"State Parties should build on existing international response mechanisms and ensure policy coherence between mitigation, adaptation, humanitarian responses and development" (p. 3).Pinning the fate of climate refugees on existing international law has been a popular refrain. In the case of internal displacement, UNHCR suggests using the 1998 UN Guiding Principles on International Displacement as a starting point. They claim that under it, States "bear the primary duty and responsibility to provide assistance and protection in all phases of internal displacement (Guiding Principle 3) for all IDPs, including those displaced by the effects of climate change" (p. 3-4) In fact, they stress that the State must address the challenge of climate refugees on mutliple levels; namely, through preventative measures like mitigating climate change, and reducing risks created by climate change, and of course, responsive actions like protecting those individuals displaced by climate change. Other international organizations suggest the same.
Human rights law, in general, also dictates that the "right to life....create[s] positive obligations on States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the life, limb and property of those within their jurisdiction against the threat of disasters," which is further compunded by the duty of the State "to put into place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective protection against such threats" (p. 6) . Some regional instruments like the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, which both broaden the refugee protection framework to include those compelled to flee due to "events disturbing public order" or a "massive violation of human rights", are offered as a potential stepping stone towards climate refugee recognition.
A larger problem arises when climate refugees become refugees in the truer sense of the word, when they cross international borders. Important protection measures already exist within the 1951 Refugee Convention, specifically Article 33(1), which prohibits the refoulement of asylum seekers to "the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened" (p. 11). But, again, UNHCR shies from expanding the traditional definition of refugee and leaves the designation up to each receiving state. They offer various examples, including the U.S. Temporary Protected Status mechanism -- which was enacted in 1990, but put into use in 1998 after Hurricane Mitch. This mechanism allows nationals of foreign states temporary refugee status so that they can stay within the U.S. if they meet three key criteria: 1) there has been an environmental disaster in the foreign state resulting in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions; 2) the foreign state is unable to handle adequately the return of its own nationals; and 3) the foreign state has officially requested such a designation.
While we applaud the attempt of UNHCR and the international system to acknowledge the threat of climate refugees, it seems they are disproportionately placing the burden on states -- and largely developing ones at that. What are the chances that a Burma or Zimbabwe would actively aid their citizens when disaster strikes or petition a neighboring state for temporary relocation? We're willing to bet slim to none.
Below you'll find the entirety of the report submitted on behalf of UNHCR to the Bonn Climate Change Talks - June 2009.
Forced Displacement in the Context of Climate Change
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment