Climate change is causing extreme and unbearable conditions in many parts of the world. The worsening problem has sparked debate about classifying and protecting climate migrants under international law. Climate migrants, referred to as “the world’s forgotten victims,” are those most affected by the adverse effects of climate change. Climate-induced migration is already a reality in the world today due to the occurrence of extreme events such as floods and cyclones. According to the Ecological Threats Report (2022), the number of forcibly displaced people has risen to 89.3 million. And according to the World Bank, that number is expected to reach 143 million by 2050. Despite clear scientific evidence linking climate change and migration, the development of the international legal framework has not made substantive progress.
The idea of climate-induced migration entered public discourse in 1985 after UNEP expert Essam El-Hinnawi coined the term “environmental refugees” to refer to individuals forced to leave their home countries due to severe environmental degradation. In particular, the lack of consensus on solving the problem is particularly noticeable, with various terms such as ‘climate refugee’, ‘climate migrant’, and ‘environmental migrant’ being used interchangeably. This article will focus on the multifaceted development of international legal instruments and their effectiveness in addressing climate-induced migration. Second, it is a way of assessing the problems and the mechanisms that various governments around the world are implementing in response to them.
The term ‘climate-induced migration’ is relatively new and is therefore not subject to international refugee law. Climate migrants have some basic rights under the current international legal regime, but they lack essential protection mechanisms. For example, the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 proposal broadly provide for the human rights of people fleeing persecution or violence. For three main reasons, refugees from climate change are not protected under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
- Climate-related causes are not covered by the convention, which limits refugee status to people persecuted for specific reasons such as race, religion, nationality or political opinions.
- The Convention requires that persecution be carried out by human actors, either state or non-state actors.
- Although most climate-related migration occurs internally within a person’s country, the Convention stipulates that refugees must be outside their country of residence to receive protection.
Therefore, the current international legal system must have the capacity to handle complex climate refugee cases.
Although several UN agencies have attempted to address the issue of climate migrants, only multilateral agreements and resolutions made by the UN Security Council have the power to create binding international law. For example, despite acknowledging the need to protect climate migrants in a non-binding resolution, the United Nations General Assembly has not put forth any concrete policy proposals. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has set up a division to address issues related to migration, the environment and climate change, but it needs help generating support for a new binding agreement. Additionally, the United Nations Human Rights Organization (UNHRC) uses the term ‘environmental migrants’ rather than climate refugees. UNHRC says the term refugee is ‘misleading’ as it implies migration between countries, but in the case of climate change, displacement is mainly internal.
Taking all this into account, climate litigation has emerged as a vehicle for climate migrants in various countries. The international legal framework of “non-refoulement” provides an encouraging path for climate migrants. For example, in Ionae Teitiota v. New Zealand, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) acknowledged that the principle of non-refoulement may apply. The applicant’s claim was rejected with UNHRC holding that he did not face an immediate threat to his life. Nevertheless, this ruling recognizes that forcibly repatriating people whose lives are at risk due to the effects of climate change may violate the right to life under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In 2021, a French court recognized the country’s first environmental impact migrant from Bangladesh. A French court ruled it was unsafe to send the men back to their home country due to air pollution. It is not yet known whether this ruling will have a ripple effect in other European countries. But this case could encourage governments and courts to systematically deal with climate migration cases.
As climate change continues to deepen, countries around the world are beginning to address the looming crisis of climate-induced migration. Australia and Tuvalu signed the world’s first refugee treaty. Under this agreement, citizens of Tuvalu, a country on the verge of being submerged and adversely affected by climate change, are allowed to enter Australia. In the agreement, known as the Falepili Union Treaty, Australia committed to implementing migration routes to help Tuvalu’s population amid the threat of rising sea levels. As climate change intensifies, the role of agreements such as the Australia-Tuvalu agreement becomes more important.
The United States also expressed a positive stance on this issue. The United States has entered into bilateral treaties with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau, granting the citizens of these countries the unique status of “legal non-immigrants.” The Compact of Free Association (COFA) also allows Marshallese citizens to live and work freely in the United States. Finally, the European Union recognizes climate change as an important driver of migration, as highlighted in the European Green Deal and various reports. In several reports, the EU has identified the problem of climate-induced migration, but there is still no standard definition of the term climate refugee. This lack of definition brings consistency in the approach of EU member states.
The international community’s response to climate-related migration must be more cohesive and relevant. The urgency of climate-related migration and the need for solutions cannot be overemphasized. Despite clear scientific research linking climate change and forced migration, existing international systems fail to protect those affected. It is important to recognize climate-induced migration as a human rights issue and emphasize the need for a rights-based approach.
While individual measures are being taken through climate litigation and bilateral agreements between countries, the international community’s response is slow. Despite the adoption of several frameworks, such as the Cancun Adaptation Framework (2010) and the Nansen Initiative (2012), the realities evidenced by court cases and increased migration call for stronger action. Without comprehensive reform of international law, the world risks worsening humanitarian crises.
Moreover, over time, the international community may feel increasing pressure to break away from the status quo. This could include amending the 1951 Refugee Convention to include climate refugees or a new international treaty for climate migrants and their rights. It is also important to understand that climate litigation has its limits and is not a panacea for protecting climate migrants. However, its use remains an important step in implementing a climate protection regime.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
