How different is your question if we substitute "drought", "famine", for "climate" refugee?

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Dear Anja,

I agree with you, at the moment it depends on a state's specific legislation. That is why I try to thinking about any international regulations.

Dear Dennis,

I think "climate refugees" is general term. Sometimes they are named as "environmental refugess". That is why I think it doesn't matter if we use any other specific names: "drought", "famine" or even "flood".

My general idea is to think if we can treat this special category of refugees as victims as the international humanitarian law do? If yes, who shoud be recognize as persecutor? If no, which branch of law should give protection to these people?

Best regards to all of you!

Dear Przemek, refugee convention provides defintion of refugee status, there are specific grounds for granting status. Convention doesnt mention climate. So in terms od law you cant use wording climate refugees. As well as refer to humanitaran law (applicable only during armed conflicts)

Dear Piotr,

it is very easy to talk about things we accepted (?) and which are acceptable by the international community. But, it is harder to think about new perspective of development different law branches. Why you said I can't use term "climate refugees"? This way you should prohibit and censor many authors all over the world. Even if we agree Convention doesn't mention "climate change" as a premise of giving refugee status nobody can prohibit us to start talking about "convention change". I don't think self-censorship is good solution for scientific researches.

Best regards!

Dear Przemek, since i am lawyer it is easier for me to provide legally binding definition rather than concepts of statu nascendi charcter. There is definatelly need to find solutions for climate migrants. However I think that solutions lays in human rights sensu stricte rather than in humanitaran law or refugee law. Thanks for bringing intersting topic

Dear Anja,

Thank you for continuing this discussion. Policy practise show us you're right European states (including EU as international organisation) look like they would like to get away from this topic. In other way the lack of international regulations is excuse for these states for non-recognition of climate/environment refugees status. But we can observe this tendency also in the states from other regions of the world. Unfortunately there are a lot of examples of refusing this status in New Zealand Immigration & Protection Tribunal jurisdiction towards to Tuvalu citizens:

- NZIPT 800517-520 (4 June 2014),

- NZIPT 800859 (20 October 2015),

- NZIPT 801093-094 (23 February 2017),

- NZIPT 801120-123 (20 March 2017).

In these cases appellants raise concerns about the adverse affects of climate change on Tuvalu and, in particular, the effects on life and livelihoods because of rising sea levels and associated environmental processes and events.

And in all of these cases NZIPT states that appellants:

- aren't refugees within the meaning of the Refugee Convention,

- aren't protected persons within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture,

- aren't protected persons within the meaning of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Finally all these appeals were dismissed.

It's not only observed toward to Tuvalu's citizens. One Kiribati family has applied for refugee status on the same grounds but has had their application rejected and their appeal dismissed (SC 7/2015 [2015] NZSC 107).

"The application made by Ioane Teitiota who came to New Zealand in 2007 and has three children born here, was rejected after Justice John Priestley found that granting his family climate change refugee status would allow "millions of people who are facing medium-term economic deprivation, or the immediate consequences of natural disasters or warfare" to claim refugee status." - take a look: http://www.pmc.aut.ac.nz/pacific-media-watch/nz-climate-change-refugees-win-appeal-remain-country-8885

But, maybe something will be changed. I mean the case of Alesana's Family (NZIPT 501370-371, 4 June 2014) - please take a look on their history: http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/environment/hell-and-high-water-when-climate-change-comes-lapping-at-your-door/

Some sources named them "the world’s first climate refugees" - https://www.fastcompany.com/3034319/the-worlds-first-climate-refugees-sort-of

The appellants claimed, inter alia, that they will be at risk of suffering the adverse impacts of climate change and socio-economic deprivation, if they will be deported from New Zealand to Tuvalu.

Evidence of the appellants included the following:

"Life became increasingly more difficult in Tuvalu due to the effects of climate change and overpopulation. The husband’s home island of X became increasingly more vulnerable to inundation by sea-water as a result of sea-level rise. Whereas, he recalled that, as a small child, the land was only inundated by storm surges during the hurricane season, now land on both the lagoon and seaward sides of the island was inundated with sea-water regularly during monthly king-tides. This resulted in coastal erosion. Trees died and it became progressively more difficult to grow crops. Similar problems affected the wife’s home island." - (NZIPT 501370-371, 4 June 2014, point 9).

Finally, Tribunal was satisfied that "when the above matters are taken into account on a cumulative basis, there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature, which would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellants to be removed from New Zealand" - (NZIPT 501370-371, 4 June 2014, point 30).

Is it precedent or not? Will sovereign states be more brave in their jurisdictions towards to people in Alesana's position? Will EU and other international organisations more responsible on climate change effects?

It's very hard to give answers, but for sure it will be easier to change international regulations if we would go by New Zealand tracks. Refugees Convention change is the option. In my opinion international humanitarian law reform is possible, too. What are the other options and possibilities? That is why we try to discuss...

Best regards!

Dear Anja,

I'm glad to read you again. You're right most of the cited cases rejected claims and appeals were dismissed, but maybe the last but not least, case of Alesana's Family could change this main trend?

You mentioned UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951). In this context the most important and controversive question is if climate change can be counted as persecution?

Apart from the fact that the convention was established so long ago, we should also take into account its provisions given in article 1(A)(2) connected with the phrase "unable (...) to return".

In my opinion it is wide category which allow us to ask about other factors (also climate change) important in considering the possibility of granting the refugee status for reasons other than those classically indicated in international law.

Best regards!

Thank you Anja,

very interesting,

Please, accept my best regards!