Extraterritoriality controversy of EU shipping carbon legislation: multilateral governance tensions and China’s dual responses

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a detailed legal and policy analysis of extraterritoriality in EU shipping carbon regulations, relevant for scholars of international climate law and governance.

🏢実務担当者:Shipping companies and carbon traders can use this analysis to anticipate regulatory risks and compliance strategies for EU ports.

🏛政策担当者:Regulators can learn from China's dual approach to managing extraterritorial carbon laws, including blocking legislation and IMO cooperation.

欧盟出台了一系列航运碳排放法规，包括MRV、欧盟碳排放交易体系（EU ETS）以及FuelEU Maritime，通过明确域外适用的范围、目标与方式，构建了以港口为中心的域外规制框架。欧盟航运碳排放制度借鉴了港口国控制和领土延伸的理论基础，并结合欧盟在全球航运市场中的主导地位，得以对停靠或途经欧盟港口的船舶在欧盟水域以外航行期间产生的碳排放行使域外管辖权。同时，为缓解此类域外适用引发的冲突，设计了豁免机制。欧盟航运碳排放立法的域外适用引发了管辖权合法性争议，对国际海事组织（IMO）形成压力，削弱其权威并加剧监管碎片化，同时加深了发达国家与发展中国家在具有域外效力的航运碳排放监管问题上的分歧。针对欧盟航运碳排放立法的域外适用，中国可采取两条路径。就适应性工具而言，首先，宜在国内立法中增加对航运碳排放的港口国管辖权，并争取与欧盟碳排放交易体系实现配额的等效互认。其次，可推动中国与欧盟航运企业之间的航运业绿色转型合作。就防御性工具而言，首先，在支持共同但有区别的责任原则（CBDR）的基础上，中国可与发展中国家协作，推动IMO框架下多边治理机制的发展，并在必要时采取反制措施。其次，中国可激活国内阻断立法，禁止欧盟立法的不合理域外适用，并建立配套的补偿机制，以维护国家和企业的利益。

AI 翻訳（deepseek-v4-flash）。 正確を期す場合は下の原文を参照してください。

The EU has introduced a series of shipping carbon emissions regulations, including the MRV, the EU ETS, and FuelEU Maritime, thereby establishing a port-centric extraterritorial regulatory framework by clearly defining the scope, objectives, and modalities of extraterritorial application. The EU’s maritime carbon emissions regime draws on the theoretical foundations of port state control and territorial extension and, combined with the EU’s dominant position in the global shipping market, enables the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction over carbon emissions generated during voyages outside EU waters by vessels calling at or transiting through EU ports. At the same time, an exemption mechanism has been designed to mitigate conflicts arising from such extraterritorial application. The extraterritorial application of EU shipping carbon emissions legislation has triggered disputes over jurisdictional legitimacy, placing pressure on the IMO by weakening its authority and contributing to regulatory fragmentation. It has also intensified divergences between developed and developing States regarding the regulation of shipping carbon emissions with extraterritorial effects. In response to the extraterritorial application of the EU shipping carbon emissions legislation, there are two paths that China can adopt. About the adaptive tools, firstly, it is valuable to add port State jurisdiction over shipping carbon emissions to domestic legislation and strive for equivalent mutual recognition of allowances with the EU ETS. Secondly, efforts can be made to promote the cooperation on the green transition of the shipping industry between the shipping enterprises of China and the EU. About the defensive tools, firstly, on the basis of supporting CBDR, China can collaborate with developing states to promote the development of multilateral governance mechanisms under the IMO and adopt countermeasures when necessary. Secondly, China can activate domestic blocking legislation to prohibit the unjustified extraterritorial application of EU legislations, and establish accompanying compensation mechanisms to safeguard national and enterprises’ interests.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2026.1804712first seen 2026-05-17 07:06:59 · last seen 2026-06-14 04:53:35