There is a major problem of definition here. Who qualifies as a climate migrant? Since climate change is occurring globally defining who is a victim of it is incredibly complex.
The next point is 'legal protections' from what?
It is far from clear why migration would be necessary from many countries adversely affected by climate change. Of course those countries like Bangladesh, where large areas may in future decades be under water may be a clear example. Other counties can accommodate climate displaced persons within their own borders requiring only internal migration.
This of course is problematic in many states, in particular authoritarian states with minority populations.
Enforcing international law in those states is all but impossible now.
I am happy to. I live in the UK which has a pretty dreary climate. Lots of British people migrate to the Mediterranean, especially when they retire. Some even do so on medical advice. Would we consider them climate migrants who need extra protection?
Barry Turner They may not need extra protection because there is no imminent threat to their survival. Climate-migrants are those who are fleeing because of environmental catastrophe. Retiring and settling somewhere is kinda vacation rather than fleeing because of environmental damage. This analogy, however, does not fit the puzzle of the issue at hand. I hope you are getting my point.
Migrants should expect the same protections whatever the reasons they migrate. They should be given the protection of the laws of the countries they migrate to. If sovereignty is to be balanced with humanitarian need, as your question suggests.
It is not possible to extend extra protection and remain equitable. If a migrant from country A goes to country B they should be subject to the same protections and regulations as those already resident there. There is already a wide ranging set of international treaty obligations supporting this.
It is of course possible for instance for the migration to be internal. Not every climate disaster necessitates migration to another country.
Barry Turner Uncle Berry, I agree with this now. I have never been in support of granting them extra protection. In case of even the visa, it should be specified that they are climate-induced displaced folks. I am working on a project on this, hopefully to be accepted by a journal of Cambridge University Press.
If there is anything I can do to assist let me know.
It is an interesting subject on numerous levels. Designing laws or regulations for single groups is fraught with both legal philosophical problems and practical ones.
There is undoubtedly going to be some climate displaced persons over the next few decades as extreme weather conditions make certain places difficult to continue to support agriculture and water supply.
Water supply is a double problem, some places will be flooded, others will suffer long protracted periods of drought.
If people are displaced then they will be best served, if possible moving to other locations within their own countries. It is appreciated of course that such a move is not always easy for numerous reasons.
In terms of the current situation displace people are already accommodated by international treaties. The big emerging problem there is that international treaties are coming under increasing pressure from emergent nationalism globally. In Europe right wing politics is very hostile to allowing migration of any kind. The emergence of the right is an example of reactionary politics. It may be sometime before this is reversed. Any government proposing extending extra rights to climate refugees would face a serious backlash and potentially this might result in more far right governments being elected.
It's a great example of the clash between law and politics. There needs to be a lot more research done here and more publications. I hope you get a positive response from Cambridge University Press.