The Discriminatory Nature of the definition- “Refugee”: The Denial of the guaranteed rights of the Climate Refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention
Simply speaking, the Climate refugee alludes to the individuals who involuntarily escape their home country as a result of the climate change. Apparently, this definition seems to be well accepted; however, they are not legally recognized under the international refugee law.
Thus, this write-up basically focuses on the necessity of formally giving the legal recognition to the climate refugees under the international law. In order to address the issue of recognizing international refugees, this write-up aims at focusing on the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, it is noted that this instrument remained discriminatory with regard to the states obligation to protect the climate refugees. Consequently, this write-up opines that the discriminatory nature of the mentioned-above international instruments fails to protect the climate refugees. Therefore, this write-up discusses that the necessary amendment is required in the definition of the term “Refugee” in the 1951 Convention to include climate refugees.
To begin with, in the words of Abbass and others (2022), “Climate change is the preeminent global crisis confronting humanity in the 21st century, profoundly impacting civil liberties, security, and sustainable progress.” According to Faysal and others (2023), “climate-induced migration caused the displacement of around 7.1 million individuals in Bangladesh in 2022.” Also, they stated that the “projections indicate that this number may increase to 13.3 million by the year 2050.” So, under the international refugee law, the current status about the climate refugee comes into question among the refugee law enthusiasts. In this regard, in light with, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2011, it is noted that- “the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol define forced migration minimally, assuming that other people are persecuting people and not including people who are leaving places that are too dangerous to live in.” Similarly, in the words of Alimuddin and Muhammad (2023), “the 1951 Refugee Convention and related international treaties clearly govern only those fleeing for their lives due to specific forms of persecution; climate-induced displacement, by its nature, does not fit within the grounds for refugee status as outlined in these various documents.” With regard to this, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, 2020, it is worth mentioning that- “The Teitiota vs. New Zealand case demonstrates that legal institutions remain uncertain about whether environmental factors compelling people to relocate constitute a valid reason to protect them.”
According to Kälin (2022), it has been mentioned that- “this type of legal erasure, which occurs because institutions lack concern, exacerbates the damage from climate displacement far beyond simply losing land or shelter.” Consequently, the mentioned above literature review suggests that the strict nature of the International Instrument results in the denial of the legal recognition of the climate-induced displacement.
Furthermore, according to the UNHCR (2011), “it defines a refugee in terms that require an individualized fear of persecution—a legal standard that does not account for the collective, often indistinct forces that drive climate-induced migration.” Therefore, the necessity to provide the legal recognition is crucial. However, there are obstacles in it, since many states are reluctant to give the climate refugee a legal status. Likewise, Angela Williams (2008) opines that current refugee law has “protection gap,” since the instruments were premeditated to safeguard the persecution. Thus, the climate refugees have been eradicated. Therefore, the following proposal could play a pivotal role to give the climate refugees a legal status.
It is suggested that the amendment of the 1951 Convention, particularly about the status of Refugees, in order to consist of the individuals who were displaced by climate change. To illustrate, Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines “a refugee as any person who is outside their country of nationality or habitual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.” Thus, it is restrictive and eradicating in nature. So, it excludes the climate refugee. Consequently, they are being deprived of getting their rights guaranteed to the refugees. Thus, this provision should be eliminated to include the climate refugees in the definition. Therefore, it is opined that the discriminatory nature of the definition- “refugee” is the main root of depriving the climate refugee from getting their guaranteed refugee rights. As a result, upon getting the universally recognized legal status, it would be easier for them to seek the guaranteed refugee rights such as non-refoulment, right to work, access to education, freedom of movement, and most importantly, the access to courts and justice.
The views, opinions, and arguments expressed in published articles are solely those of the respective authors.
Jus Civitas does not necessarily endorse or assume responsibility for the accuracy or viewpoints presented.
