by Archit Singhvi 20 April 2023
Climate change continues to be one of the most important global problems because it has an impact on people’s lives in both the present and the past. The climate has gotten worse in the modern era, and we are seeing the natural resources that are vital to our existence being eroded as a result. Crops, livestock, and even people battle to survive in climate change “hotspots,” where the situation has gotten so bad that it threatens people’s livelihoods. This is a major factor in the problem of food insecurity. The human race is making great efforts to adapt to the environment, but many people are simultaneously being ejected from their homes as a result of climate change and natural disasters, or are even migrating in order to live. Conflict between communities around the globe has recently been sparked by such displacement patterns and competition over diminishing natural resources. Although we acknowledge that migration is a contemporary occurrence brought on by the exploitative nature of modern man, it is not a phenomenon that is unique to our time. The Atlas of Environmental Migration provides examples of how environmental changes and natural catastrophes affected how the population was dispersed on our planet throughout history, some of which go back as far as 45,000 years.
A completely new category of refugees known as “Climate Refugees” has recently emerged as a consequence of such widespread migrations and displacements. Because of the “hostility of nations, these people who have crossed boundaries due to climate change frequently find themselves in a crisis and are therefore in urgent need of international protection. As a result, refugee legislation is crucial in this situation. Political awareness of the issue of climate refugees has grown, but little has been done in the absence of a long-term solution, aside from agreements like the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the Global Compact for Migration. This paper attempts to explore the root causes of the problem, the gaps in the international community’s collective action, as well as the legal framework governing refugees and their rights in light of the failure of the international community to prioritise finding a solution to this existential crisis of these refugees. Following a comprehensive analysis, suggestions are given for using legal means to work towards a long-term plan of action and make everyone’s future safer”.
International organisations that fight such issues, like UNHCR, are overwhelmed by “the intensity and number of cases, but also, and more importantly, by the lack of funding that is required to address these issues and the continued apathy that the international community continues to display. This is due to the growing threat of climate change and the humanitarian needs that are being associated with it. We can see how the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, which pledge to “leave no one behind,” are egregiously failing in the face of this catastrophe. The “climate refugees and migrants” are also plagued by the problem of their “double predicament”: not only are they forced to leave their homes because of natural disasters and climate change, but they also have very little legal security. As of right now, there is no international treaty that safeguards the rights of temporarily displaced people. However, phrases like “climate refugee” and “environmental migrant” are still not recognised as legal classifications, and as a result, even in the presence of anti-oppression legislation, they are not protected. According to theories, a sustainable plan is needed as soon as possible to help reduce the suffering of climate refugees by assisting them in resettling with dignity. This is due to the enormous effect of climate displacement as well as the absence of any strong legal framework. It is past time for the international community to acknowledge its duties and begin making efforts to give social issues brought on by climate change top priority. In order to address this pressing problem and ensure that no one is left behind to suffer, it must also work towards gathering a full complement of resources”.
Identification and Obligations under International Law: Addressing the Lacunae
The world we live in today paints a picture of every state becoming more and more paranoid about its boundaries and anything that might endanger its national security or sovereignty. Unfortunately, all migrants and refugees are viewed as possible security threats, and the situation is even worse when it comes to unclassified refugees like “climate refugees.” People who choose to migrate under the pretext of climatic reasons would do so with little to no legal protection due to the steadily worsening climate patterns, a variety of severe weather catastrophes, and an unprecedented worldwide rise in human mobility. The current international legal framework is in no way adequate to safeguard the fundamental rights of climate migrants. All of this is due to the lack of any legally binding agreements that could compel ratifying nations to provide aid to climate refugees and abstain from torturing them. As a result, changing international law to first recognise climate refugees as a unique category of refugees and then forcing member states to provide for their protection should be the first significant move towards ensuring a better and more hospitable future for them.
In its current state, international law only covers political refugees—those who are escaping persecution—and does not apply to those who are displaced due to climate change. The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees defines a refugee as a person” owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”.
There is currently no legal framework that specifically defines and governs any “climate refugees,” but if we go by the definition of internal displacement under the UN Guiding Principles and the Kampala Convention, “they consider them under wider ambits and cover those who are fleeing situations of generalised violence and natural or human-made disasters. Sadako Ogata, a former High Commissioner for Refugees, even went so far as to call the term “environmental refugee” a misnomer. Even the UN agency in charge of refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), refused to acknowledge that climate refugees needed to be recognised as a distinct category needing protection”. This legal gap is very concerning for the community in light of the accounts that demonstrate the enormous number of refugees who have been displaced as a result of climate change.
Reforming the Current Stand of Law: Analysis
As of now, the best option available to the Climate refugees under the International law is the non-refoulement principle. “Under this principle, a country is prevented from expelling or returning (‘refouler’) a person, if doing so would send the person back to certain dangers (“persecution, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”). The best implementation of this non-refoulement principle can be seen in the 1951 Refugee Convention’s Article 33 which says that no Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. It also is within certain human rights treaties, or has been understood as applicable to them. It is now generally accepted as a principle of customary international law. Existing laws of different countries and the present judicial mind-set makes it difficult for climate refugees who use the non-refoulement principle to argue that they cannot be expelled from the country to which they have relocated. Climate change is not likely to pose harms dangerous enough for people to make use of the principle, and even if climate refugees were able to make successful non-refoulement claims, the principle only protects them from expulsion, but the problem is that it does not grant them the right of permanent residency in a country, which in most of the cases is their primary concern and in absence of which they still continue to remain as vulnerable as they were back then”. However, the recent judgment in the case of Teitiota v. New Zealand has come as a welcome relief by providing the opportunity for climate refugees to be protected from deportation if essential human rights would be at risk on return.
“Therefore, the parties should undertake measures “to protect environmentally-displaced persons in conformity with human rights law guaranteed by international law and to ensure the full exercise of those rights specifically set forth by the present text.” The draft tries to bring under its ambit both internal and cross border displacement. While implementing this seems to be the best move, we could make towards environmentally displaced persons including climate refugees, confining the definition to “sudden or gradual environmental disasters” is very restrictive in sense. Though, these principles are aimed at recognising that climate displacement as a matter of global responsibility and advocating states action and the right to seek assistance from other states and relevant international agencies. What’s disturbing is the non-addressal of the elephant in the room – cross-border displacement due to climate change, which is occurring and is likely to keep on taking place in large numbers”.
Climate change, as already reported many times by scientific organizations, has the potential to disrupt human lifestyle on unimaginable scales. “The present state of affairs and the daily growth in industrialization as well as globalization will only accelerate this menace. Also, as long as the international community continues to dillydally in the face of its greenhouse gas emissions, relief is but a far-fetched dream. While it’s indeed true that this poses a significant upheaval on the future of the human race, it is the world’s low-lying island nations, areas on verge of desertification, etc. who are at the immediate risk of suffering the ultimate price. Wealthy, industrialized countries are the ones most responsible, and therefore, the ones who carry the moral and ethical obligation to protect the victims of climate change”. Without the necessary action, the international community will have failed their fellow man and the very planet itself.
Climate change continues to be one of the most important global problems because it has an impact on people’s lives in both the present and the past. The climate has gotten worse in the modern era, and we are seeing the natural resources that are vital to our existence being eroded as a result. Crops, livestock, and even people battle to survive in climate change “hotspots,” where the situation has gotten so bad that it threatens people’s livelihoods. This is a major factor in the problem of food insecurity. The human race is making great efforts to adapt to the environment, but many people are simultaneously being ejected from their homes as a result of climate change and natural disasters, or are even migrating in order to live. Conflict between communities around the globe has recently been sparked by such displacement patterns and competition over diminishing natural resources. Although we acknowledge that migration is a contemporary occurrence brought on by the exploitative nature of modern man, it is not a phenomenon that is unique to our time. The Atlas of Environmental Migration provides examples of how environmental changes and natural catastrophes affected how the population was dispersed on our planet throughout history, some of which go back as far as 45,000 years.
A completely new category of refugees known as “Climate Refugees” has recently emerged as a consequence of such widespread migrations and displacements. Because of the “hostility of nations, these people who have crossed boundaries due to climate change frequently find themselves in a crisis and are therefore in urgent need of international protection. As a result, refugee legislation is crucial in this situation. Political awareness of the issue of climate refugees has grown, but little has been done in the absence of a long-term solution, aside from agreements like the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the Global Compact for Migration. This paper attempts to explore the root causes of the problem, the gaps in the international community’s collective action, as well as the legal framework governing refugees and their rights in light of the failure of the international community to prioritise finding a solution to this existential crisis of these refugees. Following a comprehensive analysis, suggestions are given for using legal means to work towards a long-term plan of action and make everyone’s future safer”.
International organisations that fight such issues, like UNHCR, are overwhelmed by “the intensity and number of cases, but also, and more importantly, by the lack of funding that is required to address these issues and the continued apathy that the international community continues to display. This is due to the growing threat of climate change and the humanitarian needs that are being associated with it. We can see how the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, which pledge to “leave no one behind,” are egregiously failing in the face of this catastrophe. The “climate refugees and migrants” are also plagued by the problem of their “double predicament”: not only are they forced to leave their homes because of natural disasters and climate change, but they also have very little legal security. As of right now, there is no international treaty that safeguards the rights of temporarily displaced people. However, phrases like “climate refugee” and “environmental migrant” are still not recognised as legal classifications, and as a result, even in the presence of anti-oppression legislation, they are not protected. According to theories, a sustainable plan is needed as soon as possible to help reduce the suffering of climate refugees by assisting them in resettling with dignity. This is due to the enormous effect of climate displacement as well as the absence of any strong legal framework. It is past time for the international community to acknowledge its duties and begin making efforts to give social issues brought on by climate change top priority. In order to address this pressing problem and ensure that no one is left behind to suffer, it must also work towards gathering a full complement of resources”.
Identification and Obligations under International Law: Addressing the Lacunae
The world we live in today paints a picture of every state becoming more and more paranoid about its boundaries and anything that might endanger its national security or sovereignty. Unfortunately, all migrants and refugees are viewed as possible security threats, and the situation is even worse when it comes to unclassified refugees like “climate refugees.” People who choose to migrate under the pretext of climatic reasons would do so with little to no legal protection due to the steadily worsening climate patterns, a variety of severe weather catastrophes, and an unprecedented worldwide rise in human mobility. The current international legal framework is in no way adequate to safeguard the fundamental rights of climate migrants. All of this is due to the lack of any legally binding agreements that could compel ratifying nations to provide aid to climate refugees and abstain from torturing them. As a result, changing international law to first recognise climate refugees as a unique category of refugees and then forcing member states to provide for their protection should be the first significant move towards ensuring a better and more hospitable future for them.
In its current state, international law only covers political refugees—those who are escaping persecution—and does not apply to those who are displaced due to climate change. The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees defines a refugee as a person” owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”.
There is currently no legal framework that specifically defines and governs any “climate refugees,” but if we go by the definition of internal displacement under the UN Guiding Principles and the Kampala Convention, “they consider them under wider ambits and cover those who are fleeing situations of generalised violence and natural or human-made disasters. Sadako Ogata, a former High Commissioner for Refugees, even went so far as to call the term “environmental refugee” a misnomer. Even the UN agency in charge of refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), refused to acknowledge that climate refugees needed to be recognised as a distinct category needing protection”. This legal gap is very concerning for the community in light of the accounts that demonstrate the enormous number of refugees who have been displaced as a result of climate change.
Reforming the Current Stand of Law: Analysis
As of now, the best option available to the Climate refugees under the International law is the non-refoulement principle. “Under this principle, a country is prevented from expelling or returning (‘refouler’) a person, if doing so would send the person back to certain dangers (“persecution, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”). The best implementation of this non-refoulement principle can be seen in the 1951 Refugee Convention’s Article 33 which says that no Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. It also is within certain human rights treaties, or has been understood as applicable to them. It is now generally accepted as a principle of customary international law. Existing laws of different countries and the present judicial mind-set makes it difficult for climate refugees who use the non-refoulement principle to argue that they cannot be expelled from the country to which they have relocated. Climate change is not likely to pose harms dangerous enough for people to make use of the principle, and even if climate refugees were able to make successful non-refoulement claims, the principle only protects them from expulsion, but the problem is that it does not grant them the right of permanent residency in a country, which in most of the cases is their primary concern and in absence of which they still continue to remain as vulnerable as they were back then”. However, the recent judgment in the case of Teitiota v. New Zealand has come as a welcome relief by providing the opportunity for climate refugees to be protected from deportation if essential human rights would be at risk on return.
“Therefore, the parties should undertake measures “to protect environmentally-displaced persons in conformity with human rights law guaranteed by international law and to ensure the full exercise of those rights specifically set forth by the present text.” The draft tries to bring under its ambit both internal and cross border displacement. While implementing this seems to be the best move, we could make towards environmentally displaced persons including climate refugees, confining the definition to “sudden or gradual environmental disasters” is very restrictive in sense. Though, these principles are aimed at recognising that climate displacement as a matter of global responsibility and advocating states action and the right to seek assistance from other states and relevant international agencies. What’s disturbing is the non-addressal of the elephant in the room – cross-border displacement due to climate change, which is occurring and is likely to keep on taking place in large numbers”.
Climate change, as already reported many times by scientific organizations, has the potential to disrupt human lifestyle on unimaginable scales. “The present state of affairs and the daily growth in industrialization as well as globalization will only accelerate this menace. Also, as long as the international community continues to dillydally in the face of its greenhouse gas emissions, relief is but a far-fetched dream. While it’s indeed true that this poses a significant upheaval on the future of the human race, it is the world’s low-lying island nations, areas on verge of desertification, etc. who are at the immediate risk of suffering the ultimate price. Wealthy, industrialized countries are the ones most responsible, and therefore, the ones who carry the moral and ethical obligation to protect the victims of climate change”. Without the necessary action, the international community will have failed their fellow man and the very planet itself.