
Local Soil, Global Flavors: Refugee...
Refugees in Erie are working hard on their summer gardens, containing local produce like tomatoes, peppers, and green beans, as...
READ FULL STORYFor a backgrounder on the refugee definition, see “Defining ‘Refugees’—An Exclusionary Legacy.”
The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, amended by the 1967 Protocol (together, the “Refugee Convention”) defines a “refugee” as any person who “owing to 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.”
Climate change and events will increasingly force people to leave their homes. At the end of 2024, 9.8 million people were internally displaced due to ecological disasters. The World Bank predicts that climate change will cause 216 million people to be internally displaced by 2050. Data for climate-induced migration across borders is lacking, but the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) states that 2 billion people will live in countries facing “high or very high levels of ecological threat” by 2050.
Climate can both directly and indirectly cause forcible displacement. In 2019, Cyclone Idai uprooted 87,000 people from their homes in Mozambique, Malawi, and Zimbabwe. Indirectly, climate change and events can be a “push” factor for migrants. In 1816, a volcanic eruption in Indonesia caused crop failures in Germany, which pushed migrants to North America. Climate change can also lead to political instability and a lack of governmental protection—researchers have studied the role of drought in the latest conflict in Syria.
People who are forcibly displaced due to climate often struggle to meet the refugee definition in the Refugee Convention. “Climate refugees” is a term that has been used in international discourse, but it is not yet tied to any legal benefit or obligation. Yet, experts see the increasing need for a protection framework for climate-induced forcible displacement.
The Path to Protection Thus Far
In 2012, the Nansen Initiative was founded by Switzerland and Norway in recognition that climate-induced migrants do not have any assurance of international refugee protection. The Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century drew 230 delegates representing national governments and civil society to discuss climate-induced displacement and potential solutions. Some advocates have pushed for the revival of “Nansen passports” for climate-induced migrants. Such a document would provide climate-induced migrants with a travel document, but the utility of a Nansen passport requires the participation of other nations to accept them.
In 2018, the UN General Assembly endorsed the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (“Global Compact”), a human rights framework for migrants who do not meet the refugee definition. It reaffirmed the need to protect the human rights of all migrants. While it commits to strengthening adaptation strategies to prevent forcible displacement, it also commits to strengthening protection solutions and frameworks. The Global Compact also recognizes the linkages between climate change and poor governance.
Climate-induced migration has also been addressed at international climate change conferences. The Paris Agreement, adopted by 195 countries at COP21, urges nations to consider their human rights obligations to migrants in the face of climate change. Migration has been a discussion topic at many of the UN Climate Change Conferences, but most of the high-level dialogue has been centered on adaptation and cost-sharing responsibilities.
Other Frameworks
Even in the absence of international frameworks, adjudicators have extended protections to climate-induced migrants. Some of these decisions focus on the humanitarian responsibility to protect individuals who would face serious harm if forced to return to a climate-affected area. In Colombia, the Constitutional Court ruled that a lack of specific protection provisions for victims of climate change should not be a barrier to protecting climate-induced internally displaced people.
In Italy, the Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) ordered that a refugee adjudicator cannot ignore claims of instability due to environmental degradation and climate change. The refugee in this case presented evidence of dangerous conditions in the Niger Delta area stemming from unsustainable resource extraction, which allowed the rise of paramilitary groups. The court ruled that the increase of violence caused by environmental degradation, climate change, and resource extraction should have been considered in the analysis of granting humanitarian protection.
In 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee delivered a landmark decision in the case of a refugee applicant from Kiribati. Ioane Teitiota sought refugee status in New Zealand because he feared returning to Kiribati, a Pacific island that is becoming uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. The Committee affirmed that New Zealand had an obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) not to deport or remove an individual to a country where their right to life is at risk (principle of non-refoulement). The Committee also noted that “environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats” to the right to life. While the Committee ultimately did not provide relief to Teitiota, the decision makes clear that countries are bound to follow non-refoulement obligations under the ICCPR when the right to life is endangered due to climate change.
In July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion on the human rights obligation of countries with respect to climate emergencies. The Court stated that countries must maintain regulatory and policy instruments to address forced displacement caused by climate. Countries should prioritize the right to adequate housing and resettlement, as well as the rights of indigenous people to have access to lands of equal quality. The Court also stressed that international, national, and local collaboration are crucial to effective protection of human rights in forced displacement contexts.
Takeaways
Even without an explicit framework providing protection to climate-induced migrants, countries should uphold their legal commitments to the principle of non-refoulement to prevent deportations or forced returns to an environment that risks the right to life. Furthermore, countries should consider strengthening general humanitarian principles by providing protection to climate-induced migrants.
Refugees in Erie are working hard on their summer gardens, containing local produce like tomatoes, peppers, and green beans, as...
READ FULL STORYOn July 7, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced its decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for...
READ FULL STORYThe world is experiencing a debilitating hunger and malnutrition crisis. According to the World Food Programme (WFP), 319 million people...
READ FULL STORY