中文摘要：

2015年9月《中美元首气候变化联合声明》宣布中国将于2017年启动全国性碳排放交易体系以来，中国碳市场的筹建及7大试点的运行备受国内外媒体和学术界的关注。相关预测显示，中国碳市场届时将一举超过目前全球最大的欧盟碳排放交易体系EUETS成为世界第一大碳交易市场，但由于7个试点运行时间较短、试点地区重视程度以及建设侧重点不统一等原因．目前中国碳市场存在着监管机构职责不清、监管体系不健全、监管政策不到位等一系列问题。本研究从监管机构、监管政策、技术支持平台、监管内窖等方面梳理和分析了中国7个试点碳市场的监管体系．并将其与EUETS、RGGI等国际上发展较为成熟的碳市场监管体系进行了对比分析后发现：①在监管手段方面。EUETS与RGGI均侧重于依靠法律手段，而中国碳市场的监管手段则主要以地方性规范文件为主；②在监管机构职能方面，EUETS的二级管理体系有效划分了监管范畴，保证了各级监管力度。RGGI的第三方独立监管模式则很好的保证了监管的公平性。充分发挥了碳市场事中监管作用．而中国碳市场则主要依赖于地方发改委来进行监管，存在职责划分不朋晰等问题；③在监管重心方面．EUETS侧重于对市场运行中的操作性风险和交易性风险进行防范。RGGI则更加关注交易风险的实时腋控。而中国碳市场目前主要针对市场价格波动风险进行了防范。由此对中国即将建立的全国性碳市场监管机制设计提出了如下建议：①提高碳市场立法效力，完善监管政策体系；②平衡监管权力，成立专职监管机构；③加强过程监管，完善电子平台安全建设；④加大碳市场信息披露力度。鼓励公众及行业协会参与，形成外部监督机制。

英文摘要：

Since China declared its plan to establish a national Carbon Trading System by 2017 in the US-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change published in September 2015, the progress of setting up the national carbon trading system and how the 7 pilot schemes operate aroused strong interests of not only the media but also the academics. According to forecast, China＇ s carbon trading system will surpass the current largest carbon market EU ETS and become the number 1 carbon market worldwide. However, due to rather short history, different degrees of significance and different focuses of development been given to the 7 regional pilot carbon markets, China＇ s carbon market presents a series of problems at the moment, including unclear responsibilities of regulatory bodies, unsound regulatory system, and regulatory policy not in place. Therefore, this study attempts to analyze the regulatory systems of 7 regional pilot markets from the prospects of regulatory bodies, regulatory policies, technical support systems and regulatory contents, after comparison with the relatively more advanced international counterparts such as EU ETS and RGGI, the study found that： （1）in terms of regulatory measures, EU ETS and RGGI rely on legal control while Chinese ETS is still regulated by local governmental policy documents ;（2）as for the function of regulatory bodies, EU ETS＇ two-level management system effectively differentiates each level＇ s scope and range of responsibilities, RGGI also ensures its fairness and in-process control via its independent third party regulatory model, while Chinese regional ETS is solely regulated by the Development and Reform Commission whose responsibilities are not defined clearly; （3）with respect to the regulatory focus, EU ETS pays great attention to the operational and transactional risks control, RGGI cares more on real-time monitoring of transactional risks, while China so far focuses on market price fluctuation risk prevention. Based on which, the study proposes a few recomme