论文部分内容阅读
The environmental issue is a matter of life and death， which not only has to do with sustainable development of mankind but also affects the future of the planet. As President Xi Jinping observed not long ago， “In recent years， climate change， biodiversity loss， worsening desertification and frequent extreme weather events have all posed severe challenges to human survival and development.” Environmental degradation forces the human society to change their mode of production and livelihood that belongs to the era of industrial civilization and to strengthen environmental protection and governance. The practice of global environmental governance over the past decades attests to the fact that effective institutional construction is essential and that the key to the upkeep of global environmental governance rests with the exemplary role of responsible actors in international relations.
Environmental Degradation Conversely Forces Institutional Construction of Global Environmental Governance
Environmental degradation is a gradual process and environmental governance is a delayed action against environmental degradation. It is under the circumstances that spontaneous actions cannot resist the speed of environmental degradation that institutional construction of global environmental governance takes place， as an important form in regulating actors in international relations global wise with binding principles， rules and procedures.
I. Environmental Degradation Wakes Mankind’s Consciousness of Environmental Protection
Mankind have only one planet， which is the shared home of all mankind and all lives in nature. Since the ancient era， mankind have had a profound understanding of nature. Chinese and foreign thinkers such as Guan Zhong （about 723-645 BCE）， a statesman of the State of Qi in China’s Spring and Autumn period， and British economist Thomas Robert Malthus （1766-1834） put forward propositions to protect nature as far back as long ago. Though mankind came to see the importance of protecting nature back in the era of agricultural civilization， not until the middle of the 20th century did they truly realize the importance of the environmental issue. In 1952， London was shrouded with industrial pollutants， ringing the warning bell to mankind for the environmental issue accumulated since the industrial revolution began. In 1962， American scholar Rachel Carson cried out in her book Silent Spring that the results of environmental degradation are too heavy for mankind to bear. In 1972， the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held， pressing the start button for global environmental protection. II. International Mechanisms Enable Global Environmental Governance
International mechanisms are referred to as a whole set of explicit or implicit principles， norms， rules and procedures for decision making that are arrived at by convergence of willing actors of international relations in a given area. In June 1972， the first UN Conference on the Human Environment was convened in Stockholm， capital of Sweden， which adopted the UN Declaration of the Human Environment， which was the first global declaration for environmental protection in human history. However， not until the 1990s did the international mechanisms in the area of environmental protection in the true sense of the word come about. In June 1992， the UN Conference on Environment and Development was held in Rio de Janeiro， capital of Brazil， which adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change （UNFCCC） coming as a milestone development and giving birth to international rules of global climate governance， an important part of environmental governance. The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” established in the UNFCCC has become an international norm generally followed by the international community with the UN as its core.
The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” is the core content of the Kyoto Protocol， which is a “polluters pay” responsibility mechanism pinpointed to environmental damage caused by developed countries in the process of industrialization， underlining the importance of international mechanisms in global environmental governance. The Kyoto Protocol takes joint implementation （JI）， clean development mechanism （CDM）， and emission trading （ET） for the core， setting the Kyoto mechanism where mandatory emission reduction and exemption coexist as the institutional basis of the global climate governance system. Not only does the Kyoto mechanism provide the institutional guarantee for the implementation of the ultimate goals of the UNFCCC， it also signified the formation of a “top down” model of global environmental governance.
III. “Kyoto Dilemma” Changes Global Environmental Governance Model
As the Kyoto Protocol set mandatory emission reduction goals and timetable only for developed countries without making binding requirements for developing countries， it caused discontent in some of the developed countries. The US and Canada successively withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 and 2011， which resulted in the “Kyoto dilemma” in implementing the mechanism of mandatory emission reduction while exempting Southern countries. In 2011， the 7th Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol （MOP7） was forced to announce that the double track negotiation mechanism in total would come to an end by the end of 2012. The global environmental governance mechanisms could not but be readjusted. In order to achieve the goals of the UNFCCC， the 21st UN Conference on Climate Change， the 21st Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC （COP21） and concurrently serving as the 11th Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol （MOP11） was held in Paris in 2015. The Paris Conference adopted the Paris Agreement， which made major readjustment to the “Kyoto model”， establishing a “bottom up” emission reduction model， emphasizing that from 2020 on the global climate change governance system was to take the “intended nationally determined contributions” for its core， setting 1.5 degree Celsius as temperature control target， and taking inventory mechanism for renewal mechanism. As such the “top down” model of mandatory emission reduction was replaced by the “bottom up” model of intended nationally determined contributions.
From 1992 when the UNFCCC was concluded to 2021 when the 26th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC would take place in Glasgow， the UK， global environmental governance system has continued to move torwards maturity through clashes and contests， becoming the foundation for global governance to transform into green governance. The practice of global environmental governance reflects such a pattern that， to achieve global governance in the international community in lack of central authority， the truly viable way can only be reliance on a set of global institutional system sanctioned by the whole mankind and binding for citizens of all countries.
International Mechanisms Improve the Performance of Global Environmental Governance
Global governance is to achieve common goals and resolve common issues through making and implementing global or transnational norms， principles， programs and policies， governance mechanisms being the core of five elements in the theory of global governance. Effective international mechanisms facilitate global governance， which in turn depends on international mechanisms for playing an important role. The performance of global environmental governance becomes more outstanding as governance mechanisms improve.
I. Effective International Mechanisms Promote the Process of Global Environmental Governance
In the area of global climate governance， the effectiveness of international mechanisms is referred to if the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement have or have not reached the anticipated goals and achieved due results on the level of shaping or affecting countries in making and implementing emission reduction measures. Some of the scholars believe that from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement， their legal binding force underwent a process from being hard to being soft. By putting developed participating countries under mandatory emission reduction， the Kyoto Protocol created a compliance mechanism. By adopting intended nationally determined contributions for all countries， the Paris Agreement put in place a performance mechanism. Some scholars categorize the Kyoto Protocol as hard law and， the Paris Agreement， as soft law. In fact， the latter is more readily acceptable than the former. The time difference from conclusion to coming into force of either of the two instruments is more telling.
Comparatively speaking， the Paris Agreement gives participating parties more independence through the bottom up emission reduction mechanism featuring intended nationally determined contributions， and its inventory mechanism on a five-year cycle also gives room for participating parties to independently readjust emission reduction targets according to their national conditions. As another milestone legal instrument following the Kyoto Protocol， not only is the Paris Agreement effective with maximum inclusiveness for all parties and concerns of their core interests， it has also broken the logjam in global environmental governance， making all parties full of anticipations in the post performance 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and development prospects of zero carbon emission.
II. Constraining Role of International Mechanisms Reshapes Countries’ Governance Conduct
International mechanisms play an outstanding constraining role in global environmental governance. As the whole world came to see the great harm of climate change， it was the rational choice for countries to maximize their interests within the framework of the UNFCCC. In less than a year， the Paris Agreement reached by 195 countries came into force， becoming one of the international treaties with the most participating parties and came into force the fastest in history， fully attesting to the fact that the Paris Agreement has become the code of conduct universally accepted and sanctioned by all parties. By adopting the principle of “intended nationally determined contributions”， the Paris Agreement gives full considerations to national interests of all parties whereas participating countries should consider if the ultimate goals can be achieved when determining their emission reduction targets， and they can also use the five-year inventory mechanism to make adjustments according to their national conditions. All of the above underlines the role of global environmental governance mechanisms in reshaping and constraining participating countries in global governance. On the watch of President Trump， the US， under the sway of protectionism and isolationism， withdrew from a series of international mechanisms including the Paris Agreement. However， the constraining role has made the US Government mindful of the fact that should it wish to play any role in global climate governance and seek the maximization of its national interests， it cannot but return to the global climate governance system. Soon after assuming office， President Biden corrected Trump’s erroneous decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement， the reentry into the Agreement being among the first orders he signed as US President. Not only that， the US convened a global climate summit through video link between April 22 and 23， 2021， inviting leaders of 38 countries， and aiming to emphasize common action across the globe in dealing with the urgency of climate change. Biden committed the US to cut back on carbon emission by 52% by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The withdrawal and reentry into the Paris Agreement by the US Government reflected the constraining role of international mechanisms in training and reshaping countries’ conduct and also illustrated the importance of international mechanisms in global environmental governance.
III. Fragmentation of International Mechanisms Makes Up for the Shortfalls of Institutional Inadequacy
“Fragmentation” is referred to diversity and challenges that continue to crop up in coordinating public and private norms， treaties and organizations in a given area of international relations， the concept being introduced from international law to the areas of international relations and global governance. The environmental issue is both technical and policy oriented in essence， pertaining to both systemic and public， and its nature determines that the environmental issue is neither a purely technical one nor a purely economic and social one， but one of mutual adaptation and governance between human society and natural environment. The Club of Rome is of the opinion that the challenges in face of industrial civilization are interlinked and have synergy effect. This makes global environmental governance more in need of fragmentation mechanism to make up for the inadequacy of existing mechanisms.
Global environmental governance that began in the 1990s has evolved into global political activities from its original focus on engineering technicality and end governance of prevention and management of pollution， great changes happening to principal actors， models and mechanisms of governance. Not any country or any mechanism alone can resolve all of the environmental issues. As principal actors of governance pluralize， levels of governance diversify， mechanisms of governance proliferate， the phenomenon of fragmentation of global environmental governance mechanisms becomes increasingly outstanding. Although fragmentation of environmental governance mechanisms increases the complicity of the environmental issue， it meets the requirements of plurality of principal actors and diversity of structure of global environmental governance， and thereby improves the performance of global environmental governance mechanisms. At present， an outstanding problem that exists in the area of global environmental governance is insufficient institutional supply. On the one hand， the existing institutions are less than effective， and on the other， some of the areas lack effective institutions. The environmental issue is a complex system engineering project， involving many areas， covering a large scale， and being difficult for governance. As agenda for global environmental governance falls into various areas， in the process of systemic governance it is possible for a country or a bloc of countries to join several or a dozen of international organizations at the same time， the issue of mechanism fragmentation cropping up. However， fragmented mechanisms caused by system partition can improve governance performance through collaborative arrangements.
Evolution of China’s Role in Global Environmental Governance
Since the 1990s， China’s role in global environmental governance has evolved in a process from passive participation to active contributions to active leading， continuing to deepen its level of participation and playing an increasingly important role.
I. From Passive Participation to Vigorous Action under the Principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities”
In the early days of global environmental governance， the role orientation of a country could be measured in two aspects， first， conditions of participation in global environmental governance through international mechanisms; and second， conditions of compliance with norms and constraints of international mechanisms. Measured by this yardstick， going by the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”， China passively participated in global governance mechanisms but was unable to express its subjective will. The institutional design of the Kyoto Protocol was led by developed countries， its principal participants also being developed countries without requesting the participation of developing countries. As a developing country， China was excluded from the making of rules， unable to play an active role.
II. Mover and Leader under the Principle of “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions”
The Paris Conference of 2015， the 21st conference of parties to the UNFCCC （COP21） was another milestone conference in the process of global climate governance following the Kyoto Conference. China did a lot of work for the Paris Agreement to be concluded and take effect， taking up its responsibilities as a major global player to act as a promoter， contributor and leader of global climate governance. To push for results in multilateral negotiations on climate change， China exchanged in-depth views and reached consensus with the US， Europe， India and Pakistan on results of the Paris Conference and major issues in the negotiations before the convocation of the Conference， explicitly putting forward concrete indicators for “intended nationally determined contributions” between 2020 and 2030， becoming the only developing country in the world to pledge the targeted year for carbon emission peaking， by which it played an exemplary leading role as a developing country.
Since the Paris Conference， drastic changes have happened to the international situation. In global environmental governance， as the governance will and capacity of traditional major countries is on the decrease， the pattern of global climate governance has changed， leading to the absence of leadership in global environmental governance and resulting in the dilemma of environmental governance deficit and governance failure. In contrast， China， as a representative of the emerging markets， rides on the tide and takes up responsibilities in the process of global climate governance， and its capacity and will of participating in international affairs is on the rise， underscoring its role as a torchbearer in global climate governance. It states explicitly that “China will continue to play its part as a major and responsible country， take an active part in reforming and developing the global governance system， and keep contributing Chinese wisdom and strength to global governance.” “Taking a driving seat in international cooperation to respond to climate change， China has become an important participant， contributor， and torchbearer in the global endeavor for ecological civilization.”
III. Provider of Public Goods in Global Environmental Governance
In the field of global environmental governance， an important practical issue is that of public goods supply. China has the capacity and willingness of supplying public goods for global environmental governance. As the world’s largest developing country， its largest trading nation， its largest foreign currency reserves holder， and its second largest economy， China is capable of supplying more quality global public goods， and also willing to supply public goods for regional and global development.
The vision of a community with a shared future for mankind is a global governance approach China contributes to the world. Global environmental governance is not simply an economic issue but an important political issue as well. The vision of constructing a community with a shared future for mankind is a product for the tide and times against the backdrop of increasingly grim global issues. In February 2017， China’s vision of “building a community with a shared future for mankind” was written into the outcome document of the 55th Session of the UN Commission for Social Development， entering into the UN Security Council resolution for the first time in March of the same year. Bearing the value torch for resolving global issues， the vision of a community with a shared future for mankind is not only a guiding thought for handling state-to-state relations but also a Chinese approach to global environmental governance. The vision of a community with a shared future for mankind includes the thinking that mankind should respect non-human life and respect inanimate objects， which is precisely the link between a community with a shared future for mankind and global environmental governance. IV. Practitioner in Promoting Global Green Development
China raises the construction of ecological civilization to the strategic level of national development. Not only has it achieved remarkable results in domestic green governance， it is also engaged in building platforms for international cooperation， developing multilateral mechanisms for green development， and helping other developing countries to take the road of green development. China attaches great importance to ecological protection on the Belt and Road， not only issuing several plans， guidelines， and implementation opinions for green Belt and Road construction， but also initiating the International Coalition for Green Development on the Belt and Road， and taking green for the base color in promoting green infrastructure development， investment and financing. It continues to enhance environmental risk management for financial institutions， creating green Belt and Road projects. The proportion of renewable energy investment in Chinese investment in energy areas in Belt and Road countries gradually increases. According to statistics of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research （AEI）， in the first half of 2020， the proportion of Chinese investment in renewable energy in Belt and Road countries surpassed that in fossil energy. By concrete actions， China has taken up the responsibilities of a major global player in leading global environmental governance.
Li Shuyun is Vice-President of Liaoning University and Professor at Center for Transitional Countries Economic Political Studies and School of International Economics and International Relations， Liaoning University
Environmental Degradation Conversely Forces Institutional Construction of Global Environmental Governance
Environmental degradation is a gradual process and environmental governance is a delayed action against environmental degradation. It is under the circumstances that spontaneous actions cannot resist the speed of environmental degradation that institutional construction of global environmental governance takes place， as an important form in regulating actors in international relations global wise with binding principles， rules and procedures.
I. Environmental Degradation Wakes Mankind’s Consciousness of Environmental Protection
Mankind have only one planet， which is the shared home of all mankind and all lives in nature. Since the ancient era， mankind have had a profound understanding of nature. Chinese and foreign thinkers such as Guan Zhong （about 723-645 BCE）， a statesman of the State of Qi in China’s Spring and Autumn period， and British economist Thomas Robert Malthus （1766-1834） put forward propositions to protect nature as far back as long ago. Though mankind came to see the importance of protecting nature back in the era of agricultural civilization， not until the middle of the 20th century did they truly realize the importance of the environmental issue. In 1952， London was shrouded with industrial pollutants， ringing the warning bell to mankind for the environmental issue accumulated since the industrial revolution began. In 1962， American scholar Rachel Carson cried out in her book Silent Spring that the results of environmental degradation are too heavy for mankind to bear. In 1972， the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held， pressing the start button for global environmental protection. II. International Mechanisms Enable Global Environmental Governance
International mechanisms are referred to as a whole set of explicit or implicit principles， norms， rules and procedures for decision making that are arrived at by convergence of willing actors of international relations in a given area. In June 1972， the first UN Conference on the Human Environment was convened in Stockholm， capital of Sweden， which adopted the UN Declaration of the Human Environment， which was the first global declaration for environmental protection in human history. However， not until the 1990s did the international mechanisms in the area of environmental protection in the true sense of the word come about. In June 1992， the UN Conference on Environment and Development was held in Rio de Janeiro， capital of Brazil， which adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change （UNFCCC） coming as a milestone development and giving birth to international rules of global climate governance， an important part of environmental governance. The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” established in the UNFCCC has become an international norm generally followed by the international community with the UN as its core.
The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” is the core content of the Kyoto Protocol， which is a “polluters pay” responsibility mechanism pinpointed to environmental damage caused by developed countries in the process of industrialization， underlining the importance of international mechanisms in global environmental governance. The Kyoto Protocol takes joint implementation （JI）， clean development mechanism （CDM）， and emission trading （ET） for the core， setting the Kyoto mechanism where mandatory emission reduction and exemption coexist as the institutional basis of the global climate governance system. Not only does the Kyoto mechanism provide the institutional guarantee for the implementation of the ultimate goals of the UNFCCC， it also signified the formation of a “top down” model of global environmental governance.
III. “Kyoto Dilemma” Changes Global Environmental Governance Model
As the Kyoto Protocol set mandatory emission reduction goals and timetable only for developed countries without making binding requirements for developing countries， it caused discontent in some of the developed countries. The US and Canada successively withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 and 2011， which resulted in the “Kyoto dilemma” in implementing the mechanism of mandatory emission reduction while exempting Southern countries. In 2011， the 7th Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol （MOP7） was forced to announce that the double track negotiation mechanism in total would come to an end by the end of 2012. The global environmental governance mechanisms could not but be readjusted. In order to achieve the goals of the UNFCCC， the 21st UN Conference on Climate Change， the 21st Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC （COP21） and concurrently serving as the 11th Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol （MOP11） was held in Paris in 2015. The Paris Conference adopted the Paris Agreement， which made major readjustment to the “Kyoto model”， establishing a “bottom up” emission reduction model， emphasizing that from 2020 on the global climate change governance system was to take the “intended nationally determined contributions” for its core， setting 1.5 degree Celsius as temperature control target， and taking inventory mechanism for renewal mechanism. As such the “top down” model of mandatory emission reduction was replaced by the “bottom up” model of intended nationally determined contributions.
From 1992 when the UNFCCC was concluded to 2021 when the 26th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC would take place in Glasgow， the UK， global environmental governance system has continued to move torwards maturity through clashes and contests， becoming the foundation for global governance to transform into green governance. The practice of global environmental governance reflects such a pattern that， to achieve global governance in the international community in lack of central authority， the truly viable way can only be reliance on a set of global institutional system sanctioned by the whole mankind and binding for citizens of all countries.
International Mechanisms Improve the Performance of Global Environmental Governance
Global governance is to achieve common goals and resolve common issues through making and implementing global or transnational norms， principles， programs and policies， governance mechanisms being the core of five elements in the theory of global governance. Effective international mechanisms facilitate global governance， which in turn depends on international mechanisms for playing an important role. The performance of global environmental governance becomes more outstanding as governance mechanisms improve.
I. Effective International Mechanisms Promote the Process of Global Environmental Governance
In the area of global climate governance， the effectiveness of international mechanisms is referred to if the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement have or have not reached the anticipated goals and achieved due results on the level of shaping or affecting countries in making and implementing emission reduction measures. Some of the scholars believe that from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement， their legal binding force underwent a process from being hard to being soft. By putting developed participating countries under mandatory emission reduction， the Kyoto Protocol created a compliance mechanism. By adopting intended nationally determined contributions for all countries， the Paris Agreement put in place a performance mechanism. Some scholars categorize the Kyoto Protocol as hard law and， the Paris Agreement， as soft law. In fact， the latter is more readily acceptable than the former. The time difference from conclusion to coming into force of either of the two instruments is more telling.
Comparatively speaking， the Paris Agreement gives participating parties more independence through the bottom up emission reduction mechanism featuring intended nationally determined contributions， and its inventory mechanism on a five-year cycle also gives room for participating parties to independently readjust emission reduction targets according to their national conditions. As another milestone legal instrument following the Kyoto Protocol， not only is the Paris Agreement effective with maximum inclusiveness for all parties and concerns of their core interests， it has also broken the logjam in global environmental governance， making all parties full of anticipations in the post performance 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and development prospects of zero carbon emission.
II. Constraining Role of International Mechanisms Reshapes Countries’ Governance Conduct
International mechanisms play an outstanding constraining role in global environmental governance. As the whole world came to see the great harm of climate change， it was the rational choice for countries to maximize their interests within the framework of the UNFCCC. In less than a year， the Paris Agreement reached by 195 countries came into force， becoming one of the international treaties with the most participating parties and came into force the fastest in history， fully attesting to the fact that the Paris Agreement has become the code of conduct universally accepted and sanctioned by all parties. By adopting the principle of “intended nationally determined contributions”， the Paris Agreement gives full considerations to national interests of all parties whereas participating countries should consider if the ultimate goals can be achieved when determining their emission reduction targets， and they can also use the five-year inventory mechanism to make adjustments according to their national conditions. All of the above underlines the role of global environmental governance mechanisms in reshaping and constraining participating countries in global governance. On the watch of President Trump， the US， under the sway of protectionism and isolationism， withdrew from a series of international mechanisms including the Paris Agreement. However， the constraining role has made the US Government mindful of the fact that should it wish to play any role in global climate governance and seek the maximization of its national interests， it cannot but return to the global climate governance system. Soon after assuming office， President Biden corrected Trump’s erroneous decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement， the reentry into the Agreement being among the first orders he signed as US President. Not only that， the US convened a global climate summit through video link between April 22 and 23， 2021， inviting leaders of 38 countries， and aiming to emphasize common action across the globe in dealing with the urgency of climate change. Biden committed the US to cut back on carbon emission by 52% by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The withdrawal and reentry into the Paris Agreement by the US Government reflected the constraining role of international mechanisms in training and reshaping countries’ conduct and also illustrated the importance of international mechanisms in global environmental governance.
III. Fragmentation of International Mechanisms Makes Up for the Shortfalls of Institutional Inadequacy
“Fragmentation” is referred to diversity and challenges that continue to crop up in coordinating public and private norms， treaties and organizations in a given area of international relations， the concept being introduced from international law to the areas of international relations and global governance. The environmental issue is both technical and policy oriented in essence， pertaining to both systemic and public， and its nature determines that the environmental issue is neither a purely technical one nor a purely economic and social one， but one of mutual adaptation and governance between human society and natural environment. The Club of Rome is of the opinion that the challenges in face of industrial civilization are interlinked and have synergy effect. This makes global environmental governance more in need of fragmentation mechanism to make up for the inadequacy of existing mechanisms.
Global environmental governance that began in the 1990s has evolved into global political activities from its original focus on engineering technicality and end governance of prevention and management of pollution， great changes happening to principal actors， models and mechanisms of governance. Not any country or any mechanism alone can resolve all of the environmental issues. As principal actors of governance pluralize， levels of governance diversify， mechanisms of governance proliferate， the phenomenon of fragmentation of global environmental governance mechanisms becomes increasingly outstanding. Although fragmentation of environmental governance mechanisms increases the complicity of the environmental issue， it meets the requirements of plurality of principal actors and diversity of structure of global environmental governance， and thereby improves the performance of global environmental governance mechanisms. At present， an outstanding problem that exists in the area of global environmental governance is insufficient institutional supply. On the one hand， the existing institutions are less than effective， and on the other， some of the areas lack effective institutions. The environmental issue is a complex system engineering project， involving many areas， covering a large scale， and being difficult for governance. As agenda for global environmental governance falls into various areas， in the process of systemic governance it is possible for a country or a bloc of countries to join several or a dozen of international organizations at the same time， the issue of mechanism fragmentation cropping up. However， fragmented mechanisms caused by system partition can improve governance performance through collaborative arrangements.
Evolution of China’s Role in Global Environmental Governance
Since the 1990s， China’s role in global environmental governance has evolved in a process from passive participation to active contributions to active leading， continuing to deepen its level of participation and playing an increasingly important role.
I. From Passive Participation to Vigorous Action under the Principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities”
In the early days of global environmental governance， the role orientation of a country could be measured in two aspects， first， conditions of participation in global environmental governance through international mechanisms; and second， conditions of compliance with norms and constraints of international mechanisms. Measured by this yardstick， going by the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”， China passively participated in global governance mechanisms but was unable to express its subjective will. The institutional design of the Kyoto Protocol was led by developed countries， its principal participants also being developed countries without requesting the participation of developing countries. As a developing country， China was excluded from the making of rules， unable to play an active role.
II. Mover and Leader under the Principle of “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions”
The Paris Conference of 2015， the 21st conference of parties to the UNFCCC （COP21） was another milestone conference in the process of global climate governance following the Kyoto Conference. China did a lot of work for the Paris Agreement to be concluded and take effect， taking up its responsibilities as a major global player to act as a promoter， contributor and leader of global climate governance. To push for results in multilateral negotiations on climate change， China exchanged in-depth views and reached consensus with the US， Europe， India and Pakistan on results of the Paris Conference and major issues in the negotiations before the convocation of the Conference， explicitly putting forward concrete indicators for “intended nationally determined contributions” between 2020 and 2030， becoming the only developing country in the world to pledge the targeted year for carbon emission peaking， by which it played an exemplary leading role as a developing country.
Since the Paris Conference， drastic changes have happened to the international situation. In global environmental governance， as the governance will and capacity of traditional major countries is on the decrease， the pattern of global climate governance has changed， leading to the absence of leadership in global environmental governance and resulting in the dilemma of environmental governance deficit and governance failure. In contrast， China， as a representative of the emerging markets， rides on the tide and takes up responsibilities in the process of global climate governance， and its capacity and will of participating in international affairs is on the rise， underscoring its role as a torchbearer in global climate governance. It states explicitly that “China will continue to play its part as a major and responsible country， take an active part in reforming and developing the global governance system， and keep contributing Chinese wisdom and strength to global governance.” “Taking a driving seat in international cooperation to respond to climate change， China has become an important participant， contributor， and torchbearer in the global endeavor for ecological civilization.”
III. Provider of Public Goods in Global Environmental Governance
In the field of global environmental governance， an important practical issue is that of public goods supply. China has the capacity and willingness of supplying public goods for global environmental governance. As the world’s largest developing country， its largest trading nation， its largest foreign currency reserves holder， and its second largest economy， China is capable of supplying more quality global public goods， and also willing to supply public goods for regional and global development.
The vision of a community with a shared future for mankind is a global governance approach China contributes to the world. Global environmental governance is not simply an economic issue but an important political issue as well. The vision of constructing a community with a shared future for mankind is a product for the tide and times against the backdrop of increasingly grim global issues. In February 2017， China’s vision of “building a community with a shared future for mankind” was written into the outcome document of the 55th Session of the UN Commission for Social Development， entering into the UN Security Council resolution for the first time in March of the same year. Bearing the value torch for resolving global issues， the vision of a community with a shared future for mankind is not only a guiding thought for handling state-to-state relations but also a Chinese approach to global environmental governance. The vision of a community with a shared future for mankind includes the thinking that mankind should respect non-human life and respect inanimate objects， which is precisely the link between a community with a shared future for mankind and global environmental governance. IV. Practitioner in Promoting Global Green Development
China raises the construction of ecological civilization to the strategic level of national development. Not only has it achieved remarkable results in domestic green governance， it is also engaged in building platforms for international cooperation， developing multilateral mechanisms for green development， and helping other developing countries to take the road of green development. China attaches great importance to ecological protection on the Belt and Road， not only issuing several plans， guidelines， and implementation opinions for green Belt and Road construction， but also initiating the International Coalition for Green Development on the Belt and Road， and taking green for the base color in promoting green infrastructure development， investment and financing. It continues to enhance environmental risk management for financial institutions， creating green Belt and Road projects. The proportion of renewable energy investment in Chinese investment in energy areas in Belt and Road countries gradually increases. According to statistics of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research （AEI）， in the first half of 2020， the proportion of Chinese investment in renewable energy in Belt and Road countries surpassed that in fossil energy. By concrete actions， China has taken up the responsibilities of a major global player in leading global environmental governance.
Li Shuyun is Vice-President of Liaoning University and Professor at Center for Transitional Countries Economic Political Studies and School of International Economics and International Relations， Liaoning University