Environmental explanations of migration: whose agenda (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ethical Perspectives, 2011
At first glance the issue of environmental refugees appears simple. Industrialised countries bring about environmental problems and these problems create refugee streams. The contribution of environmental problems to migrations is undeniable, but this does not necessarily imply that a specific group can be defined as environmental refugees. On the one hand, the notion environmental refugees encompass too many substantially different subgroups and, on the other hand, particular migrations are always the consequence of different interacting factors. A refugee oriented policy requires a classification of environmental refugees. Indirectly, however, the notion environmental refugee shows that pollution contributes to human suffering and thus confronts industrialised countries with their environmental responsibilities.
A note on Environmental refugees
Environmental displacement is a hotly contested subject. Many theories and policies are suggested as the term grows in rights awarded and duties implied. this note comments on a coherence which could be improved through the use of a certain underlying conceptualization of Justice.
'Migrants in a feverland': State obligations towards 'environmental refugees'
This paper considers whether states have a duty to accept those who cross borders to escape environmental disasters associated with climate change. It then examines how such a responsibility might be distributed, focusing on the predicament of the citizens of small island states expected to be inundated by rising sea levels. In assessing states' responsibility to admit these individuals, I draw on Walzer's theory of mutual aid, demonstrating that even under this narrow conception of states' obligations, a duty to accept displaced islanders can be established. However, the proximity principle is ill-suited to determining which states should shoulder responsibility in this situation. Drawing on Miller's account of remedial responsibility and his 'connection theory,' I suggest that the obligation to accept 'environmental refugees' should be shouldered principally by affluent states that share significant degrees of causal and moral responsibility for climate change, and also have particularly strong capacities to assist the displaced. " In those first years the roads were peopled with refugees shrouded up in their clothing. Wearing masks and goggles, sitting in their rags by the side of the road like ruined aviators. Their barrows heaped with shoddy. Towering wagons or carts. Their eyes bright in their skulls. Creedless shells of men tottering down the causeways like migrants in a feverland. The frailty of everything revealed at last. Old and troubling issues resolved into nothingness and night. " –Cormack McCarthy, The Road (2006: 28). Even if an apocalyptic situation like Cormack McCarty's vision in The Road never comes to pass, the wreckage resulting from climate change may nonetheless reveal the frailty of the legal concepts and institutional arrangements currently used to structure responses to migration. Should climate change result in even a fraction of the displacement anticipated by some scientists, the 'old and troubling issues' of sovereignty, citizenship, and membership rights may not resolve into 'nothingness and night', but they will almost certainly be shaken to the core. It is therefore striking that the ethical dimensions of the 'environmental refugee' issue have received relatively little attention to date. This oversight is also troubling, as international law currently lacks effective safeguards for migrants who may be forced across international borders largely due to environmental changes. Many advocates have called for the negotiation of a binding convention on the rights of so-called 'environmental refugees,' but these efforts often presume that the actors involved have come to terms with the complex questions of principle the issue raises: Who are 'environmental refugees'? What are their rights? How should responsibility for upholding these rights be distributed? Even a brief survey of states' responses to the problem
The debate over 'environmental refugees' is prominent in the literature on environmental change and human migration. Protagonists in the debate are 'maximilists' and 'minimalists' depending on their support for the concept. This article argues for the use of 'proponents' and 'critics' of the term. A nuanced critique of the 'proponent account' is offered, showing how the 'environmental refugee' is a particular representation of the relationship between environmental change and migration. There are conceptual problems in 'proponent' models, regarding both migration and development. These pertain to a sedentary bias and a reliance on push-pull, neo-classical models of both migration and the migrant. Some accounts are ahistorical and apolitical. The article advocates a research agenda that focuses on the interactions between environmental and non-environmental factors in mobility decisions, and that is historically relevant and contextually specific. Le débat sur 'réfugiés environnementaux' occupe une place importante dans la littérature sur les changements environnementaux et les migrations humaines. Les protagonistes du débat sont des 'maximilists' et 'minimalistes' en fonction de leur soutien pour le concept. Cet article plaide en faveur de l'utilisation de 'promoteurs' (protagonists) et 'critiques' du terme. Une critique nuancée des 'promoteurs' est offert, montrant comment le terme 'réfugié environnemental' est une représentation particulière de la relation entre les changements environnementaux et les migrations. Il ya des problèmes conceptuels dans les modèles de promoteur, concernant à la fois la migration et le développement. Ces derniers se rapportent à un biais sédentaire et une dépendance à l'égard de modèles néo-classiques de la migration et le migrant (push-pull). Certains comptes sont anhistorique et apolitique. L'article préconise un programme de recherche qui se concentre sur les interactions entre les facteurs environnementaux et non environnementaux dans les décisions de mobilité, et qui est historiquement et contextuellement spécifique. El debate en torno a los 'refugiados medioambientales' es prominente en la literatura sobre cambio climático y migración humana. Las opiniones en ese debate se dividen entre los 'maximalistas' y los 'minimalistas', dependiendo de su apoyo a este concepto. En este artículo se ofrece una crítica detallada de los defensores del concepto, mostrando cómo el 'refugiado medioambiental' es una representación particular de la relación entre cambio medioambiental y migración. En modelos favorables al concepto hay problemas conceptuales en relación tanto a migración como a desarrollo. Estos problemas conciernen a una tendencia hacia lo sedentario y a una confianza excesiva en modelos neoclásicos de empuje y atracción respecto tanto a la migración como al migrante. Algunas explicaciones son ahistóricas y apolíticas. El artículo defiende un plan de investigación centrado en las interacciones entre factores medioambientales y no medioambientales en las decisiones de desplazarse, así como históricamente relevante y contextualmente específico.
University of Liverpool Law Review, 2020
The current law does not sufficiently address the issue of forced migration due to environmental degradation. We are in a time of rapid climate change and uncertainty on a global scale. Those who are forcibly displaced by climate change cannot rely on the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as it provides no recognition for their plight, which does not fall within the five protected characteristics. As increasing numbers of natural habitats are destroyed or lost to rising sea levels, melting ice caps and extreme weather events, the number of people who require protection is going to grow exponentially. Change is required in asylum and immigration law to address this lacuna, either by expanding the refugee definition to include those displaced by environmental degradation, applying the current framework for Internally Displaced Persons to the issue of so-called 'climate change refugees', or developing a completely new piece of legislation.
Environmental Refugees and the 1951 Convention
A refugee is a person who is forced to leave his native country, which differentiates him from a migrant, and qualifies him for special protection under international law. In international law, the term ‘refugee’ has a specific meaning, as laid down in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a formulation that makes fear of persecution the central aspect of the definition. However, people leave their native countries for several reasons, one of which is environmental degradation and destruction. This essay argues that the 1951 Convention is not the most appropriate framework for the protection of environmental refugees, as environmental refugees could bring their claims under the Convention through the avenue of socio-economic claims, and only a limited group of environmental refugees would succeed in this endeavour.