This thesis analyses climate change phenomenon and consequent migrations. It also aims at identifying instruments that could ensure protection for this specific migrants’ category and pointing out shortcomings of current international and national legal framework on the issue. The first part of the thesis focuses on climate change itself. Climate change is mostly described as “the long-term alteration of temperature of typical weather patterns in a place”. Although small modifications are perfectly natural, nonetheless, the real concern emerges when those alternations are not predictable anymore nor part of the typical “earth’s routine”. Climate change is determined by different factors like natural reasons, as well as human-related activities. Negative impacts of climate change are not just present issues, but just recently States showed their intention to act against it. On the other hand, States are hesitant to draft and apply legal binding solutions in case of climate change displacement phenomenon. Firstly, some difficulties regarding that, are based on terminological conceptualisations: it is extremely challenging to clearly distinguish the so-called “climate migrants” from the so-called “environmental migrants”. Indeed, it is definitely an unpractical distinction: climate migrants are those who run away from their homeland due to a natural disaster, determined by human activity; environmental migrants flee due to natural disasters inherent in the habitat they live in. Human activity and nature both impact ecosystems at the same time, thus, as origins of climate change, they are undistinguishable. Even so, a useful distinction is the one between climate migrants and climate refugees. Some scholars did try to claim refugee status for those people, however this solution appears to be difficult to implement, given the traditional definition of refugee. One possible solution could be to either modify the current definition as it is now stated in the 1951 Refugee Convention (and the 1967 Protocol) or combine this definition with a new one, provided by an agreement or a treaty, in order to legally recognize protection for climate displaced people. The protection of those individuals, although flawed and inadequate, has not always been denied. In fact, human rights law is a powerful instrument in those situations too, discussed in both doctrine and caselaw. When mentioning human rights law in this specific context, courts and experts frequently refer to the non-refoulement principle. Certainly, some criticisms on this kind of solution do exist and with good reasons as well. Indeed, a life threat in the context of a natural disaster persists when the State of origin is unhabitable or it certainly would be in the future. However, this specific prediction is unattainable or at least extremely challenging. Nonetheless, several courts in the world did prove to be willing to support the change, especially when discussing single states’ responsibility in regards of climate change. On the other hand, very few cases successfully concluded with climate refugees receiving the protection they asked for. To conclude, it is essential to point out that impacts of climate change and courts’ intervention do not homogeneously occur around the world. The most climate-change-exposed countries are the ones part of the so-called Global South. As a consequence of that, even courts that have dealt with such issues are mostly located in a specific area: Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, it is likely that the most innovative solution for the issue, it would come from these States’ courts. Hopefully, similar solutions would also be implemented by other courts and, one day, turned into substantial law.
La tesi analizza il fenomeno del cambiamento climatico e delle migrazioni da esso stesso determinate, e si propone di individuare strumenti che consentano la protezione di questa specifica categoria di migranti, individuando le criticità di un sistema di leggi che appare inadeguato. La prima parte dell'elaborato si concentra proprio sul cambiamento climatico. Il cambiamento climatico è il risultato di effetti su più ampia scala: non solo effetti della natura ma conseguenze determinate dall'uomo. Gli effetti negativi del cambiamento climatico non sono una novità dell'ultimo decennio, ma solo negli ultimi anni, gli Stati del mondo si sono resi disponibili ad agire. D'altra parte gli Stati si sono dimostrati decisamente più restii a ideare ed applicare soluzioni legalmente vincolanti in relazione al fenomeno migratorio determinato dal cambiamento climatico. Le prime difficoltà in tale direzione sono legate ad aspetti terminologici; appare infatti poco agevole una distinzione tra “climate migrants” e “environmental migrants”. Risulta nella pratica impossibile distinguerli: i migranti climatici sarebbero i migranti fuggiti dalla propria terra a causa di disastri naturali, la cui origine è l'attività dell'uomo; i migranti ambientali sarebbero coloro che si spostano a causa di eventi naturali, per così dire fisiologici. Attività umana e natura però incidono in maniera simultanea sugli ecosistemi, ergo essi sono origini del cambiamento climatico fondamentalmente inscindibili. D'altra parte un’utile distinzione potrebbe essere quella fra migranti climatici e rifugiati climatici. Questa strada è stata tentata da numerosi studiosi ma rimane impossibile da corroborare alla luce della tradizionale definizione di rifugiato. L'unica soluzione per far fronte a questo inconveniente sarebbe modificare la definizione ad oggi prevista dalla Convenzione sui Rifugiati del 1951 (e Protocollo del 1967) o affiancare a tale definizione una nuova. La protezione per questi soggetti, nonostante risulti lacunosa e di difficile attuazione, in qualche caso, non è venuta meno. Uno strumento potente, il cui utilizzo è stato teorizzato sia dalla dottrina che dalla giurisprudenza, è la normativa riguardante i diritti umani. Di frequente, il principio che viene richiamato in tal senso è il principio di non-refoulement. Ovviamente tale soluzione non è immune da critiche, principalmente connesse alla natura dei disastri e al cambiamento climatico in sé: il pericolo di vita sussiste davvero se la terra di origine dovesse essere inabitabile o fosse possibile prevedere con certezza la sua inabitabilità. Sappiamo però essere una previsione molto difficile, se non impossibile. La direzione che stanno percorrendo numerose Corti nel mondo fa comunque ben sperare, per lo meno per quello che riguarda un’ammissione di responsabilità legata ai cambiamenti climatici stessi, da parte degli Stati. Pochi invece, sono i casi relativi all’accoglienza di persone in fuga da condizioni climatiche difficili, che si sono conclusi con successo. Per concludere, la diffusione dei cambiamenti climatici così come degli interventi richiesti alle Corti, non è omogenea. Sono i paesi del cosiddetto Global South quelli più esposti. Di conseguenza, la collocazione delle Corti che hanno affrontato tali temi, risulta prevedibile: in prima linea l’Europa, Australia e Nuova Zelanda. È molto probabile, quindi, che la migliore soluzione provenga proprio da Corti di queste aree geografiche. È comunque possibile e quantomeno auspicabile, che tali soluzioni vengano però adottate da altre Corti e magari anche rese legge sostanziale in futuro.
Climate change and climate-induced displacement: protection gap in international law and possible solutions
CAMARDA, ADRIANA
2020/2021
Abstract
This thesis analyses climate change phenomenon and consequent migrations. It also aims at identifying instruments that could ensure protection for this specific migrants’ category and pointing out shortcomings of current international and national legal framework on the issue. The first part of the thesis focuses on climate change itself. Climate change is mostly described as “the long-term alteration of temperature of typical weather patterns in a place”. Although small modifications are perfectly natural, nonetheless, the real concern emerges when those alternations are not predictable anymore nor part of the typical “earth’s routine”. Climate change is determined by different factors like natural reasons, as well as human-related activities. Negative impacts of climate change are not just present issues, but just recently States showed their intention to act against it. On the other hand, States are hesitant to draft and apply legal binding solutions in case of climate change displacement phenomenon. Firstly, some difficulties regarding that, are based on terminological conceptualisations: it is extremely challenging to clearly distinguish the so-called “climate migrants” from the so-called “environmental migrants”. Indeed, it is definitely an unpractical distinction: climate migrants are those who run away from their homeland due to a natural disaster, determined by human activity; environmental migrants flee due to natural disasters inherent in the habitat they live in. Human activity and nature both impact ecosystems at the same time, thus, as origins of climate change, they are undistinguishable. Even so, a useful distinction is the one between climate migrants and climate refugees. Some scholars did try to claim refugee status for those people, however this solution appears to be difficult to implement, given the traditional definition of refugee. One possible solution could be to either modify the current definition as it is now stated in the 1951 Refugee Convention (and the 1967 Protocol) or combine this definition with a new one, provided by an agreement or a treaty, in order to legally recognize protection for climate displaced people. The protection of those individuals, although flawed and inadequate, has not always been denied. In fact, human rights law is a powerful instrument in those situations too, discussed in both doctrine and caselaw. When mentioning human rights law in this specific context, courts and experts frequently refer to the non-refoulement principle. Certainly, some criticisms on this kind of solution do exist and with good reasons as well. Indeed, a life threat in the context of a natural disaster persists when the State of origin is unhabitable or it certainly would be in the future. However, this specific prediction is unattainable or at least extremely challenging. Nonetheless, several courts in the world did prove to be willing to support the change, especially when discussing single states’ responsibility in regards of climate change. On the other hand, very few cases successfully concluded with climate refugees receiving the protection they asked for. To conclude, it is essential to point out that impacts of climate change and courts’ intervention do not homogeneously occur around the world. The most climate-change-exposed countries are the ones part of the so-called Global South. As a consequence of that, even courts that have dealt with such issues are mostly located in a specific area: Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, it is likely that the most innovative solution for the issue, it would come from these States’ courts. Hopefully, similar solutions would also be implemented by other courts and, one day, turned into substantial law.È consentito all'utente scaricare e condividere i documenti disponibili a testo pieno in UNITESI UNIPV nel rispetto della licenza Creative Commons del tipo CC BY NC ND.
Per maggiori informazioni e per verifiche sull'eventuale disponibilità del file scrivere a: unitesi@unipv.it.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14239/1886