Climate Migrants in Legal No-Man's-Land: Rights beyond the Refugee Convention

Abstract

Climate change deepens existing social and economic inequality, with vulnerable communities bearing its heaviest costs. Calling climate-displaced people inhabitants of a legal no-man's-land captures an important gap. The Refugee Convention and the UN climate regime each address part of the problem, yet neither gives displaced people a comprehensive status or assigns responsibility through a single coherent framework.

Many scholars have attempted to describe the legal environment in which climate refugees exist in the past. The current status quo is one without change. The percentage of people who are displaced due to other factors like conflict and violence around the world is lower than the number of people who are relocated as a result of natural disasters. By the end of 2021, there are 4.6 million asylum seekers and 53.2 million internally displaced persons (UNHCR's Global Trends report, 2022). If this trend is allowed to continue without proper preventative measures, humanity will unquestionably suffer significantly.

Migration occurs for a variety of reasons, but this study focuses on climate-related displacement and migration from different parts of the world, as well as the position the international community has taken so far for protecting the interest of climate refugees. Despite countless attempts by the global community, none have been effective.

Key words: 1. Climate refugees, 2. Climatological factors, 3. International Conventions, 4. Right to life, 5. Human rights.

Introduction

Around the world, extreme weather is putting people's safety at greater risk. It is disrupting access to essential services, destroying homes and livelihoods, and forcing families many who have already fled violence to flee once more,"

Filippo Grandi, UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Climate refugees are those who have been uprooted and compelled to relocate inside or outside of their native country as a result of harsh weather conditions, extensive floods and droughts, rising sea levels, tsunamis, increasing sea erosion, desertification, and other natural calamities. Due to climatic events like storms, rising sea levels, and drought, climate change results in human displacement. The enormity of the global migration catastrophe over the coming decades is startling, however estimates vary.

Shifts in the climate in addition to losing their homes, migrants will deal with a refugee system run by a decades-old Refugee Convention that offers neither protection nor the right to resettle in a more hospitable region.

Recent disasters include the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina in the United States, earthquakes in Pakistan, Iran, Chile, Haiti, Japan, New Zealand, and Italy, to name a few. The world community has raised the issue of forced migration for environmental reasons as a result of natural disasters, growing concern about the effects of climate change, and the depletion of natural resources. As a result, a number of issues have been brought to light by academics, non-governmental organisations, and, most importantly, individuals that may be impacted by various aspects of climate change and environmental degradation.

The worst refugee crisis in history could be brought on by climate change. Over the course of the century, millions of people may be compelled to from their homes and go for safety in other places or nations, particularly in Africa and Asia. Around the world, a wide range of problems spanning the economic, social, cultural, technological, and environmental spheres are caused by and/or exacerbated by climate change. Our rapidly changing climate has many negative effects, including an increase in forced migration and displacement. All states face a significant problem in dealing with the development of so-called climate change refugees and the following knowledge of this crisis's quickening escalation.

An unfair and unequal international legal and economic system contributes to widespread unfairness and inequity that is brought on by climate change displacement. Only a few nations have started to pass legislation to aid those escaping natural catastrophes because there is no international legal obligation to help these Environmentally Displaced Persons (EDPs). The term "climate refugees" has no meaning, and there is no understanding or agreement regarding the situation of those who have moved because of climate change. Due to the effects of climate change, people who have suffered will be forced to relocate within their own country as refugees, those who cross international borders.

Thousands of "climate refugees" may be forced to leave their island homes and will undoubtedly wind up in refugee camps in neighbouring nations if legal land rights are not obtained. Climate change is one instance of a profoundly global concern. The forced migration of human populations brought on by climate change is a serious issue that the international community and legal system must deal with. The ability to migrate in a planned and orderly manner for those who have been displaced due to climate change is currently not supported by integrated legal and administrative systems. However, in the absence of such mechanisms, displacement raises the possibility of political unrest and war.

Therefore, it is crucial to safeguard and recognise these people as well as to create legislation that will be to their advantage. There is no question that the existing high levels and complexity of human mobility in the region would be worsened by climate change, even though it is unclear how it may affect migratory patterns across Asia and the Pacific. Whether those consequences are substantial or negligible is difficult to predict, but they will be felt nonetheless. It is crucial to define climate refugees, including gathering complete data on internally displaced persons (IDPs), and to build an international framework to protect them as the situation of climate change refugees worsens.

Objective of the study

To understand climate migrants To examine the statistical data on climate migration worldwide To analyse the existing legal documents dealing with climate migrants protection To identify the problems in recognising climate migrants To suggest measures for safeguarding the rights of climate migrants.

Methodology

This study is based on Doctrinal Research. For the purpose of research the researcher used analytical method. Analytical method would be employed for analysing the existing legislative framework governing climate refugees in India and international jurisdiction. Primary and secondary sources have been used. The primary sources like legislative enactments, resolutions, conventions, committee reports, are the basis of the study. The secondary data is collected from books, Journals, Magazines, Digests, and Database.

Data about migrants and climate migrants

Following are the information on climate migration as to how many people have already migrated across borders to escape various effects of climate change. Figure 1 indicates that by the year 2050, 143 million people will have moved inside their own country as a result of climate change, and 200 million people will have migrated because of it. And south Asia is one of the major hotspot along with Latin America and Sub Saharan Africa, which demonstrates that India is not immune to the effects of climate change, internal displacement, or concerns with climate migrants.

The comprehensive 2026 Global Report on Internal Displacement (GRID) by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) reveals that a near-record 82.2 million people are currently living in internal displacement globally. Climate change remains a structural catalyst for this crisis, with weather-related disasters causing roughly 250 million internal displacements over the last decade-averaging about 70,000 movements every single day.

Figure 1

The chart above tracks the countries hit hardest by extreme weather and disaster-driven displacement based on full data validation cycles.

Three in every four refugees or people displaced by conflict are currently living in countries facing high-to-extreme exposure to climate-related hazards.

250 million internal displacements caused by weather-related disasters in the past decade - around 70,000 every day (2 displacements every 3 seconds).

1.2 million refugees returned home in early 2025, half to climate-vulnerable areas.

75 per cent of land in Africa is deteriorating, with over half of refugee settlements in high-stress areas.

Nearly all current refugee settlements will face an unprecedented rise in hazardous heat. By 2050, the hottest fifteen refugee camps in the world - located in Gambia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Senegal and Mali - are projected to face nearly 200 days or more of hazardous heat stress per year.

By 2040, the number of countries facing extreme climate hazards could rise from 3 to 65.

Since April 2023, nearly 1.3 million people fleeing the conflict in Sudan have sought refuge in South Sudan and Chad, two countries among the least equipped to cope with the growing climate emergency.

By mid-2025, 117 million people had been displaced by war, violence and persecution. Three in four of them are living in countries facing high-to-extreme exposure to climate-related hazards. Over the past 10 years, weather-related disasters have caused some 250 million internal displacements - equivalent to around 70,000 displacements per day. Whether it is floods sweeping South Sudan and Brazil, record-breaking heat in Kenya and Pakistan, or water shortages in Chad and Ethiopia, extreme weather is pushing already fragile communities to the brink. "These are people who have already endured immense loss, and now they face the same hardships and devastation again.

They are among the hardest hit by severe droughts, deadly floods and record-breaking heatwaves, yet they have the fewest resources to recover."

In many places, basic survival systems are under strain. In parts of flood-affected Chad, newly arrived refugees from war-torn Sudan receive less than 10 litres of water a day - far below emergency standards. By 2050, the hottest refugee camps could face nearly 200 days of hazardous heat stress per year, with serious risks to health and survival. Many of these locations are likely to become uninhabitable due to the deadly combination of extreme heat and high Between 2019 and 2020, there is a significant increase in the number of people who have been internally displaced and who are seeking asylum in various countries.

It demonstrates that if adequate attention is not given to this issue of demonstrating necessary protection to the climate migrants' basic rights, the lives of many individuals who are victims of climate change and disasters are at risk.

As sea levels rise, thousands of people in the South Pacific face the possibility of being uprooted. Many of these tiny island nations in the Pacific Ocean do not have enough land to house internally displaced people. Developing and underprivileged nations continue to bear the brunt of climate change because wealthier countries produce disproportionately more greenhouse emissions and they lack the capacity to adapt to it. International agreements require developed nations to provide developing nations with assistance in adapting to climate change. On the other hand, weak Pacific nations like Kiribati, a low-lying South Pacific island republic, are underserved by these treaties.

All three agreements-the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme Agreement, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Kiribati-United States Friendship Treaty-suggest that the US and other developed nations have legal obligations to aid Kiribati in its efforts to adapt to climate change. However, because the terms of each agreement regime are ambiguous and lack mechanisms for enforcement, they have failed to elicit strong international response.

Figure 2

No country is safe from the effects of climate change as pointed out by World Bank and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Figure 3

The main reasons that migration of people from various places is caused by climate change are shown in Figure 3. The World Bank performed investigations in this area and discovered that the problem affects millions of people who beg to be placed in safer custody rather than just a thousand.

Environmental displacement raises complicated legal issues. People who transfer to a secure and safe location within their own nation are referred to as "internally displaced." These individuals continue to be protected by their own governments and should be dealt with in accordance with local laws and policies, but many nations lack the necessary regulations to cope with the internally displaced people brought about by climate change. The scenario becomes more complicated when those refugees travel into another country, raising the question of whether they can seek protection in their new home nation and, if so, under what legal framework.

There are no internationally recognised systems to manage such migration. Cross-border displaced people who have been forced to leave their homes due to climate change are not recognised as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and as a result, they are ineligible for refugee protection under any national or international legal system. Despite the increasing need to recognise cross-border migration brought on by climate change, experts disagree on the best way to handle such a catastrophe.

In the past, nations like Bangladesh and the Maldives have argued for modifying the 1951 Convention to include "climate refugees" in their objectives, but other experts think that would jeopardise current refugee protection.

I nternational level initiatives for climate migrants

Nansen Initiative

The Nansen Initiative aims to bring nations together to agree on important principles and aspects for protecting persons who have been displaced across borders due to natural disasters, especially those linked to climate change.

The goal of this programme is to produce a protection agenda based on three pillars:

Solidarity and international cooperation Admission, stay, and status standards for affected people; and Operational Responses, including financial mechanisms and international humanitarian and development actors' duties.

The Nansen Initiative aims to increase transboundary displaced persons' protection from disasters and climate change. These people are not considered refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Despite the fact that general human rights standards apply, there are protection gaps in areas such as admission and residence. The Nansen Initiative aims to close this gap by bringing together a variety of innovative methods and best practises from across the states.

The agenda will cover all essential phases, including:

Preparation prior to displacement;

Protection and assistance during displacement; and After a calamity, turn into a solution.

One of the objectives was to improve disaster preparedness to avert such displacement and ensure that people impacted were better protected. A purported Protection Agenda included certain initiatives and likely better practises such as disaster risk reduction, climate change adaption, and humanitarian help. The Protection Agenda was agreed by 109 countries in Geneva in October 2015.

The Nansen Initiative is primarily sponsored by the Norwegian and Swiss governments, with considerable support from the European Commission and Germany.

The Cancun Adaptation Framework

The Cancun Adaptation Framework (adopted in December 2010), paragraph 14(f), recognized "climate change induced displacement, migration, and planned relocation" as elements to be addressed within the framework of climate change adaptation by states parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

This acknowledgement by states of the effects of climate change on human movement served three purposes: it functioned as a historical record, a reference point for advocating for more action, and a foundation for getting adaptation financing to build migration and resettlement programmes. Throughout 2011, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) failed to persuade states to agree to the creation of a "global guiding framework" on displacement related to climate change and natural catastrophes.

Another initiative in this direction is the establishment of the state-led Nansen Initiative in late 2012, which was a tentative "first step" towards international policy-making in this field, and the end of its first sub-regional consultation in the Pacific in May 2013. Much of the essay focuses on the UNHCR's strategic role in bringing climate change and displacement to the global forefront. Given states' reluctance to carry out their existing obligations under the Refugee Convention and other international protection instruments, UNHCR anticipated a significant challenge in persuading them to accept new legal obligations in this area.

The Kampala Accord

The African Union adopted the Kampala Convention to include cases of displacement caused by natural and man-made disasters, as well as climate change. This treaty includes provisions for preventing internal displacement and addressing its causes. When a state is unable to provide adequate protection, humanitarian agencies are called in to help. Mr. Jan Egeland, Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, highlighted in the Guiding Principles that over 20 million people have been uprooted within their country as a result of natural disasters or infrastructure projects in over 50 countries around the world.

Internally displaced persons are frequently overlooked and neglected since they are forced to flee their homes and livelihoods. Internal displacement, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated, is the "great tragedy of our time." Internally displaced persons are among humanity's most vulnerable members.' Responding to the protection and support requirements of the internally displaced is thus one of the humanitarian community's most pressing challenges today. The principles lay forth the rights and protections that apply to internally displaced people at every stage of their journey.

They provide protection from arbitrary deportation, lay the groundwork for safety and assistance during deportation, and guarantee safe return, resettlement, and reintegration.

Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement,1998.

These principles, while not binding, reflect and are consistent with international human rights and humanitarian law, as well as similar refugee law.

Principle 1 states that everyone should have the same level of equality and freedom.

Allowing P:2 to be enjoyed, authorities should not adopt any discriminating policies.

P:5 International authorities must uphold the human rights of persons who have been forced to flee their homes.

P:6 arbitrary displacement protection P:7 Clause (d) specifies that in the event of a disaster, individuals affected must be evacuated unless their safety and health necessitate it.

P:8 Displacement shall not be carried out in a manner that endangers life, dignity, or liberty.

P:9 various groups of persons must be safeguarded in the way outlined These are some of the guiding concepts stated, and it discusses the importance of having such ideas included within a country's human rights documents.

Sendai Framework

On March 18, 2015, at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai City, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, the Sendai Framework was adopted by UN Member States. It is a 15-year voluntary, non-binding agreement that acknowledges the state's primary role in disaster risk reduction, but that responsibility should be shared with other stakeholders such as local governments, the corporate sector, and others.

All of these documents have their own purpose to serve, but one specific document that talks about all of these different rights mentioned in different documents is missing, which would definitely give climate refugees a sense of security as they move from one location to another in search of their basic needs. Floods, windstorms, earthquakes, droughts, and other natural calamities force millions of people to flee their homes every year around the world. Many people seek sanctuary in their own country, but others must travel overseas. Such migrations are likely to become more common as a result of climate change.

National and international responses to this problem are minimal, and protection for those who are affected is still lacking.

Internally displaced persons are covered by national legislation, international human rights law, and the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. However, there is a severe legal void regarding cross-border movements in the event of disasters and the effects of climate change. International refugee law does not recognise IDPs to be refugees, and human rights legislation does not address any of these concerns, such as their entry, stay, or basic rights. In the event of a disaster, the conditions for distinguishing between forced and voluntary motions have yet to be determined.

Developed countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States must act quickly to avoid dangerous climate change. These countries have released more emissions in recent years, making them more responsible for the rise in global temperatures. Because these countries are wealthy, they have the power and resources to intervene and prevent such negative consequences that would force more people to flee their homes. Only 10% of global emissions are produced by the poorest half of the population. The richest ten percent of the population are responsible for half of all emissions.

International refugee organisations

The High Commissioner for Refugees of the United Nations

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), often known as the UN Refugee Agency, is an international institution dedicated to saving lives, defending rights, and providing long-term solutions for refugees, forcibly displaced persons, and stateless people. UNHCR aims to ensure that everyone has the right to seek asylum and find protection from persecution and war, as outlined by its Statute and as the custodian of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

UNHCR has been actively involved at the policy level in recent years in talks about international protection in the context of cross-border displacement caused by catastrophes and climate change.

Climate change and disaster-related displacement: the UNHCR's involvement Andrew Harper was named Special Advisor on Climate Action by the High Commissioner for Refugees in January 2020. He leads UNHCR's response to the climate emergency, acts as a worldwide champion, and is in charge of providing oversight and expertise to help UNHCR build its climate action agenda.

High Commissioner for Human Rights' Office

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights seeks to promote, defend, and realise the human rights of all migrants, regardless of their status, with a particular focus on those who are most vulnerable to human rights breaches. OHCHR advocates for a human rights-based approach to migration that prioritises migrants in policy and governance, and strives to ensure that migrants are included in all relevant national action plans and strategies, such as public housing plans and anti-racism and anti-xenophobia campaigns.

States' practices

Most internal rather than international responses to cross-border climate-related or environmental displacement have occurred thus far. Temporary humanitarian assistance is provided through programmes like as Temporary Protected Status in the United States, potentially temporary protection in the European Union, and longer-term refugee protection in countries like Sweden and Finland.

Temporary protection: Several countries have structures in place to provide temporary shelter to those displaced by natural disasters. The scope of the protection is defined by legislation, but in many cases, such as in the European Union and the United States, an executive decision is required to access the protection.

a. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the United States is a discretionary status designed to provide a safe haven for those fleeing or unwilling to return to potentially perilous situations in their native country. TPS was established by Congress under the Immigration Act of 1990. It is a temporary immigration status granted to nationals of certain countries who are facing an on-going armed war, an environmental disaster, or other unusual and temporary circumstances. It gives foreign citizens from those nations a work visa and a stay of deportation if they are in the United States at the time the US government announces the designation.

There were 319,465 persons with TPS and 481,980 people eligible for TPS under new classifications or resignations in October 2021. Protection is not automatic: the Secretary of Homeland Security must first 'designate' a country before its nationals are eligible.

The Secretary of Homeland Security may 'designate' a country where an on-going armed conflict threatens people's personal safety, or where: i. an earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic, or other environmental disaster has occurred in the state, causing a significant, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in the affected area, or ii. The foreign state is temporarily unable to handle adequately the return to the state of aliens who are nationals of the state.

TPS is thus a broad sort of relief awarded based on objective conditions in the nation of origin rather than individual circumstances. TPS allows the recipient to work and prevents deportation for the duration of the designation. TPS can be granted for six to 18 months, with the possibility of extension if nation conditions do not change. TPS is a transitory status, and those on it are not entitled to become legal permanent residents (LPRs) in the United States unless Congress passes a special Act.

b. European Union: The EU Temporary Protection Directive was created as a one-of-a-kind response to major influxes caused by armed conflict, chronic violence, or widespread abuses of human rights. Because article 2(c), which defines the Directive's scope of application, does not exhaustively describe it, it might be used to respond to a rapid influx of people due to environmental or climate change impacts.

According to the drafting history, Finland attempted to include recognition of displacement caused by natural disasters in the definition, but this was rejected by other Member States, with Belgium and Spain stating that "such situations were not mentioned in any international legal document on refugees."

Given empirical information on the expected nature of climate-related migration, it is unclear whether the EU will ever be confronted with a 'mass inflow' from a climate-affected country large enough to overwhelm conventional asylum processing procedures and justify a prima facie grant of temporary refuge.

Mechanisms of Asylum

European Union: The EU Qualification Directive, which establishes the framework for individual protection in the European Union, does not include an express provision for protection from environmental or climate change-related effects, despite the possibility that such movement could be covered under the definition of "inhuman or degrading treatment" (based on article 3 of the ECHR). Despite the Commission's suggestion that "environmental disasters" be included as a ground of subsidiary protection, it does not appear to have been substantially considered in talks, and given the nature of negotiations, it was unlikely to be approved.

The Refugee Convention of 1951

"Refugee" has legal definitions. The legal concept of "refugee" and the rights and obligations owed to a refugee are established by the 1951 Refugee Convention pertaining to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. ".

The 1951 Refugee Convention protects people outside their country who face persecution for specified reasons. Climate displacement, by itself, does not fit that definition; moreover, the Convention ordinarily applies only after a person has crossed an international border.

This first demand will not be satisfied because, as was already mentioned, a large portion of the anticipated mobility in response to climate change would be internal. Second, it is challenging to define "persecution" as "climate change." Human rights violations that are sufficiently serious-either due to their nature or because they happen frequently-are referred to as persecution (for example, an accumulation of breaches which, individually, would not be so serious but which together constitute a severe violation). It still very much comes down to scale and ratio.

To decide if anything qualifies as "persecution," one must consider the type of right that is at jeopardy, the type and severity of the restriction, and the likelihood that the restriction will occur in the specific circumstance. Although deleterious, unfavourable climate effects including sea level rise, salinization, and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events (such as storms, cyclones, and floods) do not meet the legal definition of "persecution." It can be difficult to identify a "persecutor" in the context of climate change.

For instance, neither Kiribati nor Tuvalu are responsible for climate change as a whole, nor are they enacting laws that worsen its negative consequences on particular racial or ethnic groups. One could contend that the "international community," in especially industrialised nations, who have been unable to limit greenhouse gas emissions, is the "persecutor" in such a scenario.

Superior courts across the globe have ruled that despite the fact that both of these situations may seem to warrant international sanctuary, the Refugee Convention does not apply to people looking for better living conditions or those who have lost a home because of a natural disaster when their home state is unable to help. According to the High Court of Australia, the "persecution" requirement restricts the Convention's "humanitarian breadth" and does not offer all asylum seekers a universal level of protection. Despite how devastating they may be, a person who is fleeing an epidemic, a natural disaster, or starvation is not considered a refugee under the terms of the Convention.

Anyone fleeing "natural calamities and difficult economic situations" is not covered by the Convention.

The House of Lords also made note of the fact that protection is not always provided under the Convention.

As a result of famine, civil war, or specific acts of violence or mistreatment committed against him for a Convention cause, the applicant may have a legitimate fear of death threats. But no matter how severe the threat is or how well-founded the dread, he is not entitled to refugee status.

India is not a signatory to this agreement and does not have any plans to ratify it, despite pressure being applied to the government. It is evident that climate refugees are not covered by the treaty's purview by looking at its definitions and the case law of nations that have ratified it. Therefore, no specific guidelines can be made based solely on this.

International human rights law imposes responsibilities States are required to offer effective redress for human rights violations by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other human rights treaties. Millions of people's human rights have already been harmed by climate change and its repercussions, including rising sea levels, extreme weather, and droughts. On the front lines, states and communities are engaged in a survival struggle. Both now and in the future, those who have suffered harm must have access to efficient remedies, such as legal and other types of reparation.

In the face of climate change and other environmental concerns, states have obligations to all right holders and to harm that takes place both inside and outside of their borders. The current goal of the international human rights framework is to impose obligations on the State of origin for people who live there or are under its control. Third-country extraterritoriality can come from international commitments in the domain of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR); these obligations are in addition to those of the State of origin.

States must respect human rights beyond their borders when their own conduct foreseeably causes harm elsewhere. More contested is the duty to protect: whether a state must regulate private actors within its jurisdiction when their activities damage the rights of people abroad. Climate displacement makes that unresolved question increasingly important.

Particularly relevant to the promises made by the origin state are the following obligations: Up until this point, a country's obligations under international law relating to environmental human rights have been based on the substantive right to a healthy environment, procedural rights (such as the right to information and participation), or rights that assume a healthy environment. Therefore, it is impossible to formulate any precise, universal State obligations. Currently, only regional legal systems (contractual and common law) recognise a substantive right to a healthy environment; this right has not yet been clearly defined globally (yet).

Only when environmental changes negatively affect a person's rights can environmental obligations become legally binding.

Accepting climate migrants; Judiciary's stand

The Case of Mr. Teitiota: Courts and Climate Migrants The case of Mr. Teitiota serves as an example of how courts are addressing the murky legal definition and idea of "climate refugees." Teitiota requested refugee and protected person status "on the basis of changes to his environment" because sea level rise and other climate change consequences are driving residents of Kiribati from their island home. Teitiota's eligibility for refugee status under the Refugee Convention had to be determined by the court.

The New Zealand lower court expressed concern about "extending the scope of the Refugee Convention and opening the door to millions of people suffering as a result of climate change" despite finding no significant harm or breach of human rights at first. Despite the fact that climate change is a significant and growing problem, the applicant was not recognised as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention since it was not taken into account.

The Court of Appeals and the New Zealand Supreme Court acknowledged the "gravity of climate change" and the possibility that "environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other natural disasters could create a pathway into the Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction" despite the fact that Teitiota's asylum request was ultimately denied. After Teitiota and his family's refugee claim in New Zealand was turned down, they were deported back to Kiribati. He then went to the UN Human Rights Committee, alleging that his right to life under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been violated by New Zealand's deportation ("ICCPR").

Rising sea levels and other effects of climate change have made Kiribati uninhabitable for the entire population, Mr. Teitiota stated. The Republic of Kiribati's existing circumstances "are unusually severe, and reflect a genuine, personal, and reasonably foreseeable risk of a harm to his life under Article 6(1) of the ICCPR," according to Committee Member Dunan Laki Muhumuza's dissenting opinion. He maintained that Kiribati's risks were more immediate and obvious than most people believed.

The resolution of the UN Human Rights Committee, which states that governments should refrain from sending refugees back to nations where their lives are in danger due to climate change, has been hailed as a "watershed" occasion. This decision surely highlights several thought-provoking situations when it comes to basic rights breaches committed against people who were relocated owing to climate change. With this decision, the world community is informed that this group of individuals must unquestionably be cared for by the states through an urgent special law or policy.

Conclusions and suggestions

Global consensus on the issue of displacement due to climate change has thus far been elusive. The definition of environmental refugees, as well as the concepts of responsibility-sharing and protection, still requires agreement. The most practical alternative for South Asia in the absence of this agreement would be a regional framework or bilateral agreement. Initiating such a project would unquestionably be in India's best interests. Such a deal would take into consideration current geopolitical and economic ties, enabling the parties to act in accordance with their political will and capacities. Additionally, it would promote regional best practises development and exchange.

However, given that the adverse impacts of climate change are getting worse every day, people should promote legislation to win support on a global scale. We anticipate better commitments from framers and policyholders. Everyone is thinking that a better strategy would be a single document granting all of the rights outlined in the previous conventions.

Suggestions

The creation of a formal international legal accord to recognise, protect, and aid climate refugees might be seen as a key step toward helping them and ultimately persuade all states to ratify the 2015 Paris Agreement. A greater emphasis may be placed on lowering the vulnerability of people to climate change, which might be done through regional platforms. The poor, women, children, elderly, indigenous peoples, and, in some cases, migrants and displaced persons who may be particularly vulnerable to environmental consequences must be prioritised in these countries.

Hotspots can also form in places where there are more frequent and intense natural disasters as well as other types of environmental changes, such as a mix of catastrophic occurrences and gradual environmental degradation. • The UNHCR and other organisations should consider aiding nations in establishing comprehensive national and international policies and programmes.

A credible response must connect humanitarian protection, development policy, climate adaptation and disaster-risk reduction. Incorporating mobility into national adaptation plans can strengthen resilience before displacement occurs. International law must also develop lawful pathways and shared responsibility for people who can no longer remain safely at home.

Primary materials

Key primary materials: UNHCR: climate change and displacement; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.