A Snippet of My Research on Climate Refugees
One of the emerging international security issues that will evolve into a global crisis in the near future is the plight of climate refugees, a group that deserves official status. Climate change is intrinsically linked with resource scarcity which will inevitably result in increased political strife and violent conflicts, challenging the world with large-scale migration crises. The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees defined refugees as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted.”[1] Meaning these people are forced from their homes due to an imminent threat to their lives from persecution based on their identity. Climate refugees are people who are displaced from their homes to due to effects from climate change, such as drought, desertification of farmlands and rising sea levels. The long-term effects of climate change will trigger mass migrations of climate refugees as their arable lands are depleted to the point of becoming unable to sustain adequate crops and livestock, or as the gradual salination of drinking water in low-laying regions forces portions of the population to leave. The UN forecasts that by 2050 there could be between twenty-five million to one billion environmental migrants.[2] Despite the dire projections, climate refugees are not a recognized group under the 1951 Refugee Convention because although there is an existential threat to their lives, it is not due to persecution based on their identity.
There are a couple of options for solving this transnational security crisis. The more complicated but beneficial method is by reducing or reversing the effects of climate change. This can be accomplished through international cooperation in binding multilateral climate treaties. One of the largest issues with international climate agreements like the Paris Accords is there is little accountability for infractions because they voluntary treaties and not legally binding. The remedy for this would be for the UN security council to pass it, as all UNSC decisions are binding, but this would be extremely difficult as China threatens to veto any environmentally conscious treaties. However, given the damage already caused by climate change and the long road ahead for the international community to enact binding treaties to permanently address the causes, we cannot wait on UNSC action before proactively developing specific solutions to the coming climate refugee crises.
To specifically target the climate refugee demographic, the UN must adopt a legal classification for this group in order to compel states to provide asylum. Currently the UNHCR has danced around this issue as seen in the Teitiota case. In 2007, Ioane Teitiota and his wife left Kiribati for New Zealand, where they lived as illegal immigrants until 2013. New Zealand wanted to repatriate them back to their island nation, but Teitiota applied for asylum as a climate refugee. His argument was that he qualified as a refugee because he was fleeing from the effects of climate change on his island farmland, where the contamination of freshwater sources by rising sea levels was putting his livelihood at risk. In 2015 New Zealand denied Teitiota’s case for asylum and he appealed it to the UN. The UN found that Teitiota’s case does not apply under the Refugee Convention without reasons of persecution, and upheld New Zealand’s decision.[3] Although they did note that it would be a human rights violation to repatriate migrants to an area where climate change posed an imminent threat, it is a dangerous precedent for the UN to uphold New Zealand’s decision. The UN must establish a legal classification for climate refugees that forces states to allow asylum due to environmental reasons.
[1] Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, UNHCR (1951), 14, https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/3b66c2aa10.
[2] Bassetti, Francesco, “Environmental Migrants: Up to 1 Billion by 2050,” Foresight: The CMCC observatory on climate policies and futures, May 22, 2019, https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations-inequalities/environmental-migrants-up-to-1-billion-by-2050/.
[3] “UN Human Rights Committee decision on climate change is a wake-up call, according to UNHCR,” UNHCR, 24 January, 2020, https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/briefing/2020/1/5e2ab8ae4/un-human-rights-committee-decision-climate-change-wake-up-call-according.html
There are a couple of options for solving this transnational security crisis. The more complicated but beneficial method is by reducing or reversing the effects of climate change. This can be accomplished through international cooperation in binding multilateral climate treaties. One of the largest issues with international climate agreements like the Paris Accords is there is little accountability for infractions because they voluntary treaties and not legally binding. The remedy for this would be for the UN security council to pass it, as all UNSC decisions are binding, but this would be extremely difficult as China threatens to veto any environmentally conscious treaties. However, given the damage already caused by climate change and the long road ahead for the international community to enact binding treaties to permanently address the causes, we cannot wait on UNSC action before proactively developing specific solutions to the coming climate refugee crises.
To specifically target the climate refugee demographic, the UN must adopt a legal classification for this group in order to compel states to provide asylum. Currently the UNHCR has danced around this issue as seen in the Teitiota case. In 2007, Ioane Teitiota and his wife left Kiribati for New Zealand, where they lived as illegal immigrants until 2013. New Zealand wanted to repatriate them back to their island nation, but Teitiota applied for asylum as a climate refugee. His argument was that he qualified as a refugee because he was fleeing from the effects of climate change on his island farmland, where the contamination of freshwater sources by rising sea levels was putting his livelihood at risk. In 2015 New Zealand denied Teitiota’s case for asylum and he appealed it to the UN. The UN found that Teitiota’s case does not apply under the Refugee Convention without reasons of persecution, and upheld New Zealand’s decision.[3] Although they did note that it would be a human rights violation to repatriate migrants to an area where climate change posed an imminent threat, it is a dangerous precedent for the UN to uphold New Zealand’s decision. The UN must establish a legal classification for climate refugees that forces states to allow asylum due to environmental reasons.
[1] Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, UNHCR (1951), 14, https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/3b66c2aa10.
[2] Bassetti, Francesco, “Environmental Migrants: Up to 1 Billion by 2050,” Foresight: The CMCC observatory on climate policies and futures, May 22, 2019, https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations-inequalities/environmental-migrants-up-to-1-billion-by-2050/.
[3] “UN Human Rights Committee decision on climate change is a wake-up call, according to UNHCR,” UNHCR, 24 January, 2020, https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/briefing/2020/1/5e2ab8ae4/un-human-rights-committee-decision-climate-change-wake-up-call-according.html