Abstract
The literature of environmental migration is divided. Some authors call for the protection of environmental migrants. Others argue that the concept is arbitrary and protection should be extended to all forced migrants. This chapter identifies three narratives: the rights narrative , the responsibility narrative , and the security narrative . I argue that none of these narratives justifies the implementation of a new governance mechanism for environmental migrants, who are not distinctively more vulnerable than other categories of migrants or non-migrants. Yet, this chapter also shows that virtually nothing in the contemporary governance of migration is based on systematic rational arguments. For example, the nexus requirement in the conventional definition of a refugee excludes many from the protection they need. This shows that the international governance of migration is largely framed by what states perceive as their own interests rather than by ethical considerations. Despite the arbitrariness, the concepts of environmental migration and climate migration could generate change because they attract significant attention. Other challenges are related to the definitions of migrant categories in need of protection—recognizing that states would prefer a narrow definition of environmental migrant. Essentially, protection of environmental migrants must be viewed as a first step toward the protection of the most vulnerable and must contribute to developing the capacities of the states most impacted by environmental degradation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See the data on greenhouse gas emissions per country provided by the World Resources Institute’s Climate Data Explorer at http://cait2.wri.org.
- 2.
It is at most a recommended practice but not an obligation under international law for a state to transfer to the injured person any compensation obtained for the injury from the responsible state. See ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/61/10), 2006, art. 19(c).
- 3.
- 4.
Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on Standards for the Qualification of Third-Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Beneficiaries of International Protection, for a Uniform Status for Refugees or for Persons Eligible for Subsidiary Protection, and for the Content of the Protection Granted, art. 15.
- 5.
Out of 135,210 applications in 2013, the 28 EU member states accorded the Geneva Convention status to 14,785 persons, but the subsidiary protection status only to 5350 persons. Domestic legislation provided the ground for granting complementary protection to 4470 persons. Statistics of Eurostat (European Commission), http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (accessed on 17 July 2014).
- 6.
An interesting judgment in this regard was adopted by a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in D. v. the United Kingdom (case 30240/96, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 2 May 1997), where the expulsion of a terminally-ill patient was precluded, but only with a particular emphasis on individual circumstances.
- 7.
One could not conceive of a protection mechanism of other vulnerable categories (women, children, persons with disabilities, etc.) which would be limited to those who work and the members of their families. Tying the protection of migrants to their contribution to the economy in the society of destination is equally arbitrary. The putative contribution of a person to the economy of the receiving state may be a relevant consideration at the stage of granting the right to migrate or to remain within the country, but it should not be a condition for the protection of the rights of a migrant.
- 8.
For example, with regard to the exclusion of labour migration from the guiding principles on internal displacement see Koser (2011).
References
Barnett, J., Dabelko, G. D., Hovelsrud, G. K., Levy, M., Oswald Spring, Ú., & Vogel, C. (2014). Human security. In Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, D. R. (2004). Environmental refugees: What rights? Which duties? Res Publica, 10(2), 135–152.
Betts, A. (2013). Survival migration: Failed governance and the crisis of displacement. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Biermann, F., & Boas, I. (2010). Preparing for a warmer world: Towards a global governance system to protect climate refugees. Global Environmental Politics, 10(1), 60–88.
Black, R., Arnell, N. W., Adger, W. N., Thomas, D., & Geddes, A. (2013). Migration, immobility and displacement outcomes following extreme events. Environmental Science and Policy, 27(Supplement 1), S32–S43. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.001.
Brindal, E. (2007). Asia Pacific: Justice for climate refugees. Alternative Law Journal, 32, 240–241.
Caney, S. (2005). Cosmopolitan justice, responsibility, and global climate change. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18(04), 747–775. doi:10.1017/S0922156505002992.
Cernea, M. M. (1990). Internal refugee flows and development-induced population displacement. Journal of Refugee Studies, 3(4), 320–339. doi:10.1093/jrs/3.4.320.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1).
Crawford, N. (2009). Homo politicus and argument (nearly) all the way down: Persuasion in politics. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 103–124. doi:10.2307/40407219.
CRIDEAU. (2008). Draft convention on the international status of environmentally-displaced persons. Revue de Droit de l’Université de Sherbrooke, 39, 451–505.
Elliott, L. (2010). Climate migration and climate migrants: What threat, whose security? In J. McAdam (Ed.), Climate change and displacement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 175–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. doi:10.2307/2601361.
Foresight. (2011). Migration and global environmental change: Final project report. The Government Office for Science, United Kingdom. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287717/11-1116-migration-and-global-environmental-change.pdf
Harris, E. K. (1993). Economic refugees: Unprotected in the United States by virtue of an inaccurate label. American University Journal of International Law and Policy, 9, 269–307.
Hathaway, J. C. (1990). A reconsideration of the underlying premise of refugee law. Harvard International Law Journal, 31, 129–183.
Hathaway, J. C. (2005). The rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Human Rights Committee. (1986, November 4). General comment No. 15: The position of aliens under the covenant. Retrieved from http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol%29/bc561aa81bc5d86ec12563ed004aaa1b?Opendocument
Ielemia, A. (2007). A threat to our human rights: Tuvalu’s perspective on climate change. UN Chronicle, 44, 18.
ILC. (2001) Draft articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, Pub. L. No. Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/56/10, Chap. IV.E.1. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ddb8f804.html
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College.
Koser, K. (2011). Climate change and internal displacement: Challenges to the normative framework. In E. Piguet, A. Pécoud, & P. de Guchteneire (Eds.), Migration and Climate Change (pp. 289–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kysar, D. A. (2011). What climate change can do about tort law. Environmental Law, 41, 1–72.
Lubkemann, S. C. (2008). Involuntary immobility: On a theoretical invisibility in forced migration studies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(4), 454–475.
Martin, S. F., Weerasinghe, S., & Taylor, A. (2014). Humanitarian crises and migration: Causes, consequences and responses. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
Mayer, B. (2011). Pour en finir avec la notion de «réfugiés environnementaux »: Critique d’une approche individualiste et universaliste des déplacements causés par des changements environnementaux. McGill International Journal for Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 7(1), 33–60.
Mayer, B. (2012). Fraternity, responsibility and sustainability: The international legal protection of climate (or environmental) migrants at the crossroads. Supreme Court Law Review [Canada], 56, 723.
Mayer, B. (2014a). Conceiving the Rationale for International Climate Law. NUS law working paper No. 2014/003. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2432856
Mayer, B. (2014b). “Environmental migration” as advocacy: Is it going to work? Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 29(2), 27–41.
McAdam, J. (2012). Climate change, forced migration, and international law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nicholson, C. (2014). Climate change and the politics of causal reasoning: The case of climate change and migration. Geographical Journal, 180(2), 151–160. doi:10.1111/geoj.12062.
Shue, H. (1999). Global environment and international inequality. International Affairs, 75(3), 531–545. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.00092.
Söderblom, J. D. (2008). Climate change: national & regional security threat multiplier for Australia. Security Solutions, 52, 58.
UNFCCC, Decision 3/CP.18. (2012, December 8). Approaches to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to enhance adaptive capacity.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks two anonymous reviewers and the participants at the Association of Transnational Law Schools workshop (Melbourne Law School, June 2014) for their detailed and helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mayer, B. (2016). The Arbitrary Project of Protecting Environmental Migrants. In: McLeman, R., Schade, J., Faist, T. (eds) Environmental Migration and Social Inequality. Advances in Global Change Research, vol 61. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25796-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25796-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25794-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25796-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)