A new ruling by the United Nations determined that people leaving their country due to immediate danger, caused by climate crisis, cannot be forced back to their home country.

The decision has set a new global precedent, and says that a state will be in breach of its human rights obligations if it does return a climate refugee back to their home country.

As climate change affects every corner of the world, this decision, whilst not being binding, does impose a legal responsibility on states to protect people whose homes are threatened by climate change.

The new ruling comes after reviewing the case of Ioane Tetiota who had moved to New Zealand but forced back to his home country of Kiribati claiming the lives of him, his family, and the general population of Kiribati were at risk of the devastating effects of climate change.

THE BACKGROUND

Teitiota lived with his family on the island of Kiribati, which is considered to be one of the countries most threatened by rising sea levels. He moved to New Zealand to protect his family and give them a better life. In 2013, in New Zealand, he applied for an application of refugee status, as a climate refugee, on the basis that the lives of him and his family would be at risk if they moved back to Kiribati.

His application was rejected. Teitiota argued that the State had violated his right to life by deporting him and his family back to Kiribati.

The Tribunal that reviewed Teitiota’s application rejected that he was a refugee as defined by the Refugee Convention, as there was neither evidence that he faced any real risk upon returning to Kiribati, nor that he would be unable to find water, food, and accommodation.

The Humans Rights Committee did not, on the facts presented to it, find that the removal of Teitiota back to Kiribati violated his rights under art 6 (1) of the covenant.

However, the committee went on to concluded that any severe environmental degradation can mean a violation of an individual’s right to life. The committee recalled that a violation could have been present had the government of Kiribati failed to take steps to provide for its citizens. However, the government had done what it could to provide resources and take measures. Thus, Tetiota could not show a violation of his right to life in this particular moment.

Two Committee members disagreed with the ruling that New Zealand was justified in removing Tetiota back to Kiribati. Duncan Laki Muhumza reasoned that “the committee needs to handle critical and significantly irreversible issues of climate change, with the approach that seeks to uphold the sanctity of human life”.

CURRENT SITUATION IN KIRIBATI

The situation in Kiribati has continued to worsen over years with the expectation that the country is to survive another 10-15 years before becoming inhabitable. However, the committee in Tetiota’s case said that this was enough time to allow for intervening acts by the Kiribati government with the support of international communities. Resources have become scarce with freshwater becoming difficult to obtain as water contamination had rendered the underground water supplies unfit for providing drinking water. There has been an increase of population on the island of Tarawa where Tetiota lived due to the other islands becoming inhabitable. This in turn caused an increase of violence and social tension.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE FUTURE

The committee found that Teitiota was not under imminent threat but did say that any claims may be upheld in the future as impacts of climate change worsen. Since the ruling. it has emerged that there are many cases in Australia and New Zealand dealing with the impact of climates change and how it is affecting people’s right to life. There are roughly a dozen cases, similar to Teitiota’s, in New Zealand from people mainly from Tuvalu and Kiribati. It is expected from this ruling that such claims will become easier to prove.

Enakshi is currently a second year law student at the University of Liverpool and is pursuing a career as a solicitor. She is involved in the Liverpool Law Clinic where she helps clients in family court and is committed to advocating for human rights.

LinkedIn