Yes, in principle, they should because both groups are fleeing conditions that endanger their lives, dignity, and ability to survive. However, current legal frameworks treat them differently due to how refugee status is defined.

War refugees are protected under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which defines a refugee as someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Climate migrants, however, usually flee natural disasters, rising seas, droughts, or environmental degradation conditions that, while life-threatening, do not fall under this legal definition.

Rakesh Kumar Thank you brother for your positive feedback.

All living entities, both bio and social, have innate rights according to the physical Constructal Law (CL). Some background on CL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEBTPee9ZM

CL is the prerequisite to innate rights:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS

Civility is the key to “migration” respecting the nation’s laws and culture while visiting, including: “War refugees or Climate migrants.”

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D5Z2SQBN

Aftab Haider Do you mean that people fleeing flood should be able to ask for political asylum in the nearest dry land they encounter while swimming / floating? (and could be sent back after waters subside, as could be sent back in case of war ending?) Or maybe your intent is to somehow, in case of having their home get damaged by flood, grant them right to be able to travel half of the world to purely coincidentally reach some highly developed country where they could live on expense of locals and potentially destabilize their land?

Though I wonder whether we're not on the path where due to spectacular abuse of those asylum laws asylum we indeed are heading to future when both groups are going to be treated in the same way, as having local resources drained by such newcomers become a major issue in quite many Western countries thus those treaties are already being suspended.

Also is unclear to me how to place within this framework something that I research myself: impact of low and high temperature on mortality:

Article Evolving threats in an unforgiving climate: impact of non-op...

The thing is that in Europe, especially northern Europe the winters that we have are really deadly with life expectancy being reduced by up to two years.

Does it mean that such countries should refuse climate refugees due to not being safe at all from climate perspective? Outright be themselves source of climate refugees and escape prolonged infection season? (In my article I openly toyed with idea of encouraging retirement migration to the areas with milder and warmer climate)

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak Hello respected sir! I hope you will be as fit as a fiddle. Firstly, I would like to say that I always admire your logical comments from a different perspective on my questions. Thank you so very much for sharing your knowledge. Regarding your comment on this question, I appreciate your inquiry, but it rests on a few fundamental misunderstandings that need addressing.

Firstly, the distinction between climate refugees and war refugees should not be made on the basis of whether one is fleeing natural disasters or human-induced conflict. Both groups are fleeing unlivable conditions, the former due to environmental degradation, the latter due to political instability, armed conflict, and violence. The core issue is survival, not the label attached to the cause of displacement.

As for the question of whether individuals fleeing climate-induced disasters should be allowed to claim asylum in a nearby land, the logic is simple: those fleeing uninhabitable conditions must have access to refuge, regardless of whether those conditions are caused by human conflict or the effects of climate change. It’s not about allowing individuals to travel across continents with no control, it's about ensuring basic survival in the face of extreme conditions. In fact, our ability to manage these flows responsibly is a question of international cooperation and global responsibility, not simply limiting who can seek refuge based on their origin.

Now, regarding the concern of "destabilizing" developed countries by accepting climate migrants: This argument tends to ignore the broader picture. Developed countries, as major contributors to climate change, have a moral and ethical obligation to help those whose lives are displaced by the effects of that very climate change. Moreover, the narrative of resource drain often overlooks the potential benefits of welcoming climate refugees: such as stimulating economies, bringing in labor to address demographic imbalances, and contributing to cultural and technological diversity.

You mention that asylum laws are being abused, but this does not justify suspending the right to asylum or drawing arbitrary distinctions between different causes of displacement. The solution lies not in closing borders, but in ensuring that asylum systems are robust enough to handle diverse challenges, climate change included, while maintaining national security and public welfare.

Lastly, regarding the cold climate and mortality in northern Europe: this is an important point but irrelevant to the issue at hand. The challenge of cold weather does not negate the obligation to assist those suffering from climate change-induced displacement. Rather than refusing climate refugees, we should focus on solutions that make countries more adaptable to extreme temperatures, both through technological advances and by fostering a global network of aid and shared responsibility.

In a nutshell, the treatment of climate migrants should be driven by principles of human survival and solidarity rather than arbitrary distinctions between types of displacement. Every individual fleeing unlivable conditions deserves equal consideration under international law.

Aftab Haider >"Hello respected sir! I hope you will be as fit as a fiddle. Firstly, I would like to say that I always admire your logical comments from a different perspective on my questions. Thank you so very much for sharing your knowledge. Regarding your comment on this question, I appreciate your inquiry, but it rests on a few fundamental misunderstandings that need addressing."

I highly respect your relentless patriotism, that with your intellect you frame as general care for so called climate justice. I also feel flattered by underlying, implicit suggestion on how West is expected to be overflowing with fiscal headroom, generosity and capability to solve others people problems. Nevertheless, I'm afraid the underlying reality here is much grimmer and there seem to be a few key issues does not seem to be fully accounted in your reasoning.

>"Both groups are fleeing unlivable conditions, the former due to environmental degradation, the latter due to political instability, armed conflict, and violence."

There is one major problem if you try to use it this analogy. You can't claim asylum for generally stating that you live in an unstable region where are a few hostile to each other ethnic groups with reasonable risk for another conflict flaring up within decade. Neither you can convincingly claim asylum due to some bloody border clashes when you can just move within your own country. You can't claim asylum due to war devastation when the war has ended. What you need is deadly, ongoing conflict encompassing effectively whole country. You can't realistically reach the same threshold with any natural disaster, except maybe a few micro states slowly sinking into ocean due to rising sea levels and even there the issue is not that straightforward (does loosing half of island is sufficient? Which level of land reclamation is considered as mundane thus not constitute fighting with natural disaster but business as usual in let's say the Netherlands?). Moreover, even in case of those islands, a more reasonable approach would be them joining some other country, so that country would not only receive population but also rights to natural resources in exclusive economic zone to sweeten the deal (and also those people would have easier to preserve their culture if they wish so). So I really don't see many people who could genuinely claim such status (or any at all if issue of those tiny islands is dealt under other mechanism), while see great abuse potential and excessive burden of dealing with frivolous claims clogging court system.

>"Moreover, the narrative of resource drain often overlooks the potential benefits of welcoming climate refugees: such as stimulating economies, bringing in labor to address demographic imbalances, and contributing to cultural and technological diversity."

Do you even yourself believe in this particular argument? If so, then there is no need for any regulation on so called climate refugees as there would be plenty of countries who would just let them in as migrant workers, while a few supposedly xenophobic countries would just lose such wonderful opportunity. However, judging how governments all over the world behave, suspiciously no-one is acting as if they believe that your claim had been reflecting the reality which is highly telling.

>"You mention that asylum laws are being abused, but this does not justify suspending the right to asylum or drawing arbitrary distinctions between different causes of displacement."

It's interesting issue on protecting displaced people. Quite numerous cities in the West are already experiencing White flight, with people already nervously moving away from non-European peoples due to becoming victimized by crime surge and their kids being mistreated in schools by migrants. What with protection of their rights from being displaced? Should they be compensated, and if so, then by whom? If you don't know what crime surge I mean, then look up for example the grooming gangs in the UK. (Or look into statistics as often those newcomers have by degree of magnitude higher crime rate and as far as the data go it stays in the subsequent generations) I also notice issue that inability to refuse mass migration is incompatible with fundamental and enshrined in international law right of peoples to self-determination, thus at some level it would be choice which high-minded idea has to be sacrificed.

>"Developed countries, as major contributors to climate change, have a moral and ethical obligation to help those whose lives are displaced by the effects of that very climate change."

Well... are you certain that you want to settle the account for... uhm... "industrial revolution and its consequences"? Indeed the West is responsible for industrial revolution which ultimately lead to anthropogenic climate change. Should it compensate unfortunates to the level they would live without the impact of that pesky industrial revolution? Like send them a dozen goats per individual? (Before industrial revolution whole mankind had been living in abject poverty so reaching that level wouldn't be expensive, likely lower than humanitarian aid those countries already receive) It also leaves a question on how to account for the fact that before industrial revolution roughly counting half of people died before their 5th birthday. Should it be adjusted in calculating any compensation as due to being still alive a person is still better off than otherwise?

Or maybe when calculating impact you want to bill the West for any negative consequences while ignore in calculation overwhelming positive consequences and claim that's an "ethical obligation"? And the claim of being harmed by the West should be raised by people whose ancestors statistically speaking even wouldn't make it without Western help?

>"Lastly, regarding the cold climate and mortality in northern Europe: this is an important point but irrelevant to the issue at hand."

It's highly relevant for this issue. The whole concept of being a climate refugee is based on idea of running away from a highly deadly climate to a benign climate, right? Thus if someone is moving from one country with quite deadly climate to another with also quite deadly climate, just with higher GDP per capita, then should be on the spot identified as economic migrant not a climate refugee.

المهاجرون المناخيون ولاجئو الحرب يشتركون في الفرار من ظروف قاهرة تهدد حياتهم، لكن القانون الدولي لا يمنح المهاجرين المناخيين نفس الحماية المقررة للاجئي الحرب، بسبب قصور في اتفاقية جنيف لعام 1951. رغم أن المعاناة متشابهة، إلا أن غياب الاعتراف القانوني يجعل المهاجرين المناخيين عرضة للتهميش. التمييز بينهما لا يستند إلى عدالة إنسانية بل إلى اعتبارات سياسية وقانونية بحتة. من منظور أخلاقي وإنساني، يجب منحهم نفس الحقوق. المطلوب إصلاح قانوني دولي يعترف بالمناخ كسبب مشروع للنزوح القسري.

إبراهيم خليل البلعزي you are right sir.

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak Sir, I follow up these questions based on your prior insights: But doesn’t the evolution of international law historically follow changes in moral consensus? Why should we only look at present asylum law and not consider how norms and laws adapt as new forms of displacement arise? Isn’t this the same logic used to dismiss refugees from war or gender violence before such categories were codified?

Are you underestimating the projected global impact of climate change on habitability, agriculture, and water, which could affect hundreds of millions?What about internal displacement in large countries, and the cascading effects across borders?

Is there strong evidence that most claims of climate displacement are “frivolous,” or is this more of a policy anxiety?How do you reconcile the need for protection of genuine victims with the risk of abuse, shouldn’t systems be built to filter rather than exclude?

The response is dismissive of economic and demographic arguments in favor of admitting climate migrants, saying that “no one acts as if they believe it.”

But there are many studies showing that, in aging societies, migrants (including refugees) fill vital workforce gaps and sustain welfare systems. Are you considering the real economic data, or just focusing on populist anxieties?

"Your question addresses a fundamental issue in international refugee law, particularly regarding the recognition of those displaced due to climate change or non-traditional causes such as gender-based violence or internal displacement. Below is a legal and analytical response supported by relevant international legal references and conventions."

إبراهيم خليل البلعزي Sir, I am obliged for your valuable time, but can you please translate the text into English to better depict your insights?

While concerns about abuse of the asylum system are valid, they should not result in generalized exclusion. The law aims to:

Strike a balance between protecting genuine victims and preserving the credibility of asylum systems.

Ensure that asylum claims are assessed on a case-by-case basis and not excluded solely based on the category of cause.

Encourage the development of objective legal criteria to identify “serious harm” in climate-induced displacement.

📌 Legal Reference: The 2021 UNHCR report on “Addressing Climate-Related Displacement” advised against excluding asylum protections based solely on environmental causes and called for contextual, individualized assessments.

Fifth: Legal and Policy Recommendations

Expand the legal definition of “refugee” in international law to include environmental and climate-induced displacement through new protocols or interpretative extensions of existing conventions.

Integrate climate risk factors into individual asylum assessments, especially when combined with weak state protection or life-threatening conditions.

Develop objective screening mechanisms to prevent misuse while ensuring fair access to protection.

Strengthen regional legal protection systems, taking inspiration from frameworks developed in Latin America and Africa.

Conclusion: International law is not fixed—it evolves in response to shifting challenges and ethical norms. Climate-induced displacement is not a “frivolous” claim; it represents an existential threat to millions. The appropriate response is not to deny protection, but to establish fair, legally robust mechanisms that balance humanitarian needs with legal integrity.

If you wish, I can format this into a short academic article or formal legal memorandum upon request.

إبراهيم خليل البلعزي Your comment is extremely thoughtful and well-balanced—I really appreciate how you highlight the need for fair, individualized assessments in asylum law. Given your insights, how do you think asylum systems can verify genuine climate-induced displacement without undermining protection for the most vulnerable? I'd be obliged if you could format this into a short academic article or formal legal memorandum for me. I also want to connect with you for more valuable information and knowledge exchange.

Aftab Haider "But doesn’t the evolution of international law historically follow changes in moral consensus?"

Which consensus shift do you mean?

Right now you observe how position changes against being drained by newcomers all over the world. Look how none of Muslim-majority countries has bothered so far to end atrocities in Gaza by simply taking another huge wave of Palestinian refugees. (this one is eye opening for me as in Poland we had no issue in taking Ukrainians only opposed hybrid warfare in form of dumping on our borders migrants/invaders from all over the world by Russian puppet Lukashenko) Iranians just unceremoniously deported so high number of Afghani that rightfully makes Trump look like inept amateur. Western countries are undergoing nationalist shift right now and already getting creative with enforcement or start to openly suspend those laws. Based on actions the consensus appears to be a slow return to world where accepting refugees is an elective act of charity / geopolitical calculation, not a legal obligation.

"Are you underestimating the projected global impact of climate change on habitability, agriculture, and water, which could affect hundreds of millions? What about internal displacement in large countries, and the cascading effects across borders?"

You haven't addressed comparison with thresholds required in case of war.

Oh, if you consider impact to source of income like agriculture... in more developed countries we observed how due to deindustrialization whole towns had been loosing key factory which directly or indirectly keep whole town financially afloat. It lead to mass unemployment and mass internal migration. How situation of those people differed from supposed climate refugees? Can one claim refugee status due to economic decline of his home town due to global competition? Can one claim refugee status due to agriculture mechanization leading to job loss in his village? Due to prolonged economic crisis as experienced in let's say Greece or Cuba? Keep in mind that in developed world agriculture is ~3% of GDP so impact to overall economy of any devastation to agriculture is within fluctuations experienced during mundane economic cycle. Big chunk of ME is already net importer of food and gets water from desalination, so by this standard should have been uninhabitable for decades.

>"Is there strong evidence that most claims of climate displacement are “frivolous,” or is this more of a policy anxiety?How do you reconcile the need for protection of genuine victims with the risk of abuse, shouldn’t systems be built to filter rather than exclude?"

I pointed out why one is unlikely to realistically reach threshold with climate, that would be otherwise expected for war refugees. So instead whole position would be used by economic migrants who would be trying to blame climate for their economic situation. As you already have shifted goalpost from people fleeing for their life due to direct threat to economic migrants potentially affected by climate, you are building my point here.

Side note: if you say "hundreds of millions"... that's not what one could accommodate without complete population replacement... uhm... are you fighting for including right of colonizing some other people's land as human right? That would be quite revolutionary approach and would lead to complete reinterpreting of history as European colonial expansion roughly matched nasty regional climate anomaly called little ice age.

"The response is dismissive of economic and demographic arguments in favor of admitting climate migrants, saying that “no one acts as if they believe it.”"

Keep in mind that you are both claiming it's good deal and... people should be forced by international law to accept it, which makes it questionable whether even you believe in your own argument. (normally when you have dozen of potential clients and good offer, you don't need to force anyone, right?)

"Are you considering the real economic data, or just focusing on populist anxieties?"

https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20211218_EUC232.png

Or a bit less detailed peer reviewed source:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-017-0636-1

Yes, when actually someone dared to measure it, it turned out migrants from MENAPT are net fiscal liability for Denmark even during most productive years. So instead of solving any economic or demographic problems are compounding them even further. BTW: the dichotomy that you asked do not reflect reality as populist surge is primarily caused by masses intuitively roughly understanding socioeconomic changes even in countries where establishment is not collecting statistics that could undermine its legitimacy. (by occasion: reaction and impact seems to be varied for different populations, as let's say East Asians somehow are not attracting ire of locals in the West and look quite good in official stats in Western societies concerning their crime rate or work performance)

[BTW: check your other interlocutor with AI detector]

What "climate migrants " and "rights" are these?

تحية طيبة

بالنسبة لسؤالكم يتضح في اعتقادي ان السبب يعود لعدم وجود تعريف قانوني موحد للاجئ البيئي ، كما أن هناك غموض في اعتماد مصطلح "لاجئ" حيث يفهم من السياق انه الشخص المهاجر بسبب ظرف طبيعي لا يد للانسان فيه لذا يختلف قانون خضوعه ويخرج عن نطاق تطبيق اتفاقية جنيف في المادة الاولى منها والتي لا تشير الى ضحايا الكوارث الطبيعية كسبب من اسباب الحصول على وضعية قانونية معينة " صفة لاجئ" وبالتالي غياب الاساس القانوني للحماية الكافية وهذا يعتبر بمثابة ثغرة قانونية يتوجب الاحاطة بها خاصة مع تحديات .العصر الحديث

En ce qui concerne votre question, il semble, à mon avis, que la raison réside dans l'absence d'une définition juridique unifiée du réfugié environnemental. Il existe également une ambiguïté dans l'utilisation du terme "réfugié", car le contexte suggère qu'il s'agit de personnes migrant en raison de circonstances naturelles indépendantes de la volonté humaine. Par conséquent, la loi qui régit leur situation diffère, et elle échappe au champ d'application de la Convention de Genève, notamment son article premier, qui ne mentionne pas les victimes de catastrophes naturelles comme motif d'obtention d'un statut juridique particulier, à savoir le statut de réfugié. Il en résulte donc un manque de base juridique pour une protection adéquate, ce qui constitue une lacune juridique qu'il convient de combler, en particulier face aux défis de l'ère moderne.

yes Sr

Regarding your question, it seems, in my opinion, that the reason lies in the lack of a unified legal definition of an environmental refugee. There is also ambiguity in the use of the term "refugee," as the context suggests that these are people migrating due to natural circumstances beyond human control. Consequently, the law governing their situation differs, and it falls outside the scope of the Geneva Convention, particularly its first article, which does not mention victims of natural disasters as a reason for obtaining a specific legal status, namely refugee status. This therefore results in a lack of a legal basis for adequate protection, which is a legal gap that must be filled, especially in the face of the challenges of the modern era.

Nacera Nacera Rahmoune Madam , can you plz translate it into English?

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak On how international law changes with “moral consensus”: You’re right, international law is always playing catch-up with where societies are moving. The 1951 Refugee Convention was a reaction to WWII’s horrors, setting the first big rules on who gets protection, and why. But you’re also right: the world now faces climate-driven migration, slow-burn crises, and mass displacements that don’t fit old legal boxes. Most big international legal overhauls (like the Rome Statute or the Paris Agreement) show how law follows shifts in what the global public can stomach or support.

On today’s consensus (or the chaos thereof): These days, many countries are treating migration less like a human rights duty and more like an annoying group chat, everyone wants to mute it, nobody wants to leave. This isn’t just headlines; plz, sir, see (Alexander Betts, pieces on this issue on Google Scholar) for how countries outside Europe are shifting their own moral lines.

On climate displacement: Traditional refugee law requires proof of persecution, not just “life got harder.” But the pressure for legal innovation is real. The IOM’s publication “Migration, Environment and Climate Change: Assessing the Evidence” (edited by Frank Laczko and Christine Aghazarm, 2009) is one place where people try to untangle this. No global treaty covers “climate refugees” yet, but several UNHCR reports (like “Legal considerations regarding claims for international protection made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters,” 2020) debate if and how the law should stretch.

On the economics (the “show me the money” moment): Hahah, everyone wants numbers, but the answer is: it depends! For Denmark, the study might have found that, yes, some groups of refugees do cost the state in the short run. But the OECD’s “Is Migration Good for the Economy?” (Migration Policy Debates, May 2014) shows that, long-term and with the right policies, migrants often contribute more than they take out. Of course, it all depends on the policies in place; no country gets it perfectly right or wrong.

On the “colonizing” fear: I promise, you’ll find more “colonization” talk in history books than in any serious legal journals on refugee law. The actual legal debate is about minimum standards of protection for people forced to move, not about rights to settle wherever and however they please. If anyone says the 1951 Refugee Convention was secretly written as a blueprint for population replacement, you have my blessing to laugh them out of the seminar. Try Climate Refugees, Beyond the Legal Impasse? Edited BySimon Behrman, Avidan Kent.

[BTW], I’m glad you brought some humor into the debate! For the record, if I start answering your questions with Shakespeare quotes or Matrix references, then please do call in the AI detector. Otherwise, you can rest easy: I’m not here to “colonize your land”, just your group chats with footnotes and friendly arguments. haha

Aftab Haider "You’re right, international law is always playing catch-up with where societies are moving. The 1951 Refugee Convention was a reaction to WWII’s horrors, setting the first big rules on who gets protection, and why."

Just the horrors partially faded away from memory, while citizens of destination countries look at it as an document signed before such movements of people had been likely, thus consider it as too burdensome and outdated.

"These days, many countries are treating migration less like a human rights duty and more like an annoying group chat, everyone wants to mute it, nobody wants to leave."

Indeed that's the mood. The moment of openly withdrawing from treaties seems to be slowly brewing. Thus I don't see your rationale why you want to double down on imposing obligations as it's likely to be either ignored or it outright backfire as being the trigger mechanism for scrapping such imposed obligations overboard.

Mood concerning international high-minded treaties: due to Russian threat my country this month withdrew from Ottawa Convention on anti-personel land mines. Only half of our tiny left-wing voted against, the rest of parties from center left to far right had been in favor of withdrawing. Think about repeating such process possibly in a chain reaction of subsequent countries withdrawing from treaties.

Mood concerning welcoming refugees right now:

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1946682675541995744

"But the pressure for legal innovation is real."

Who asks for it? Those who would actually have carry the burden? Or people who make their living by proposing bold ideas on how to be generous using other people money?

"Hahah, everyone wants numbers, but the answer is: it depends!"

If one runs highly selective brain-drain it could end up as net gain. Just in case of so called climate refugees one would not be allowed to do so, so that argument is moot. Nevertheless, in bigger picture I don't think what's controversial in suggesting that's unlikely that populations who had not been successful while running their home countries somehow change overnight into top achievers after crossing a line on the map.

"Of course, it all depends on the policies in place; no country gets it perfectly right or wrong."

It's like seeing too many wreckage on path of those who previously have tried - no one sees the risk as worthy. If someone has figured out some smart solution how to do it - let them voluntary take them all and reap the benefits.

"The actual legal debate is about minimum standards of protection for people forced to move, not about rights to settle wherever and however they please."

You haven't addressed different types of economic displacement of comparable severity and why those caused climate change should be privileged. You juggle the criteria for climate refugees quite fast from people who escape for their lives to people who experience poor harvest / need to desalinate due to climate change. If anything you made yourself good argument that those criteria are so vague and open to create chaos (as in spite of you being expert on that field you presented a few mutually contradictory interpretations) thus serving primarily as source of subjective interpretations, judges making divergent guesses what the regulation meant and abuse, not even solving any real issue.

"If anyone says the 1951 Refugee Convention was secretly written as a blueprint for population replacement, you have my blessing to laugh them out of the seminar"

Thank you for reassuring me for some completely unrelated issue to the concerns that I have expressed. Already a few times I mentioned that I don't care which high-minded or short-sighted ideas that gave rise to some conventions but I care about their practical (mis)use and burden which they impose.

Mary Robinson, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights coined the phrase Climate Justice. The world has not yet caught up with this reality which I fear will lead to more and more people being forced to leave their countries because of extreme weather conditions.

Mary Frances Mayenfisch-Tobin Absolutely Mam! You are utterly right.

Aftab Haider What's your take on whether the UK has just reached a turning point on moving migrants/refugees against the will of local people?

Mary Frances Mayenfisch-Tobin r

Coining a phrase does not give it substance. Ms Robinson created a whole new class of victims as an extension of the UN climate emergency hysteria.

Can you please detail the 'reality" of climate immigration and what you or MS. Robinson consider relevant rights?