Rights on the Move: Climate induced migration and States’ obligations under the ICCPR

Abstract: Climate change is one of the current most pressing threats to human rights. The adverse impacts of climate change affect peoples’ mental and physical health and forces many to leave their countries. With hopes of a future where basic human rights are provided for, climate induced migration has become an adaptation form for those who suffer from climate change. Climate refugees are however yet to be included in the scope of the 1951 Refugee Convention and help must be sought elsewhere. Averting from international refugee law, international human rights law might instead offer the solution – specifically, the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In 2020, the Human Rights Committee, the superior body monitoring the IC-CPR, issued a landmark decision that pinpointed the nexus of climate change impacts, human rights and human mobility. In Teitiota v. New Zealand, a citi-zen from the small island nation Kiribati applied for asylum in New Zealand on the ground of climate change impacts. As he was denied the right to stay, he filed a complaint before the Human Rights Committee. The case raised several questions, regarding if environmental degradation can pose a threat to the right to life in article 6 ICCPR, or if it could trigger a non-refoulement obligation according to article 7 ICCPR. After careful consideration, the Hu-man Rights Committee did not find a breach against the ICCPR. However, the decision explicitly expressed that environmental degradation can be severe enough to equal a breach under the ICCPR and trigger a non-refoulement ob-ligation. Even though the findings of the case are not binding, States must consider the effects of climate change to ensure the rights of individuals under the ICCPR. The fact that the case was not dismissed, but rather thoroughly assessed, indi-cates that the ICCPR is a useful tool to count on for protection beyond the Refugee Convention. The decision forces States to reflect on the effects of climate change on human rights and human mobility. The Human Rights Committee has started to expand the scope of the right to life in context of environmental degradation and States must be aware of how it affects their obligations under the ICCPR. What the case of Teitiota will mean for future climate cases is yet to be deter-mined. Bridges have however been built between international environmental law and human rights law, theory has been set into practice and States’ obliga-tions under the ICCPR have expanded. Climate induced migration has been put on the map of policymaking – increasing the complementary protection for victims of climate change.