State identity and political orientation in climate-ocean governance: a comparative analysis of written statements on the ITLOS Advisory Opinion No.31

Climate change has posed significant global challenges, with multilateral mechanisms proving inefficient for small island states. These states thus requested an advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on climaterelated marine obligations, leading to written statements from state parties constructing their positions on the Tribunal’s advisory jurisdiction and climate issues. Drawing on SFL’s affiliation perspective and constructivist theories of state identity integrated with an ecological philosophy of law framework, this study conducts a comparative analysis of written statements submitted by China, Indonesia, and the EU. The findings reveal that China adopts a textualist stance grounded in relevant treaty texts and negotiating history, while the EU employs scientific evidence and evolutionary interpretation, and Indonesia relies on historical argumentation based on original negotiating intentions. Beyond legal arguments, China strategically articulates core political concepts such as ecological civilization, common but differentiated responsibilities, and a community of shared future for humankind to construct its identity as a responsible developing country committed to multilateral cooperation and the South-South solidarity. While China’s legal formalist approach achieves internal coherence, its extensive use of dialogic contraction risks procedural isolation and may undermine its green leadership credibility among vulnerable states. The EU’s evolutionary interpretation aligns with climate justice but faces legitimacy challenges in the Global South due to unilateral measures. While defending institutional order, Indonesia may underestimate the value of advisory opinions as legal relief for small island states (SIDS). Policy implications suggest that revisiting the application conditions of common but differentiated responsibilities and balancing soft law mechanisms with judicial evolution are essential for advancing equitable and effective ocean governance in the context of climate change.