Climate change acts as a threat multiplier, interacting with conflict, hunger, poverty, and persecution, and exacerbating many of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century–– including forced displacement. While the complex interplay between climate and other drivers of migration has forced individuals across borders, the most vulnerable often remain trapped in increasingly dire situations. In September 2021, the World Bank released an updated Groundswell report with a forbidding projection: Without decisive, global action, climate change could drive 216 million people to migrate within their own countries by 2050. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) found that by mid-2024, over 70% of forcibly displaced persons were “living in countries with high-to-extreme exposure to climate-related hazards.” While “most are internally displaced within their home countries,” many more will soon be compelled to cross borders for a better life.
The lack of an adequate international legal regime for climate migrants leaves some of society’s most vulnerable in limbo. An abundance of soft law instruments cannot replace the need for binding legal mechanisms that provide climate migrants with real protection. The time to create a stronger global framework for climate migrants is now. The persons stranded in this gap of international law, waiting between worlds, cannot afford more talk without bold action.
Main Legal Instruments at the Global Level: A Lack of Binding International Law
Contrary to popular belief, climate refugees do not exist under international law. There are four main issues with attempting to create universal, legally binding definitions for climate migrants or climate refugees: (1) differentiating between climate and other factors; (2) establishing whether a given migrant matches a definition; (3) persuading countries to accept a definition and consequences; and (4) persuading a potential ‘climate migrant’ to accept this status. While UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) have pushed back on the increasingly widespread use of ‘climate refugees,’ there is no universal, legally binding definition of a climate migrant or even environmental migration. As Caitlan M. Sussman starkly explains in her overview of the global migration framework, we have “no international consensus on who qualifies as a climate refugee, nor is there any plan for their protection.”
Likewise, at the global level, there is no legally binding solution for climate-driven migration. Though international initiatives and agreements like the Nansen Initiative, the Task Force on Displacement (TFD), and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration signaled growing interest in tackling climate-driven migration, they do not go far enough.
In 2020, UNHCR released legal guidance “regarding claims for international protection made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters.” These considerations outlined how those forced to flee because of climate change could satisfy the criteria of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. For example, if a drought-related famine fuels conflict, an individual who fled may be able to prove they had a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of the Convention’s five protected grounds: Race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. While deeper knowledge and more dialogue are key to facilitating global coordination, they do not replace the need for binding laws that provide actual protection.
The Untapped Promise of Teitiota v. New Zealand
Teitiota v. New Zealand, the first decision by a U.N. treaty body on a complaint by an individual seeking protection from the effects of climate change, holds untapped promise for protecting climate migrants. In January 2020, the U.N. Human Rights Committee ruled that “countries may not deport individuals who face climate change-induced conditions that violate the right to life.” While the U.N. Human Rights Committee denied Teitiota’s claim, the Committee critically left open the “possibility that environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other natural disasters could warrant protection under the Refugee Convention.” Though the landmark ruling spurred significant global excitement, U.N. Human Rights Committee decisions are not internationally binding.
Closing the Gap: A Way Forward
Learn From Regional Solutions
Regional agreements like the Cartagena Declaration, the Kampala Convention, and the OAU Convention offer models for stronger protection of climate migrants at the global level. For example, Article I(2) of the 1984 Cartagena Declaration includes in the definition of a refugee persons whose lives are at risk due to “other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order,” which, according to UNHCR’s legal guidance, might include the “adverse effects of climate change and disasters.” This broad refugee definition has been incorporated into domestic law and has been recognized by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the General Assembly of the Organization of the American States (OAS). Regional solutions will be key to building a global framework, and encouraging other regions to look to progressive instruments in Latin America and Africa offers a concrete path forward.
Reimagine Existing Tools
Rather than renegotiating the 1951 Refugee Convention, which could lead to weaker protections in an era of populist, anti-immigrant sentiments, UNHCR should build on its 2021 guidance. More specifically, they should address the difficulty developing countries might have in applying the 1951 Refugee Convention to climate migrants. Given the limited border capacity of some developing countries, which bear the brunt of refugees, UNHCR should launch a formal program to train governments on how to implement their legal guidance effectively, helping to ensure there are no gaps between paper and practice.
Center Climate Migrants in Decision Making
Empowering climate migrants as partners in decision-making can lead to more effective outcomes by ensuring innovative legal instruments are taken advantage of. Centering climate migrants in the policy design and implementation phases can help close the execution gap that too often renders legal solutions ineffective. When New Zealand created a climate visa program in 2017 for Pacific Islanders living in at-risk island nations like Kiribati and Fiji, the government shut it down after only six months because Pacific Islanders felt it dismissed mitigating climate change and undermined their view of migration as a last resort. The international legal community must create international law with–– not for–– the persons whose rights depend on its fulfillment.
Conclusion
Climate migrants bear the burden of a crisis they did not create–– and one that will only become worse the longer we wait to act. While climate change will force hundreds of millions of people to migrate within their own countries, climate-driven migration requires global leadership in committing to inclusive, equitable, and sustainable solutions that will define the future of international stability and, for many, whether a future exists at all. By learning from regional agreements, reimagining existing tools, and centering climate migrants as part of the solution, we can begin to close the gap in global governance that has already left too many behind.
