a range of measures may be adopted by the three countries, including: in-situ conservation, ex-situ conservation, incentive measures, research and training, public education and awareness programs, environmental impact assessments, technology transfer, information exchange, technical and scientific cooperation, and financial support mechanisms, all aimed at achieving the objectives of the Convention.

2.1.3 Conventions adopted by the International Maritime Organization

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted a number of conventions aimed at regulating pollution caused by ships. These include the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 (International Convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and cooperation, 1990; OPRC, 1995); the London Convention, 1972, together with its 1996 Protocol (1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1996); International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1978; MARPOL 73/78, 1978); the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 (International Convention on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships, 2001); and the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 and the(International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004). China and South Korea are parties to all of the aforementioned conventions (International Maritime Organization, 2019).

2.1.3.1 The 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation

Between China and South Korea, pollution caused by oil is governed by the 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation. Under this convention, the two countries are obliged, individually or jointly, to take appropriate measures to prepare for and respond to oil pollution incidents (Tarlock, 2002). Specifically, both countries are required to ensure that ships flying their flags, offshore installations under their jurisdiction, and ports and oil-handling facilities within their territory are equipped with oil pollution emergency plans. In the event of an oil pollution incident, or the threat thereof, shipmasters and operators of relevant facilities have to report the incident in accordance with the procedures laid down in the convention. Once a report is received, the relevant country has to assess the incident and notify all potentially affected countries. Each party is further obliged to establish systems and maintain equipment for oil spill response to ensure a rapid and effective reaction.

In the Yellow Sea region, China and South Korea are additionally required to cooperate through bilateral agreements, and to provide advisory services, technical assistance, and equipment for the joint response to oil pollution incidents.

2.1.3.2 The 1972 London Convention and Its 1996 Protocol

Both China and South Korea are parties to the 1972 London Convention and its 1996 Protocol. Pursuant to Article 23 of the 1996 Protocol, it is this Protocol that governs their mutual obligations. The Protocol calls on parties to adopt a precautionary approach and to take individual or collective action to prevent pollution from dumping and incineration at sea. With the exception of substances listed in Annex 1, dumping is generally prohibited, and even those substances may only be dumped under permit. Article 12 of the Protocol specifically addresses regional cooperation (Chang, 2010). Given their shared interest in protecting the marine environment of the Yellow Sea, China and South Korea are encouraged to strengthen regional collaboration—taking into account the specific characteristics of the Yellow Sea—including through the conclusion of regional agreements to prevent pollution from dumping and incineration. The two countries are also expected to cooperate in areas such as training, information exchange, and technology.

2.1.3.3 MARPOL 73/78

MARPOL 73/78 comprises six annexes, addressing pollution caused by oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage, garbage, and air emissions from ships. Annex I deals with oil pollution, covering both operational discharges and accidental discharges resulting from damage to the hull. Annex II concerns pollution from noxious liquid substances carried in bulk, classifying these substances into four categories and setting out restrictions on their discharge. It also lays down obligations relating to reception facilities, control measures, cargo record books, and certification. In the Yellow Sea, MARPOL Annexes I and II govern pollution caused by oil and by bulk noxious liquid substances respectively. North Korea, as a party to Annexes I to V, is also bound to prevent pollution from harmful substances in packaged form, sewage, and garbage. China and South Korea, in addition, are bound by Annex VI, which addresses air pollution from ships.

2.1.3.4 The 2001 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships

The 2001 Anti-Fouling Systems (AFS) Convention aims to prevent adverse effects on the marine environment and human health caused by anti-fouling systems on ships. It regulates the use and removal of such systems, the disposal of related waste, the assessment and monitoring of their impacts, information exchange, and inspections. Both China and South Korea are parties to this convention and are expected to enhance cooperation in order to effectively implement its provisions.

2.1.3.5 The 2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments

The objective of this convention is to prevent, reduce, and ultimately eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments (Torrance and Tomlinson, 2025). China and South Korea are required to ensure that ships flying their flags or operating under their jurisdiction comply with the convention's requirements. They have to also formulate national policies and strategies to manage ballast water in their ports and coastal waters. The convention further provides for sediment reception facilities, research and monitoring, and inspections. Under Articles 2(4) and 13, China and South Korea have to endeavor to cooperate—particularly in technical assistance—to effectively implement the Convention. Given their shared interest in protecting the marine environment of the Yellow Sea, Article 13 encourages the two coastal countries to strengthen regional cooperation, including the conclusion of regional agreements to address ballast water-related issues, with due regard to regional characteristics.

3 Regional international agreements and initiatives

3.1 Bilateral agreements

3.1.1 –1993 agreement on environmental cooperation between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the South Korea

In 1993, China and South Korea signed an agreement on environmental cooperation to enhance collaboration in areas such as information exchange, technical support, and experience sharing (Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the South Korea, 1993). Cooperation areas include the prevention and control of pollution in coastal and marine environments, and the protection of biodiversity. The agreement established a Joint Committee on Environmental Cooperation, which has convened annually since 1994, holding 24 sessions to date (China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, 2022). The protection of the Yellow Sea's marine ecological environment has often featured on the committee's agenda—for instance, the second to fourth meetings focused primarily on this issue (Jin, 2011). The Joint Committee initiated projects such as the joint marine environmental survey of the Yellow Sea, demonstrating a strong commitment to bilateral cooperation. In 1995, the committee's second meeting in Beijing adopted a proposal to launch a joint research initiative on the Yellow Sea marine environment, laying the foundation for continued Sino-Korean cooperation on this issue (Pei, 2015).

3.1.2 Agreement on fisheries between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the South Korea

In 2000, China and South Korea concluded a fisheries agreement which obliges each party to ensure that its fishing vessels operating in the other's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) comply with that parties' conservation rules for marine biological resources (Agreement on Fisheries between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the South Korea, 2000). This arrangement plays a positive role in protecting fishery resources in the Yellow Sea (Zhang, 2005). The Agreement divides the waters between China and South Korea into four zones: 1. Respective EEZs – In these areas, each country exercises sovereign rights and manages activities in accordance with its own laws, free from interference by the other. 2. Existing Fishing Activity Zones – Each country may only apply its fisheries laws to its own nationals in these areas. National laws do not apply to the other's nationals unless otherwise agreed. 3. Provisional Measures Zones – These are areas jointly managed and developed by both parties. 4. Transitional Zones – These coastal areas will automatically convert into respective EEZs of China and South Korea four years after the Agreement takes effect, to be managed in accordance with relevant rules (Figure 1). According to the agreement, China and South Korea jointly established the China-South Korea Fisheries Joint Committee to negotiate key management parameters such as the number of operating vessels and fishing quotas within the waters, creating favorable policy conditions for preventing overfishing of fishery resources in the Yellow Sea. Meanwhile, in terms of law enforcement, the maritime law enforcement departments of China and South Korea have conducted 12 joint cruises in the provisional measures zone (China Coast Guard, 2022). Through methods such as observing and recording fishing vessels and issuing radio reminders, both sides supervise maritime operations, maintain normal fishing production order, combat illegal fishing activities, and ensure the effective implementation of fishery conservation measures.

Figure 1

Source: Compiled by this study.

3.2 Northwest Pacific Action Plan

The Northwest Pacific Action Plan, officially titled Action Plan for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Northwest Pacific Region, was launched in 1994 by China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia. It forms part of the United Nations Environment Program’s (UNEP) Regional Seas Program and includes the Yellow Sea (NOWPAP, 1994a). The Plan aims to ensure the wise use, development, and management of the marine and coastal environment for the long-term benefit of the region's people, while protecting human health, ecological integrity, and regional sustainability (NOWPAP, 1994b). NOWPAP comprises six institutional bodies: an Intergovernmental Meeting and four Regional Activity Centers (RACs)—the Data and Information Network RAC, Marine Environmental Emergency Preparedness and Response RAC, Special Monitoring and Coastal Environmental Assessment RAC, and Pollution Monitoring RAC—as well as a Regional Coordinating Unit (NOWPAP, 1994c).

On one hand, by adopting a "soft law" approach, NOWPAP has lowered the barriers to cooperation and implementation among the four countries, avoiding potential deadlocks that could arise from disputes over legal bindingness. NOWPAP also emphasizes collaboration with research institutions and non-governmental organizations, promoting multi-stakeholder engagement in marine governance. Through the establishment of four RACs tasked with overseeing specific areas of marine environmental management, NOWPAP has systematically enhanced its operational capacity (Li and Li, 2021). Through mechanisms such as intergovernmental meetings and the RACs, it provides a stable platform for dialogue and collaboration among the four countries, fostering exchanges in pollution monitoring, prevention, and clean technology innovation.

On the other hand, NOWPAP also faces significant challenges. Due to the "curse of soft law," the agreements reached under NOWPAP lack legally binding force, allowing countries to retain considerable autonomy in fulfilling their obligations. As a result, the effectiveness of its implementation heavily depends on the willingness and commitment of individual countries. Furthermore, NOWPAP lacks the authority to monitor the actions of national governments and non-governmental organizations or to impose penalties for non-compliance with established norms. Additionally, as economic development and regional activities of countries continue to expand, the growing demand for marine pollution control has increasingly outpaced the organization’s actual funding capacity (Kim, 2019). Constraints such as limited financial resources, difficulties in securing funding, and inefficient allocation mechanisms have hindered the in-depth implementation of regional initiatives under NOWPAP (Li and Li, 2021).

3.3 Northeast Asian Conference on Environmental Cooperation

Initially proposed by South Korea, the Northeast Asian Conference on Environmental Cooperation expanded in scale with the support of UNEP (Ministry of the Environment of the People's Republic of China, 1992). Participants include environmental officials from the central and local governments of China, Japan, Mongolia, South Korea, and Russia, as well as experts from UNEP, UNDP, and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. The Conference fosters information exchange and policy dialogue on environmental protection and regional cooperation (Ministry of the Environment of the People's Republic of China, 1992). NEAC facilitates the sharing of environmental information among participants, enhances mutual understanding, and strengthens bilateral and multilateral collaboration—all contributing positively to the environmental improvement of the Yellow Sea region (Ministry of the Environment of the People's Republic of China, 1992).

The five countries of Northeast Asian environmental cooperation have engaged in extensive dialogue and cross-regional collaboration on issues such as controlling regional sandstorms, the China-Russia-Mongolia cross-border nature reserve, industrial acid rain, pollution in the Northwest Pacific, and the conservation and development of the Yellow Sea. These efforts have enhanced mutual understanding, facilitated experience sharing, and promoted cooperation. The Northeast Asian Conference on Environmental Cooperation has become an important dialogue channel among the environmental protection authorities of the five countries (Ministry of the Environment of the People's Republic of China, 1992). However, as a multilateral cooperation framework emphasizing dialogue and consultation, the Conference lacks a strong permanent executive body and effective cross-mechanism coordination capacity. Substantive progress in environmental cooperation remains slow, and its role has been relatively limited. It struggles to mobilize the human resources, knowledge, and technology of countries in a consolidated manner to jointly address environmental crises (Guo, 2011).

3.4 Tripartite environment ministers meeting among China, Japan, and the South Korea

Since 1999, the environment ministers of China, Japan, and South Korea have held annual meetings to address common environmental challenges. To date, 25 meetings have been convened (Ministry of Ecology and Environment of People's Republic of China, 2024). Past meetings have addressed marine-related issues such as cooperation on marine pollution control, marine litter management, and dumping at sea (Yu, 2015). TEMM plays an important role in promoting regional environmental cooperation and advancing sustainable development (Ministry of Environment of the People's Republic of China, 2023).

TEMM has fostered positive interactions among the environmental authorities of the three countries through cognitive governance, maintained close ties in environmental agreements via normative governance, and leveraged the authority of national policies to shape a governance order. Due to the high level of government involvement, the mechanism demonstrates efficiency in promoting policy coordination (Xue, 2020). Overall, however, it exhibits a strong political orientation while its governance functions remain relatively underdeveloped. TEMM overlaps in form with the Northeast Asian Conference on Environmental Cooperation, and like other environmental governance mechanisms in the region, it has failed to establish legally binding institutions among the three countries. Although specialized mechanisms have been created to address specific governance issues, these largely remain confined to dialogue and consultation (Li and Li, 2022).

3.5 Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Project

The Yellow Sea LME Project is a regional initiative supported by UNDP and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), with participation from China and South Korea (China Ocean Online, 2008). The first phase began in 2005 and lasted five years. The second phase started in 2017, with participation from the Chinese provinces of Liaoning, Shandong, and Jiangsu (Net Ease News, 2017). The project seeks to promote ecosystem-based and environmentally sustainable management and use of the Yellow Sea and its watershed by reducing the pressures caused by socio-economic development (IW: LEARN, 2014). To achieve this, the project has developed a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), a Regional Strategic Action Program (SAP), and National Action Plans (IW: LEARN, 2014). The SAP identifies 11 regional targets for ecosystem restoration and maintenance across four categories of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting (Ministry of the Environment of the People's Republic of China, 1992). Specific measures include reducing fishing effort by 25–30%, rebuilding overexploited marine resources, improving aquaculture techniques to ease environmental burdens, meeting international pollution standards, cutting nutrient loads relative to 2006 levels, reducing marine litter, improving ecosystem understanding and prediction, maintaining and enhancing population and genetic diversity—including endangered and endemic species—based on 2007 standards, protecting habitats, and mitigating the risks of invasive species (United Nations, 2014).

The YSLME Project transcends political boundaries to conduct assessments at the ecoregional level, serving biodiversity conservation and sustainable human development. It has promoted marine ecological protection cooperation between China and South Korea while raising public awareness of ecological conservation. The ecoregional approach helps prioritize uniquely distinctive or threatened areas, fostering wiser choices and generating more lasting positive impacts. However, it is important to note that the YSLME Project tends to focus on scientific initiatives, planning, and technical cooperation, lacking normative construction. It cannot single-handedly transform economic development models or combat biodiversity-damaging activities. To achieve lasting governance in the Yellow Sea, the YSLME Project must align and collaborate with governance mechanisms like the NOWPAP to maximize its effectiveness.

4 Existing domestic governance mechanisms

China, South Korea and North Korea have both established domestic laws and regulations applicable to the marine environment of the Yellow Sea. Legislation on marine environmental protection serves as the legal foundation and institutional guarantee for national marine environmental governance. Due to differences in legal traditions and developmental pathways, China, North Korea and South Korea have developed distinct legislative systems for marine environmental protection in the Yellow Sea.

4.1 Domestic governance mechanism of China

China's marine environmental legislation has evolved through three stages: initial development, rapid expansion, and revision-improvement, demonstrating a trajectory from fragmented to systematic and from single-faceted to comprehensive approaches (Zhang, 2020). Currently, China has established a foundational marine legal system anchored by the Constitution, with the Marine Environment Protection Law (newly revised in 2023) as its core (Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, 2023), supported by laws such as the Sea Area Use Management Law of the People's Republic of China (Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, 2001), the Island Protection Law of the People's Republic of China (Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, 2009), and the Port Law of the People's Republic of China (Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, 2018). Additionally, China has enacted supplementary administrative regulations and departmental rules, including the Regulations on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea (State Council, 2017) and the Measures for the Management of Marine Special Reserves (State Oceanic Administration of the People's Republic of China, 2010). Together, these laws and regulations form the institutional framework for marine environmental protection in China (Table 1).

Among these, the Marine Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic of China serves as the core legal framework for marine environmental protection in China. It establishes principles such as integrated land-sea coordination and ecological protection redlines, while strengthening oversight of sea-bound pollutant discharge outlets and comprehensive management of key marine areas (Sun, 2023). The 2023 revision incorporates the fundamental principles and core concepts of China's ecological civilization development. It adheres to a guideline prioritizing protection, prevention-first, source control, integrated land-sea coordination, comprehensive governance, public participation, and polluter accountability. The law reinforces the responsibilities of regulatory authorities, empowers local legislation, and applies these principles across key areas such as land-based pollution control, construction project pollution prevention, waste dumping regulation, and pollution mitigation in shipping and related activities.¹.

Nonetheless, legislation specifically targeting the Yellow Sea is limited to a few instruments, such as the State Council Order on Trawling Fishery Ban Areas in the Bohai Sea, Yellow Sea and East China Sea (State Council, 1995), and the Provisional Regulations on the Management of Spawning Shrimp Resources in the Yellow and Bohai Seas (Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China, 1997). The former delineates designated trawling ban areas within the Yellow Sea to conserve fishery resources, while the latter includes measures such as restricting fishing zones, establishing closed seasons and areas, and implementing a licensing regime to protect spawning shrimp resources. Both instruments were formulated in earlier years as targeted regulatory measures for specific issues, with relatively narrow scopes of application. Consequently, environmental protection governance in the Yellow Sea region primarily relies on broader national-level marine environmental protection legislation, supplemented by local regulations that implement these national environmental legal frameworks.

At the provincial legislative level, the coastal provinces of Liaoning, Shandong, and Jiangsu along the Yellow Sea have formulated supporting regulations tailored to regional characteristics. Liaoning Province revised the Liaoning Marine Environmental Protection Measures in 2019 (Liaoning Provincial People's Congress [Standing Committee], 2019), clarifying the principle of "land-sea coordination and polluter responsibility." Based on the Marine Environmental Protection Law, the measures establish and improve Liaoning's ecological redline system, requiring the delineation of key protected areas such as river estuaries, coastal wetlands, natural shorelines, sandy shorelines, and fishery waters. Ecological protection measures like "enclosure before reclamation" are mandated, and new industrial sewage outlets are prohibited within redline zones.² The measures also embody the principle of "prevention first, comprehensive management, and polluter responsibility," imposing strict controls on land-based pollution and ship pollution. They require rigorous oversight of ship dismantling, port pollutant reception and disposal, and mandate port enterprises to remove domestic waste within their maritime zones. Violators bear the cost of cleanup.³ The measures ensure strong alignment with the Liaoning Fishery Management Regulations (Liaoning Provincial People's Congress [Standing Committee], 2015), enhancing ecological restoration standards and protection levels for fishery waters such as the Liaodong Bay and Changshan Archipelago, thereby constructing an integrated system covering marine ecological protection and fishery resource management.⁴.

Shandong Province's Marine Environmental Protection Regulations (Standing Committee of Shandong Provincial People's Congress, 2018a) similarly emphasize land-based pollution control, implementing a filing system for sea discharge outlets and establishing cross-departmental joint supervision. Municipal ecological and environmental authorities must notify natural resources, maritime, agriculture, and military environmental protection departments within 15 days of filing. Additionally, new sewage outlets are banned in marine special reserves, bathing beaches, and similar areas.⁵ Regarding marine spatial planning, the Shandong Marine Environmental Protection Regulations and the Shandong Sea Area Use Management Regulations (Shandong Provincial People's Congress [Standing Committee], 2015) work in tandem to strictly regulate sea-use projects that alter natural marine attributes or harm the marine ecosystem.⁶.

Like Liaoning and Shandong, Jiangsu Province's Marine Environmental Protection Regulations adhere to the principles of land-sea coordination and prevention first, establishing a cross-departmental supervision mechanism (Jiangsu Provincial People's Congress [Standing Committee], 2016a). The procedures for designating marine nature reserves and special protection zones are stricter than those in Shandong and Liaoning. The regulations prohibit sewage outlets, pollutant discharge, and sea sand mining in key marine areas, while strictly controlling other activities that severely damage the marine environment. The government provides appropriate economic compensation for no-development or restricted-development zones.⁷ The Jiangsu Fishing Port and Fishing Vessel Management Regulations (Jiangsu Provincial People's Congress [Standing Committee], 2016b) aim to strengthen oversight of fishing ports and vessels, protect the lawful rights of owners and operators, ensure the safety of personnel, and promote sustainable fisheries. By regulating fishing port water pollution prevention, they form a synergistic framework with the Jiangsu Marine Environmental Protection Regulations, enhancing local practices in vessel management and port pollution control while standardizing maritime activities.⁸.

4.2 Domestic governance mechanism of North Korea and South Korea

The legal system of South Korea includes the following categories: general laws, special laws, special measures laws, exception laws, interim exception laws, and interim measures laws. Within the field of maritime law, there are several special laws, as well as special measures laws, exception laws, interim exception laws, and interim measures laws. South Korea enacted the Framework Act on Marine Fisheries Development on May 13, 2002, followed by the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Marine Fisheries Development on November 20, 2002. This Framework Act holds precedence in the legal hierarchy. When enacting or amending other laws related to marine and fisheries, they must align with the objectives and fundamental principles of this Framework Act (Ma, 2019). In South Korea, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries is primarily responsible for marine environmental protection. Within this ministry, the Marine Environment Division and the Marine Conservation Division are tasked with responsibilities such as planning, marine waste disposal, and conducting environmental impact assessments (Jin, 2011). The principal piece of legislation for marine environmental protection in South Korea is the Marine Environment Management Act, which sets out provisions on the establishment of marine environmental standards, the development and implementation of marine environment management plans, and the preparation of national emergency response plans (Jin, 2011). In addition, South Korea has formulated a series of national plans concerning the development of marine and fisheries industries and the protection of the marine environment. With respect to biodiversity conservation, the Ministry of Environment in South Korea oversees the implementation of 57 environmental statutes. In 2012, the Act on the Conservation and Use of Biodiversity was enacted to promote the protection and sustainable use of biological diversity (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014).

From the perspective of the legislative system, South Korea's legislation is relatively comprehensive. Typically, after enacting a law, enforcement decrees and implementation rules are subsequently issued, forming a well-developed system. South Korea's marine-related legislation is generally diverse and substantively robust. The country has established a dedicated maritime department, namely the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, which progressively consolidates marine-related functions under its purview. When formulating framework laws, South Korea adopts a guiding principles-based legislative approach, avoiding redundancy between the framework law and other related legislative provisions.

Compared to China and South Korea, North Korea's environmental legislation system is relatively simplified.⁹ It is primarily based on the Environmental Protection Law as the foundational legislation, supplemented by supporting regulations such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Law, which together form the main legal basis for its environmental management.

5 Challenges facing the current situation in the Yellow Sea and recommendations

5.1 Issues in existing governance mechanisms and recommendations

5.1.1 Three major issues

Given the geographical specificity of marine issues, regional cooperation is widely regarded as the most effective approach. Regional marine environmental governance has evolved from a state-centric model to a diversified cooperative framework involving multiple non-state actors. Global marine environmental governance is being implemented through specific regional frameworks, and such regional cooperation is attracting an increasing number of participants. Intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, and other non-state actors are all engaged in the process of marine environmental governance. Regions with richer participation and more effective interactions among stakeholders tend to achieve more remarkable outcomes in marine environmental governance (Yu, 2015). Governance actors at supranational, national, and societal levels are interconnected, forming a comprehensive governance network.

From the perspective of good ocean governance, the current governance of the Yellow Sea faces significant issues in legal system construction, multi-stakeholder participation, and policy consistency. Currently, no binding agreements have been established for environmental governance across the entire Yellow Sea region. It can be said that the most distinctive feature of Yellow Sea governance is the absence of a binding legal and institutional framework of the kind often seen in Western models. While such an arrangement may, to some extent, reduce the impact of national policy fluctuations, the primary obstacle to regional cooperation in the Yellow Sea remains the hostility between South Korea and North Korea. Persuading both countries, particularly North Korea, to participate in regional cooperation is highly challenging, even on less sensitive issues such as marine environmental protection. The complex and volatile political situation on the Korean Peninsula, coupled with frequent diplomatic tensions among relevant countries—often influenced by political security issues or trade disputes—has consistently hindered the formation of a supranational governance mechanism in the Yellow Sea. This has resulted in a fragmented approach to regional governance, making it difficult to effectively address the Yellow Sea's environmental management problems in a comprehensive manner.

Firstly, at the normative level, aside from the Sino-South Korean Environmental Cooperation Agreement and the Sino-South Korean Fisheries Agreement, there are no other bilateral or multilateral instruments focused on marine environmental protection. As a result, responses to incidents such as oil spills have to rely on diplomatic channels, which are often time-consuming and ill-suited to urgent environmental emergencies (Kim, 2015).

Secondly, from the perspective of the main participating governance actors, although regional governance cooperation in the Yellow Sea has developed into a multifaceted framework, it is primarily driven by bilateral mechanisms between China and South Korea. Although disputes persist between China and South Korea regarding maritime delimitation, an analysis of regional international agreements and initiatives—as discussed earlier—reveals that the two countries have already accumulated extensive and multifaceted cooperative experience through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms. Their collaboration spans areas such as marine scientific research, ecological conservation, fisheries resource management, and regional economic coordination. Clearly, North Korea's participation is significantly insufficient. Relying solely on the involvement of China and South Korea will not enable the Yellow Sea to achieve sustainable development. In the practice of North Korea's participation in the governance of the Yellow Sea, its most prominent and assertive actions are reflected in maritime boundary delimitation and security control. As can be observed from the aforementioned analysis of its practices, North Korea demonstrates only a limited posture of international cooperation in the non-traditional security area of Yellow Sea marine environmental protection. North Korea's nuclear program poses a challenge to regional security and cooperation. In the realm of environmental protection cooperation, North Korea has so far only acceded to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and Annexes I-V of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention, and has not participated in any regional marine environmental protection frameworks specific to the Yellow Sea. As a coastal country of the Yellow Sea, North Korea's absence from global and regional marine environmental governance mechanisms weakens the collective conservation outcomes for the region. To improve the ecological health of the Yellow Sea, it is essential to promote North Korea's involvement in relevant international and regional environmental protection regimes. Starting with issues of lower political sensitivity, such as marine environmental protection, can help enhance mutual understanding and cooperation among coastal countries, potentially laying a foundation of consensus for addressing more complex problems. Through this incremental approach to cooperation, it is possible to both alleviate regional tensions and make tangible progress in the overall governance of the Yellow Sea's ecological environment.

Thirdly, overall, with the participation of global and regional international organizations as well as non-governmental actors, the Yellow Sea region has developed both comprehensive cooperation mechanisms and specialized mechanisms addressing marine environmental issues. However, the existing framework lacks focus and effectiveness (Liu, 2013). Although the NOWPAP has achieved limited success in addressing a range of marine issues—including oil spills, scientific surveys, and marine litter management—its effectiveness in project planning and activity implementation has been directly hampered by institutional weaknesses and insufficient funding. Consequently, it has failed to fulfill its intended role as a foundational framework for resolving marine environmental problems in the region. Moreover, mechanisms like NOWPAP lack legally binding force, and their implementation relies entirely on the voluntary cooperation of participating countries (Kim, 2015).

5.1.2 Related recommendations

Blue economy is the concretization and practical pathway of the sustainable development concept within the field of marine economy (Stark, 2026). To develop the blue economy, it is necessary to establish clear policy frameworks and development principles, promote industrial green transformation and innovation-driven growth, build systematic support and guarantee systems, and deepen international cooperation and partnerships (Karuppiah et al., 2025). To address the aforementioned challenges, the Yellow Sea region could draw valuable lessons from the governance experience of the Mediterranean region. Faced with the participation of both developed and developing countries, the Mediterranean marine environmental protection effort could not adopt the fully integrated model of the Baltic Sea region, nor the completely separate model of the North Sea/Northeast Atlantic region, as neither of these models could fundamentally resolve the various problems arising from differences in economic development levels. Consequently, the Mediterranean region ultimately adopted a hybrid model combining both integrated and separate approaches. Similar to the Yellow Sea region, the Mediterranean countries exhibit significant disparities in national economic levels and face multiple maritime jurisdictional disputes involving national security concerns. The successful establishment of the Mediterranean marine environmental protection regime is primarily attributed to innovations in its institutional design and a well-developed organizational framework (Yao, 2015). At the institutional level, the innovative "framework convention plus protocols" model requires contracting parties to ratify at least one protocol upon signing the framework convention and commits them to gradually ratify other protocols as conditions permit. This arrangement establishes a fundamental legal platform for cooperation with minimum obligations, allows room for future expansion, and enables countries—particularly developing nations—to participate progressively based on their respective implementation capacities, thereby facilitating a step-by-step expansion from specific areas to comprehensive protection.

At the organizational level, the regime is supported by a comprehensive system: a Secretariat coordinates efforts, funding is secured through a Trust Fund and contributions from the parties, an environmental network (MED POL) facilitates implementation, and strategic planning balances long-term vision (e.g., the Blue Plan) with short-term action (e.g., the Priority Action Program). This entire structure is underpinned by the legal framework of the convention system, creating a robust support mechanism that has effectively promoted sustained cooperation for marine environmental protection in the Mediterranean (Yu, 2015).

These regional environmental cooperation mechanisms have played a certain catalytic role in advancing marine environmental protection and cooperation in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea by convening meetings, selecting topics for discussion, raising funds, and formulating action plans. However, compared to regions like the European Union, marine environmental cooperation in the Yellow Sea area remains relatively narrow in scope and has yet to produce legally binding instruments, resulting in less-than-ideal implementation outcomes (Liu, 2013).

Based on this analysis, this paper proposes a two-step approach. The first step involves strengthening the existing governance mechanisms by promoting the establishment of a legally binding regional emergency response mechanism and expanding the current China-South Korea bilateral cooperation into a multilateral framework that includes North Korea (Sun et al., 2022). Building upon the YSLME project, a dedicated fund should be established to ensure the sustainable implementation of core tasks such as monitoring, assessment, and pollution control. Within the NOWPAP framework, countries' financial contribution obligations should be reinforced while diversifying funding channels to include international organizations and the private sector. This dual-track model of "institutional improvement + financial guarantee" can effectively enhance the overall efficacy of Yellow Sea environmental governance. The second step entails drawing on the governance experience of the Mediterranean region to construct a comprehensive governance mechanism for the Yellow Sea on the existing institutional foundation.

The governance of the Yellow Sea region cannot be separated from a peaceful and stable political environment, making it essential to address the issue of maritime boundary delimitation, which is of high importance to all concerned nations. Existing bilateral agreements also require revision. A prominent example is the Sino-South Korean Fisheries Agreement, which is flawed in several respects. Notably, it adopts a vague stance on maritime boundaries, failing to clearly define the limits of each countries’ exclusive economic zone or specify a delimitation method. Moreover, the agreement has significantly reduced China's traditional fishing grounds, resulting in a mismatch between available resources and demand, leading to resource depletion and marine degradation. The agreement has caused dissatisfaction among Chinese fishers and intensified fisheries-related tensions between the two countries. The agreement should therefore be revised to better reflect the interests of local fishers. Fishing zones should be re-demarcated to ensure balanced resource allocation. Although the current transitional waters arrangement helps to temporarily avert disputes over exclusive economic zones, it remains a compromise and is subject to unilateral interpretations—such as South Korea's view that transitional zones will become part of its exclusive economic zone post-transition—which is problematic (Kim, 2017). The legal status of these transitional waters should be clearly defined and agreed upon by both parties. Most importantly, the agreement should incorporate a dispute resolution clause to establish a robust mechanism for handling conflicts, thereby contributing to the sustainable management and conservation of Yellow Sea fishery resources (Ma, 2014).

To enhance the feasibility of the aforementioned recommendations, it is essential to gradually increase North Korea's involvement in the Yellow Sea governance framework. By adhering to the principle of "low-sensitivity areas first," North Korea can be encouraged to join regional mechanisms. This approach, supported by technical assistance and help in strengthening its domestic legal system, will facilitate its progressive integration into the NOWPAP.

5.2 Maritime delimitation disputes and recommendations

Given that the Yellow Sea is less than 400 nautical miles at its widest point, maritime delimitation disputes have arisen between China and South Korea (Qi, 2009). For instance, between China and South Korea, Article 2 of the Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the People's Republic of China stipulates that where maritime claims overlap with those of adjacent or opposite coastal countries, delimitation shall be effected on the basis of international law and in accordance with the principle of equity through negotiation. This reflects China's position in favor of equitable delimitation. In contrast, South Korea insists on the equidistance principle in determining maritime boundaries in the Yellow Sea (Li, 2018). This indicates a divergence in the delimitation principles advocated by the two countries. The situation is further complicated by external actors, such as the United States, which frequently involve themselves in the region's disputes (Liu, 2013).

It should be recognized that maritime delimitation disputes not only affect regional peace and stability but also bear directly on the protection of the marine environment. For example, if an oil spill occurs in a disputed maritime area, questions may arise as to which party holds the responsibility for cleanup and associated costs (Kim, 2015). countries engaged in maritime delimitation disputes should thus actively pursue negotiations and consultations to reach timely resolutions, thereby safeguarding regional peace and ecological stability (Li, 2018).

It is essential that the delimitation of maritime boundaries in the Yellow Sea adheres to respect for national sovereignty and strives for fairness and reasonableness, avoiding the imposition of unilateral, rigid standards. As mentioned above, China and South Korea diverge on the applicable delimitation principle, with South Korea favoring the equidistance approach. While equidistance offers clarity and uniformity, it may ignore the complex geographical realities of individual countries. In contrast, the equity principle allows greater flexibility and consideration of multiple factors but may lead to inconsistent rulings due to its broad interpretative scope (Liang, 1999). In conclusion, the maritime boundary between China and South Korea in the Yellow Sea should not be determined solely based on one principle. A combined approach, drawing from both the equidistance and equity principles, should be employed. Given China's irregular coastline, strict adherence to equidistance would yield inequitable results. However, to ensure consistency and predictability, the factors relevant to applying the equitable principle have to be clearly defined so that it does not lead to divergent interpretations.

Both China and South Korea stipulate that maritime delimitation shall be based on "international law." Given the overlapping claims in the Yellow Sea, it is necessary to reconcile the two countries' positions based on the "principle of natural prolongation" and the "median line principle" (Lee and Schofield, 2025). In addition to legal considerations, political and economic factors must also be taken into account in maritime boundary negotiations between the two countries. However, there is currently a prevailing trend—absent compelling reasons to the contrary—where international courts and tribunals apply the three-stage approach to all types of maritime delimitation, both under customary international law and treaty law (Tanaka, 2019).

Therefore, in the China-South Korea maritime delimitation negotiations, the two countries could consider adopting the three-stage approach and pragmatically applying the "equidistance/relevant circumstances" rule (Qi, 2023), alongside phased or partial delimitation measures, to progressively achieve a final boundary in the Yellow Sea (Lee and Schofield, 2025). Notably, during the second stage of the three-stage approach, China and South Korea should prioritize two key relevant circumstances: (1) the delimitation effect of islands and rocks, and (2) the allocation of fishery resources. Drawing on the International Court of Justice's practice of using weighted lines to adjust provisional equidistance lines, the provisional equidistance line could be shifted toward South Korea (Qi, 2023). Furthermore, in the third stage, a disproportionality test should be conducted—for example, by accounting for differences in the lengths of the Chinese and South Korean coastlines—to further adjust the provisional equidistance line and ensure an equitable outcome.

5.3 Problems in China's domestic legal framework and recommendations

Although China currently possesses numerous laws and regulations applicable to marine environmental governance in the Yellow Sea, only a few are specifically tailored to this region. These include the State Council Order on Trawl Fishing Bans in the Bohai, Yellow, and East China Seas and the Interim Provisions on the Management of Broodstock Resources of Prawns in the Bohai and Yellow Seas. The former is a normative policy document and lacks legal enforceability, while the latter is a departmental regulation with limited authority (Liu, 2013).

This reveals a lack of targeted legal instruments for the Yellow Sea. To better protect the marine environment in the Yellow Sea, China should introduce specialized legislation dedicated to the region's ecological governance. Simultaneously, it is advisable to encourage both South Korea and North Korea to strengthen their respective domestic legislative efforts to support regional cooperation.

Beyond continuously improving its domestic legal framework, China should also actively share its achievements in environmental governance and provide effective Chinese solutions for global marine environmental governance. Current research indicates that China has integrated an accountability mechanism for ecosystem services and assets into the performance evaluation systems of governments at all levels (McCook et al., 2025). This accountability mechanism serves as a powerful tool for prioritizing environmental sustainability. China's effective practices in environmental accounting for terrestrial ecosystems, combined with clear national policy directives for a sustainable blue economy, present a significant opportunity to develop ocean accounting. In its participation in the governance of the Yellow Sea, China can summarize, adapt, and integrate its existing effective domestic frameworks for environmental management, incorporating the latest international advancements in ocean accounting. This approach can help initiate the establishment of a Yellow Sea marine ecosystem accounting system, integrate it into the current Yellow Sea governance and policy frameworks, and ultimately contribute to the sound management and effective protection of the Yellow Sea marine ecosystem (McCook et al., 2025).

6 Conclusion

Although governance mechanisms exist at the global, regional, and national levels in the Yellow Sea, they still face varying degrees of challenges in areas such as legal framework development, accountability mechanisms, stakeholder participation, and policy coherence. In addition, the governance of the Yellow Sea is confronted with practical issues such as maritime boundary delimitation. Using the theory of marine good governance as a benchmark, this paper proposes a two-step approach to improve the regional governance mechanism of the Yellow Sea: The first step is to strengthen existing mechanisms, including establishing a regional emergency response mechanism, expanding China-South Korea bilateral cooperation into a multilateral framework involving North Korea, setting up a dedicated fund, and diversifying financing channels. The second step is to draw inspiration from the Mediterranean model to establish a comprehensive governance mechanism for the Yellow Sea, adopting a "framework convention-protocol" design, supported by a secretariat, a trust fund, and an environmental monitoring network. Simultaneously, it is recommended to properly address maritime boundary delimitation between China and South Korea and promote the sustainable management of fishery resources by redefining operational areas, clarifying the legal status of transitional waters, and incorporating dispute resolution clauses. Efforts should also be made to gradually enhance North Korea’s participation by adopting a "low-sensitivity areas first" principle to attract it into the regional mechanism. At the national level, the legislative system should be improved, including enacting a "Special Law on the Ecological Environment Governance of the Yellow Sea," upgrading departmental regulations into administrative statutes, promoting legislative coordination with South Korea and North Korea, and incorporating China’s domestic mature practices such as the Gross Ecosystem Product accountability mechanism into Yellow Sea governance. This will help build a systematic legal framework and practical structure to achieve sustainable governance. It is worth noting that geopolitical issues are unavoidable in Yellow Sea governance. The path proposed in this study to improve Yellow Sea governance is premised on the overall peace and stability of the region. The maritime boundary delimitation among China, South Korea, and North Korea, as well as the extent of North Korea’s participation in Yellow Sea governance, will significantly impact the effectiveness of this proposal.

References

• 1

  (1993). Agreement on environmental cooperation between the government of the people's republic of China and the government of the South Korea.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  (2000). Agreement on fisheries between the government of the people's republic of China and the government of the South Korea.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  (1972). Convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  (1992). Convention on biological diversity.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  (1990). International Convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and cooperation.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  (2001). International Convention on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  (2004). International convention for the control and management of ships' Ballast water and sediments.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  (1978). Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the prevention of pollution from ships.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  (1982). United nations convention on the law of the sea.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  IW: LEARN. UNDP/GEF YSLME phase II project. Available online at: https://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/4343 (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Chang Y.-C. (2010). International legal obligations in relation to good ocean governance. Chin. J. Int. Law9, 589–605. doi: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmq024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Chang Y. C. (2013). On International Legal Obligations for Good Ocean Governance. Journal of Comparative Law70, 70–75. (in Chinese)

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  China Coast Guard (2022). China and South Korea's maritime law enforcement departments conduct joint cruises in the provisional measures zone of the China-South Korea Fisheries Agreement. Available online at: https://www.ccg.gov.cn/hjyw/202405/t20240515_1058.html (Accessed September 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (2022). The 24th korea-China joint committee meeting on environmental cooperation held online. Available online at: https://www.ccpit.org/korea/a/20220223/20220223fhqx.html (Accessed September 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  China Institute for South China Sea Studies Keynote Speech by Director Wu Shicun at the 6th China-South Korea Ocean Cooperation Forum. Available online at: https://www.nanhai.org.cn/review_c/532.html (Accessed September 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  China Ocean Online (2008). Yellow sea large marine ecosystem project launched. Available online at: www.oceanol.com/guanli/jsjc/8966.html (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Convention on Biological Diversity (2012). Democratic people's Republic of Korea – country profile. Available online at: www.cbd.int/Countries/profile/default.shtml?country=kpfacts (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Convention on Biological Diversity (2014). Republic of korea – country profile. Available online at: www.cbd.int/Countries/profile/default.shtml?country=krfacts (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Guo R. (2011). Environmental cooperation in northeast asia from the perspective of international regimes. Chin. J. Population Resour. Environ.21, 43–48.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Huanqiu (2019). Xi jinping met with heads of foreign delegations attending multinational naval events marking the 70th anniversary of the navy's founding. Available online at: https://China.huanqiu.com/article/9CaKrnKk094 (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships . (1973). International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, adopted 2 November 1973, entered into force 2 October 1983.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  MARPOL 73/78 . (1978). Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, adopted 17 February 1978, entered into force 6 June 1984.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  OPRC . (1995). International Convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and cooperation, adopted 30 November 1990, entered into force 13 May 1995.

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  (1996). 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, adopted 7 November 1996, entered into force 24 March 2006.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  International Maritime Organization (2019). Status of IMO treaties. Available online at: http://120.52.51.16/www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Documents/Status%20-%202019.pdf (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Jiangsu Provincial People's Congress (Standing Committee) (2016a). Jiangsu Province Marine Environment Protection Regulations (2016 Amendment). Available online at: https://www.faxin.cn/v2/flfg/dffg/content.html?gid=B895626&highlight (Accessed January 11, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Jiangsu Provincial People's Congress (Standing Committee) (2016b). Regulations of Jiangsu province on marine environmental protection.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Jiangsu Provincial People's Congress (Standing Committee) (2020). Jiangsu Province Fisheries Ports and Fishing Vessels Management Regulations. Announcement no. 42 of the Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Jiangsu Province.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Jin Z. J. (2011). International Cooperation on the prevention and control of environmental pollution in the northeast asian sea area (China: Dalian Maritime University).

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Karuppiah K. Garza-Reyes J. A. Virmani N. (2025). Pathways to a sustainable blue economy: exploring its barriers in an emerging economy. Business Strategy Environ.34, 6095–6110. doi: 10.1002/bse.4294

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Kim S. K. (2015). Marine pollution response in northeast asia and the NOWPAP regime. Ocean Dev. Int. Law46, 49–61. doi: 10.1080/00908320.2014.929470

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Kim S. K. (2017). Maritime boundary negotiations between China and korea: the factors at stake. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law32, 26–27. doi: 10.1163/15718085-12341424

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Kim S. K. (2019). “ Maritime disputes in northeast asia,” in Ocean development and martinus (Leiden, Netherlands: Nijhoff Publishers), 23–24.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Lee S. Schofield C. (2025). The challenge of reconciling conflicting approaches across the yellow sea: progress and challenges for maritime boundary delimitation between China and korea. Korean J. Int. Comp. Law13, 6–48. doi: 10.1163/22134484-12341222

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Lei X. (2024). The Interpretation and Application of Art.192 of UNCLOS in Addressing the Adverse Effect Caused by Climate Change. Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies9, 39–57.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Li J. X. (2018). International law study on maritime boundary delimitation between China and South Korea in the yellow sea (Zhejiang University: China).

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Li X. Li J. (2021). A study of the northwest pacific action plan (NOWPAP): mechanisms, challenges, and pathways. Country Regional Stud.6, 192–224.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Li J. Li X. (2022). Research on marine environmental governance mechanisms among China, Japan, and South Korea: levels, obstacles, and prospects. East Asian Rev.191, 191–218.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Liang S. Y. (1999). Teaching cases in international law (Beijing. China: China University of Political Science and Law Press).

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Liaoning Provincial People's Congress (Standing Committee) (2015). Liaoning Province Fisheries Management Regulations. Announcement no. 38 of the Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Liaoning Province.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Liaoning Provincial People's Congress (Standing Committee) . (2019). Measures of Liaoning Province for the Protection of the Marine Environment. Order No. 331 of Government of Liaoning Province. (in Chinese)

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Liaoning Provincial People's Congress (Standing Committee) (2019). Measures of liaoning province for the protection of the marine environment ( Order No.331 of Government of Liaoning Province).

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Liu K. (2013). Research on international cooperation based on the holistic security concept of sea area development in the yellow sea region (China: Liaoning Normal University).

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  London Convention . (1972). Convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter, adopted 29 December 1972, entered into force 30 August 1975.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Ma G. (2014). Analysis of sino-korean fishery cooperation and disputes. Zhejiang Soc. Sci.5, 308–323.

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Ma G. (2019). Marine legislation in South Korea and its implications for China. BFSU Law J., 266–277.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  McCook L. J. Cai L. Yeung C. Chen S. Ouyang Z. Ang P. et al . (2025). Marine ecosystem services and natural capital in China: Opportunities for improved understanding, valuing, and policy. PNAS Nexus4, 1–12. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf110

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China (1997). Provisional regulations on the management of spawning shrimp resources in the yellow and bohai seas (ineffective) ( Order No.39 of Ministry of Agriculture).

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Ministry of Ecology and Environment of People's Republic of China (2024). The 25th tripartite environment ministers meeting held in South Korea. Available online at: https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywdt/hjywnews/202409/t20240930_1087260.shtml (Accessed September 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China (2024). The 25th Tripartite Environment Ministers Meeting among China, Japan and South Korea was held in the Republic of Korea. Available online at: https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywdt/hjywnews/202409/t20240930_1087260.shtml (Accessed September 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  Ministry of Environment of the People's Republic of China (2023). Tripartite Environment Ministers Meeting among China, Japan and the South Korea (TEMM). Available online at: https://www.env.go.jp/en/press/press_02144.html (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (2021). China and South Korea hold inaugural meeting of maritime affairs dialogue and cooperation mechanism. Available online at: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/wjb_673085/zzjg_673183/bjhysws_674671/xgxw_674673/202104/t20210414_9176293.shtml (Accessed September 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (2025). China and South Korea convene third meeting of maritime affairs dialogue and cooperation mechanism. Available online at: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/wjdt_674879/sjxw_674887/202504/t20250424_11603156.shtml (Accessed September 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Ministry of the Environment of the People's Republic of China of the People's Republic of China (1992). Northeast asian conference on environmental cooperation (NEAC). Available online at: www.env.go.jp/earth/coop/coop/neac_e.html (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Ministry of the Environment of the People's Republic of China of the People's Republic of China (2007). Northeast asian conference on environmental cooperation (NEAC). Available online at: www.env.go.jp/earth/coop/coop/neac_e.html (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Net Ease News (2017). Second phase of the yellow sea LME project launched in seoul: supporting the recovery of yellow sea fisheries. Available online at: http://news.163.com/17/0718/16/CPL12KJI000187VE.htm (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Nordquist M. N. Nandan S. N. Rosenne S. (1985). United nations convention on the law of the sea 1982: A commentary (Dordrecht, Boston Lancaster: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 1985–2011.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  NOWPAP (1994a). Who we are. Available online at: www.unenvironment.org/nowpap/who-we-are (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  NOWPAP (1994b). Action plan. Available online at: www.unenvironment.org/nowpap/who-we-are/action-plan (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  NOWPAP (1994c). Institutional framework. Available online at: www.unenvironment.org/nowpap/who-we-are/institutional-framework (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Pei R. (2015). On the evolution of South Korea's environmental cooperation policy toward China: from "Developing country partner" to "Strategic cooperative partner. Contemp. Korea2, 50–59.

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Qi Q. (2009). Legal study on the management of biological resources in the yellow sea (Beijing, China: Ocean University of China).

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Qi H. (2023). Maritime delimitation between China and South Korea in the south yellow sea. Ocean Dev. Int. Law54, 26–62. doi: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2182388

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Rosenne S. Yankov A. Nordquist M. H. (1991). United Nations convention on the law of the sea: 1982 a commentary. Dordrecht Boston London: M. Nijhoff, 293–296.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Shandong Provincial People's Congress (Standing Committee) (2015). Shandong Province Sea Area Use Management Regulations. Announcement no. 100 of the Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Shandong Province.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Shandong Provincial People's Congress (Standing Committee) (2018). Shandong Province Marine Environment Protection Regulations. Announcement no. 47 of the Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Shandong Province.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (2001). Law of the people's republic of China on the administration of sea areas ( Order No. 61 of the President of the People's Republic of China).

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (2009). Island protection law of the people's republic of China ( Order No. 22 of the President of the People's Republic of China).

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (2018). Law of the people's republic of China on ports ( Order No. 23 of the President of the People's Republic of China).

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (2023). Marine environmental protection law of the people's republic of China ( Order No. 12 of the President of the People's Republic of China).

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Stark K. (2026). A blue conservation economy framework for meeting Canada's marine biodiversity targets. Mar. Policy185, 106964. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106964

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  State Council (1995). State council order on trawling fishery ban areas in the bohai sea, yellow sea and east China sea. Available online at: https://hyyyj.fujian.gov.cn/xxgk/fgwj/202111/t20211111_5772220.htm (Accessed January 11, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  State Council (2017). Regulations of the people's republic of China on the dumping of wastes at sea ( Order No. 676 of the State Council of the People's Republic of China).

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  State Oceanic Administration of the People's Republic of China (2010). Measures for the management of marine special reserves ( No. 21 of the State Oceanic Administration).

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Sun Y. (2023). Key amendments and interpretation of the 2023 revised marine environment protection law. Environ. Prot.51, 14–18. doi: 10.14026/j.cnki.0253-9705.2023.21.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Sun Y. Huang L. McCook L. J. Huang H. (2022). Joint protection of a crucial reef ecosystem. Science377, 1163. doi: 10.1126/science.abo0166

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Tanaka Y. (2019). The international law of the sea. Third edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). doi: 10.1017/9781108545907

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  Tarlock D. (2002). Biodiversity conservation in the united countries: A case study in incompleteness and indirection. ELR News Anal.32, 10529–10542.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  The 15th Meeting of the 8th Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Liaoning Province (2006). Implementation measures of liaoning province for the fisheries law of the people's republic of China. Available online at: https://www.faxin.cn/v2/flfg/dffg/content.html?gid=B497955&highlight (Accessed January 11, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  The 35th Meeting of the 12th Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Shandong Province (2018b). Implementation measures of shandong province for the fisheries law of the people's republic of China. Available online at: https://www.faxin.cn/lib/dffl/dfflcontent.aspx?gid=B978604&libid=010201 (Accessed January 11, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Torrance A. W. Tomlinson B. (2025). Invasives: the how of biodiversity loss. Tex. A&M J. Prop. L.11, 573–614. doi: 10.37419/JPL.V11.I4.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  United Nations (2014). Yellow sea large marine ecosystem (YSLME) by UNDP/GEF YSLME phase II. Available online at: https://oceanconference.un.org/commitments/?id=19068 (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  United Nations Secretary-General (1989). “ Law of the sea protection and preservation of the marine environment,” in Report of the secretary-general. GA res, 44/461.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  United Nations Treaty Collection (1994). Chapter XXI law of the sea. Available online at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI-6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en (Accessed May 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development. A/42/427.

  • Google Scholar

• 86

  Xue X. (2020). Pathway selection for environmental governance in northeast asia: A case study of the tripartite environment ministers meeting (TEMM) mechanism. J. Pacific Stud.28, 25–37. doi: 10.14015/j.cnki.1004-8049.2020.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Yao Y. (2015). Path selection for marine environmental cooperation in northeast asia: justification of the mediterranean model. Contemp. Jurisprudence24, 132–136.

  • Google Scholar

• 88

  Yasumasa K. (2010). Evaluating Regional Environmental Governance in Northeast Asia. Asian Affairs: An American Review37, 1–25.

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Yu H. T. (2015). Research on international cooperation in marine environmental protection in the northwest pacific region (China: Ocean University).

  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Zhang L. F. (2005). China and its maritime neighbors have initially established a new type of fisheries relationship. China Ocean Law Rev.2, 42–43.

  • Google Scholar

• 91

  Zhang H. (2020). Review and prospects of the development of the marine environment protection law of the people's republic of China. Environ. Sustain. Dev.45, 79–84. doi: 10.19758/j.cnki.issn1673-288x.202004079

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar