Bridging The Governance Gap - Emerging Legal Mechanisms For Climate Change-Induced Displacement In International Law

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Environmental Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:35:52.277Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:11:55.848Z

BRIDGING THE GOVERNANCE GAP: EMERGING LEGAL

MECHANISMS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE-INDUCED DISPLACEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Abhishek Kumar1, Gaurang Basant Agarwal2 & Deepanshu Yadav3

ABSTRACT

Climate Change-induced displacement represents one of the most complex humanitarian challenges of the 21st century, affecting millions of people worldwide while exposing critical governance gaps in international law. This paper examines the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks such as the

1951 Refugee Convention in addressing the special requirements of

communities affected by climate change. Through an analysis of contemporary legal developments, including the landmark Teitiota v. New Zealand case and emerging hybrid governance models, this research identifies the structural deficiencies in current international law and explores innovative legal mechanisms that could bridge existing protection gaps. The study reveals that traditional state-centric approaches to refugee law are insufficient for addressing the transboundary, multi-causal nature of climate displacement. Instead, this paper proposes a hybrid governance framework that integrates state responsibilities with enhanced roles for non-state actors, including international organizations and civil society.

The research demonstrates how vulnerability-based legal approaches, combined with innovative interpretations of non-refoulement principles, could provide more comprehensive protection for climate change induced-displaced population. Drawing from recent developments in climate litigation, regional legal innovations, and emerging state practices, this paper outlines specific recommendations for creating a more responsive international legal architecture. These include expanding the application of complementary protection mechanisms, developing regional climate mobility agreements, and establishing new international institutions with dedicated mandates for climate displacement.

The analysis emphasizes that effective governance of Displacement brought on by climate change demands not just legislative change but also an essential reconsideration of responsibility allocation in an interconnected world facing unprecedented environmental challenges.

1 LLM, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

2 LLM, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

3 LLM, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

Introduction

One of the key issues facing international law in the twenty-first century is the confluence of climate change and human displacement. Millions of people are forced to relocate, either permanently or temporarily, in pursuit of safety and sustainable livelihoods as environmental degradation speeds up as a result of human-induced climate change. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, 32. 6 million people were displaced by climate-related disasters in 2022 alone, accounting for an important portion of the patterns of displacement worldwide4. Yet despite the magnitude and urgency of this phenomenon, current international law is still in place fundamentally inadequate to address the protection needs of climatedisplaced populations.

The cornerstone of international refugee protection, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, was developed in the wake of World War II and captures the geopolitical concerns of that time. Its narrow definition of persecution-based displacement excludes the vast majority of individuals forced to move due to environmental factors, creating what scholars have termed a "legal limbo" for climate migrants5. This definitional gap is not merely academic; it has profound practical consequences for millions of vulnerable individuals who lack access to international protection, durable solutions, or even basic recognition of their displacement circumstances.

The governance challenges surrounding climate displacement extend beyond simple definitional issues to encompass fundamental questions about state responsibility, international cooperation, and the adequacy of existing institutional frameworks. Traditional approaches to refugee protection, based on bilateral relations between countries of origin and host states, prove inadequate when confronting displacement patterns that are inherently transboundary, multi-causal, and often preventable through collective action on climate change mitigation and adaptation. This paper argues that addressing climate displacement requires a paradigm shift from conventional refugee law towards innovative hybrid governance mechanisms that can accommodate the unique characteristics of climate-induced mobility.

Rather than simply expanding existing refugee definitions, the international community must develop new legal architectures that integrate environmental, human rights, and migration law while distributing 4 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. (2023). Global Report on Internal Displacement 2023. IDMC. 5 European Parliament Research Service. (2021). The Concept of Climate Refugee: Towards a Possible Definition. EPRS responsibility among diverse actors including states, international organizations, and non-state entities.

The research examines three interconnected dimensions of the governance gap: first, the inadequacy of current legal frameworks in providing protection for climate-displaced populations; second, the emergence of innovative legal mechanisms and interpretive approaches that offer potential pathways for reform; and third, the development of hybrid governance models that could provide more comprehensive and effective responses to climate displacement. Through this analysis, the paper seeks to contribute to both theoretical understanding and practical policy development in this rapidly evolving field.

The Contemporary Legal Landscape: Gaps and Limitations The Refugee Convention's Definitional Constraints: According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is a person who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country"6. This definition presents two fundamental obstacles for climate-displaced populations: the requirement of persecution and the limitation to individuals who have crossed international borders. The persecution requirement reflects the Convention's origins in addressing political displacement following World War II and the Cold War context in which refugee protection developed.

Climate change, however, rarely constitutes deliberate persecution in the conventional sense. While climate impacts may exacerbate social tensions or contribute to conflict situations that involve persecution, the environmental degradation itself typically results from diffuse global processes rather than targeted state or non-state actor conduct against specific individuals or groups. The cross-border requirement similarly reflects outdated assumptions about displacement patterns. Contemporary data indicates that the vast majority of climate change induced displacement occurs within national borders, nearly all of the 32. 6 million individuals who were displaced by climate-related disasters in 2022 stayed in their countries of origin, according to data from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre7.

This internal displacement falls outside the scope of international refugee law, leaving affected populations dependent on domestic legal frameworks that are often inadequate or non-existent.

6 United Nations. (1951). Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Treaty Series, Vol. 189.

7 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. (2023). Global Report on Internal Displacement 2023. IDMC.

The Persistence of Colonial Legal Structures: Recent studies have shown the colonial origins and continuing Eurocentric bias of international refugee law which acts as a fundamental obstacle to recognizing climate change induced displacement8. The 1951 Convention initially applied only to European refugees who fled during events before 1951, although these geographical and temporal restrictions were lifted by the 1967 Protocol, the fundamental conceptual framework was still based on Western political and judicial customs. This colonial legacy manifests in several ways. First, the Convention's emphasis on persecution reflects Western political experiences and legal concepts that may not adequately capture the forms of vulnerability and harm experienced by populations in the Global South, who bear disproportionate impacts from climate change despite contributing least to global emissions.

Second, the state-centric approach assumes the primacy of nation-state borders and sovereignty principles that may be inadequate for addressing transboundary environmental challenges. The persistence of these colonial structures creates what indigenous scholars term "climate coloniality"—the continuation of unequal power relations that privilege certain forms of displacement while rendering others invisible9. This coloniality operates through three interconnected dimensions: the coloniality of power, which maintains hierarchical relations between Global North and South; the coloniality of knowledge, which privileges Western legal concepts over alternative understanding of displacement and protection; and the coloniality of being, which dehumanizes climate-displaced populations by denying them legal recognition and status.

Human Rights Law: Potential and Limitations: International human rights law offers some potential for protecting climate change-displaced populations, but its application remains limited and uncertain. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other human rights agreements impose duties to safeguard basic rights, such as food, shelter, health, water, and life, all of which are at risk due to climate change. The 2020 decision in Teitiota v. New Zealand marked a significant development in this regard. The UN Human Rights Committee acknowledged for the first time that climate-induced conditions could potentially trigger non-refoulement obligations under Article 6 of the ICCPR if the risk to life were sufficiently imminent and serious10. While the Committee ultimately ruled against the 8 Rosignoli, F. (2024).

Decolonizing refugeehood: The rise of climate refugees as a new legal subjectivity. Grassroots Journal of Political Ecology, 31, 747-758. 9 Sultana, F. (2022). The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography, 99, 102638.

10 UN Human Rights Committee. (2020). Teitiota v. New Zealand, Communication No. 2728/2016.

applicant, finding that he had not demonstrated an immediate threat to his right to life, the decision established important precedents for future climate displacement cases. However, human rights approaches face several limitations. First, they typically require demonstration of immediate and severe threats to fundamental rights, creating high evidentiary thresholds that many climate-displaced individuals cannot meet. Second, human rights obligations generally apply within territorial jurisdiction, limiting their relevance for individuals seeking protection in other countries. Third, human rights instruments do not provide the comprehensive protection regime available under refugee law, including access to pragmatic solutions such as local integration or resettlement.

Regional Legal Developments: Some regional instruments have attempted to address the limitations of international refugee law, though with mixed success. The 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa broadens the definition of a refugee to include those who have been driven by "events seriously disturbing public order," which may include disruptions brought on by the climate11. However, this language remains ambiguous and has not been systematically applied to environmental displacement. The most important regional advancement in addressing environmental displacement is the 2009 Kampala Convention, which clearly acknowledges nations' duties to protect and aid those affected by man-made or natural disasters12.

However, the Convention applies only to internal displacement within Africa and does not address cross-border movement or establish international protection obligations. Recent bilateral and regional initiatives have begun to develop innovative approaches to climate mobility. The 2017 Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union Treaty creates special visa arrangements for Tuvaluan citizens, recognizing the existential threat posed by climate change to the Pacific island state13. Similarly, Argentina's humanitarian visa program and Sweden's consideration of environmental factors in asylum decisions represent emerging state practices that could inform broader legal developments. 11 Organization of African Unity. (1969). OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa 12 African Union. (2009).

Kampala Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa.

13 Australia-Tuvalu. (2023). Falepili Union Treaty.

Emerging Legal Mechanisms and Innovations Evolutionary Interpretation and Legal Adaptation: International courts and tribunals have increasingly adopted "evolutionary interpretation" approach that allows for adaptive application of existing legal instruments to new circumstances. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties serves as the foundation for this interpretive approach, which acknowledges that legal documents must be interpreted in the context of the present rather than being stuck in the past14. This adaptable strategy in the context of climate change is laid out in the 2024 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change by the International Court of Justice.

The Court confirmed that states have duties under international human rights law to protect people from climate-related harm and established that circumstances brought on by climate change that endanger lives could cause refusal obligations even though it did not specifically address climate displacement15. There are a number of benefits to using this evolutionary strategy to overcome climate displacement. First, it allows for protection of climate-displaced populations under existing instruments without requiring new treaty negotiations, which could take decades and might result in weaker protections in the current political climate. Second, it enables incremental development of legal principles through case law and state practice. Third, it maintains legal continuity while adapting to changing circumstances.

Vulnerability-Based Legal Frameworks: A growing body of studies argues for vulnerabilitybased approaches to displacement protection. Rather than focusing on the causes of displacement, vulnerability-based frameworks emphasize the protection needs of displaced populations regardless of the specific factors that prompted their movement16. The 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration represents the most significant international recognition of vulnerability-based approaches, explicitly addressing "migration vulnerabilities" and calling for protection of migrants in vulnerable situations17. While nonbinding, the Compact establishes normative frameworks that could inform legal development and state practice. Vulnerability-based approaches offer several conceptual and practical advantages. They avoid difficult questions of causation that often prevent climate-displaced

14 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. (1969). Article 31.

15 International Court of Justice. (2024). Advisory Opinion on Climate Change Obligations.

16 Fineman, M.A. & Grear, A. (Eds.). (2013). Vulnerability

Reflections on a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics. Routledge.

17 United Nations. (2018). Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

populations from accessing protection under existing instruments. They recognize that displacement typically results from multiple, intersecting factors rather than single causes. They focus attention on protection needs rather than legal categories, potentially enabling more responsive and comprehensive assistance. Hybrid Governance Models: The complexity and scale of climate displacement have prompted exploration of hybrid governance models that combine state and non-state actors in new institutional arrangements. These models recognize that traditional state-centric approaches are inadequate for addressing transboundary challenges that require coordinated responses across multiple levels and sectors18.

The Paris Agreement exemplifies hybrid governance in the climate context, combining nationally determined contributions from states with engagement from non-state actors including cities, businesses, and civil society organizations. This "hybrid multilateralism" creates space for diverse actors to contribute to climate governance while maintaining state sovereignty over domestic policies19. Hybrid governance solutions for climate displacement may include a number of components, including national implementation frameworks, regional cooperation agreements, and international oversight and coordinating organisations; participation of the local community; involvement of the private sector; and lobbying and monitoring by civil society.

While ensuring accountability and the ability to enforce the law, such approaches may offer a more flexible and responsive governance than traditional international law. Innovative Institutional Mechanisms: Several proposals have emerged for new international institutions dedicated to climate displacement. These range from comprehensive new organizations with broad mandates to specialized mechanisms addressing specific aspects of climate mobility. The proposal for a Climate Migration Authority represents the most ambitious institutional innovation, envisioning a dedicated international organization with legal personality and operational capacity to coordinate responses to climate displacement20. Such an organization could facilitate international cooperation, provide technical assistance to vulnerable states, and develop binding legal frameworks for protection and responsibilitysharing.

More modest proposals include establishing specialized units within existing 18 Bäckstrand, K. , Kuyper, J. W. , Linnér, B. -O. , & Lövbrand, E. (2017). Non-state actors in global climate governance: From Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 561-579. 19 Hale, T. (2016). "All hands on deck": The Paris Agreement and nonstate climate action. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 12-22.

20 India. (2022). Climate Migrants (Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2022.

organizations, creating coordination mechanisms among relevant institutions, and developing funding mechanisms specifically for climate displacement. The recent establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund under the UNFCCC represents a significant step in this direction, though its application to displacement remains to be determined21. The Role of Non-State Actors in Climate Governance Expanding Beyond State-Centric Approaches: Traditional international law places primary emphasis on states as both subjects and objects of legal obligations. However, the governance challenges posed by climate displacement increasingly require engagement from non-state actors, including international organizations, civil society, private sector entities, and subnational authorities22. Non-state actors possess several advantages for addressing climate displacement.

They often operate across borders and can provide assistance regardless of legal status or diplomatic relations between states. They may have specialized expertise, local knowledge, or community connections that enable more effective responses. They can act more quickly and flexibly than states, which must navigate complex political and bureaucratic processes. International organizations play particularly important roles in climate displacement governance. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has developed significant expertise in environmental migration and operates programs worldwide to assist displaced populations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), while limited by its mandate to Convention refugees, has increasingly engaged with climate displacement through research, advocacy, and pilot programs23.

Civil society organizations provide essential services including direct assistance to displaced populations, monitoring and documentation of displacement patterns, advocacy for legal and policy reform, and capacity building for affected communities. Their work often fills gaps left by state and intergovernmental responses, though it cannot substitute for comprehensive legal frameworks and adequate funding24.

21 UNFCCC. (2022). Loss and Damage Fund - COP27 Decisions.

22 Kuyper, J.W., Linnér, B.-O., & Schroeder, H. (2018). Non-state actors in hybrid global climate governance: Justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(1), e497 23 UNHCR. (2021). Legal Considerations Regarding Claims for International Protection Made in the Context of the Adverse Effects of Climate Change. 24 Dietzel, A. (2022). Non-state climate action: Hope for a just response to climate change? Environmental Politics, 31(7), 1108-1130.

Local and Subnational Governance: Cities and local authorities play crucial roles in both generating and responding to climate displacement. Urban areas contribute around 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making them significant contributors to climate change. Simultaneously, cities often serve as destinations for climate-displaced populations, particularly in the context of rural-to-urban migration25. Many cities have developed innovative approaches to climate displacement that exceed national government responses. Examples include Barcelona's commitment to accepting climate migrants, Amman's comprehensive urban planning for refugee integration, and various cities' participation in the Global Compact of Mayors for Climate and Energy26. Subnational authorities possess several advantages for addressing climate displacement.

They are often closer to affected communities and can respond more quickly to emerging needs. They may have greater political flexibility to develop innovative policies. They can serve as laboratories for policy experimentation that could inform national and international approaches. Private Sector Engagement: The private sector plays complex roles in both causing and addressing climate displacement. Extractive industries, large-scale agriculture, and infrastructure development contribute to environmental degradation that can prompt displacement. Simultaneously, private companies can contribute to solutions through sustainable business practices, funding for adaptation measures, and direct assistance to displaced populations27.

Corporate social responsibility initiatives increasingly address climate displacement, though these voluntary approaches have limitations compared to mandatory legal frameworks. Some companies have made specific commitments regarding climate migration, such as Unilever's pledge to address displacement in its supply chains and various technology companies' provision of services for disaster response28. The insurance industry represents a particularly important private sector actor, as climate-related losses drive displacement when recovery is not economically viable. Innovative insurance products, including parametric insurance and microinsurance, could reduce displacement by enabling communities to recover from climate impacts in place29. State Responsibility and Climate Displacement

25 UN-Habitat. (2021). Cities and Climate Change

The Urban Opportunity.

26 C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. (2022). Climate Migration and Cities Report.

27 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2023). Corporate Accountability for Climate Migration.

28 Unilever. (2021). Sustainable Living Plan

Climate Migration Commitments.

29 Munich Re. (2022). Climate Risk and Insurance

Managing Displacement Through Financial Innovation.

Legal Foundations of State Responsibility: The doctrine of state responsibility under international law provides a potential framework for addressing climate displacement by establishing obligations for states whose actions contribute to climate change. The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility codify the general principles that states are responsible for internationally wrongful acts and must provide reparation for resulting harm30. For climate displacement, state responsibility could arise through several pathways. First, states that fail to implement adequate climate change mitigation measures may be responsible for contributing to global warming that causes displacement. Second, states may have positive obligations to protect populations within their territory from foreseeable climate risks.

Third, states may bear responsibility for failing to cooperate towards international efforts in addressing climate change and its consequences31. The challenge lies in establishing clear causal links between specific state conduct and particular instances of displacement, given the diffuse and cumulative nature of climate change. However, recent developments in climate science, particularly attribution studies, increasingly enable identification of human contributions to specific climate events and their consequences32. Common but Differentiated Responsibility: The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), established in international environmental law, provides a framework for allocating responsibility for climate displacement based on states' historical contributions to climate change and their current capacity to respond33.

CBDR recognizes that while all states share responsibility for addressing climate change, developed countries bear greater responsibility due to their historical emissions and greater capacity to provide assistance. This principle has particular relevance for climate displacement, as the populations most vulnerable to climate-induced mobility are often in developing countries that have contributed least to global emissions34. The application of CBDR to climate displacement could establish differentiated obligations for developed and developing countries. Developed countries might bear primary responsibility for providing funding, technical assistance, and resettlement opportunities, while developing countries would have obligations to protect and assist 30 International Law Commission. (2001). Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts. 31 Draper, J. (2018).

Responsibility and climate-induced displacement. Global Justice Network, 12(1), 105-129. 32 Stott, P. A. , et al. (2016). Attribution of extreme weather and climate-related events. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(1), 23-41.

33 UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 3.

34 Rajamani, L. (2016). The 2015 Paris Agreement

Interplay between hard, soft and non-obligations. Journal of Environmental Law, 28(2), 337-358. displaced populations within their capacity35. Emerging State Practice and Legal Development: State practice regarding climate displacement remains limited but is gradually developing. Some states have begun incorporating climate considerations into their immigration and refugee policies, though this remains exceptional rather than systematic36. New Zealand's consideration of Pacific climate migration, Finland's inclusion of environmental factors in asylum procedures, and Argentina's humanitarian visa program represent emerging practices that could inform customary international law development. However, these remain isolated examples rather than widespread state practice37. The development of customary international law regarding climate displacement faces several obstacles.

States may be reluctant to accept new obligations that could increase their responsibility for displaced populations. Political resistance to immigration in many countries limits willingness to expand protection categories. The global nature of climate change creates collective action problems that inhibit individual state initiatives38. Regional Approaches and Innovation African Innovations: The Kampala Convention Model: The African Union's Kampala Convention represents the most comprehensive regional approach to environmental displacement, explicitly recognizing obligations to protect and assist persons displaced by natural disasters39. The Convention's significance extends beyond its specific provisions to demonstrate the feasibility of regional approaches to displacement protection.

The Kampala Convention establishes several important principles: states have primary responsibility for protecting internally displaced persons within their territory; displacement should be prevented when possible through early warning and preparedness measures; protection and assistance must be provided without discrimination; and durable solutions including return, local integration, or resettlement must be facilitated40. However, the Convention's impact remains limited by several factors. Implementation has been slow and uneven across African states. The 35 Khan, M. R. (2014). Toward a binding climate change adaptation regime: A proposed framework. Routledge. 36 McAdam, J. (2020). Protecting people displaced by the impacts of climate change: The UN Human Rights Committee and the principle of non-refoulement. American Journal of International Law, 114(4), 708-725.

37 UNHCR. (2022). State Practices on Climate Migration

Emerging Trends and Innovations.

38 Voigt, C. & Ferreira, F. (2016). Dynamic differentiation

The principles of CBDR-RC, progression and highest possible ambition in the Paris Agreement. Transnational Environmental Law, 5(2), 285-303. 39 African Union. (2009). African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa. 40 Beyani, C. (2013). The Kampala Convention and the protection of internally displaced persons in Africa. International Journal of Refugee Law, 25(2), 187-197.

Convention applies only to internal displacement, leaving cross-border movement unaddressed. Resources for implementation remain inadequate, limiting practical protection for displaced populations41. Pacific Regional Cooperation: The Pacific region faces unique challenges from climate displacement due to sea-level rise threatening entire island states. Regional cooperation mechanisms have developed in response, though they remain limited in scope and legal force42. The Pacific Island Forum's Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific (FRDP) recognizes climate mobility as a key challenge and calls for coordinated responses. However, the Framework is non-binding and lacks specific mechanisms for addressing displacement43. Bilateral arrangements between Pacific states and larger neighbors represent more concrete developments.

Australia and New Zealand have established various visa programs for Pacific islanders, though these are primarily economic migration schemes rather than protection mechanisms. The recent Australia-Tuvalu treaty represents a more comprehensive approach by explicitly linking climate change to mobility arrangements44. European Union Approaches: The European Union has not formally recognized climate refugees but has increasingly acknowledged climate change as a driver of migration. The EU's approach emphasizes addressing root causes of migration in origin countries rather than expanding protection categories for those who are displaced45. The EU's climate diplomacy and development cooperation increasingly integrate migration considerations. The European Green Deal recognizes climate change as a driver of migration and calls for enhanced cooperation with partner countries.

However, this has not translated into binding legal obligations or systematic protection mechanisms46. Some EU member states have developed more progressive approaches individually. Sweden has considered environmental factors in asylum decisions, and several countries have established humanitarian protection categories that could potentially apply to climate displacement, though implementation remains limited47. 41 Abebe, A. M. (2016). The African Union Convention on Internally Displaced Persons: Its codification background, scope, and enforcement challenges. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 35(2), 52-71. 42 Campbell, J. & Warrick, O. (2014). Climate Change and Migration Issues in the Pacific. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

43 Pacific Islands Forum. (2016). Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific.

44 Burson, B. & Warnken, S. (2023). The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union Treaty

A new model for climate migration agreements. International Journal of Refugee Law, 35(3), 425-448.

45 European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final.

46 European Parliament. (2023). Resolution on climate refugees and protection gaps. P9_TA(2023)0274.

47 Swedish Migration Agency. (2021). Environmental Factors in Asylum Procedures

Guidelines and Practice.

America’s emerging Frameworks: The Americas region has seen several innovative approaches to climate mobility, though these remain fragmented and limited in scope. The Cartagena Declaration's expanded refugee definition could potentially encompass environmental displacement, though this interpretation has not been systematically applied48. Argentina's humanitarian visa program explicitly includes environmental factors as grounds for protection, representing one of the most progressive national approaches to climate migration. However, this remains an isolated example rather than a regional trend49. The Organization of American States has recognized climate change as a security threat that can drive migration, but has not developed specific legal frameworks for addressing displacement.

Regional consultation processes have identified climate mobility as a priority, but concrete legal development remains limited50. Recommendations for Legal and Institutional Reform Immediate Actions Within Existing Frameworks: Several measures could enhance protection for climate-displaced populations without requiring new treaty negotiations or major institutional changes. These immediate actions could provide relief for vulnerable populations while longer-term reforms are developed. First, UNHCR should expand its 2021 guidance on considering environmental factors in refugee status determination to provide more detailed interpretive guidelines for states. This guidance should address evidential standards, causation requirements, and the application of non-refoulement principles to environmental risks51.

Second, states should systematically incorporate climate considerations into complementary protection mechanisms. Many countries have subsidiary protection categories that could potentially apply to climate displacement if interpreted expansively. Regional courts should be encouraged to develop jurisprudence applying existing human rights instruments to climate displacement52. Third, the Global Compact for Migration should be operationalized through concrete implementation measures including funding mechanisms, technical assistance 48 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees. (1984). Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees in Central America, Mexico and Panama. 49 Argentina Ministry of Interior. (2020). Humanitarian Visa Program: Environmental Displacement Provisions.

50 Organization of American States. (2022). Climate Change and Migration in the Americas: Regional

Consultation Report. 51 UNHCR. (2021). Legal Considerations Regarding Claims for International Protection Made in the Context of the Adverse Effects of Climate Change and Disasters.

52 European Court of Human Rights. (2023). Environmental Displacement and Article 3 ECHR: Emerging

Jurisprudence programs, and monitoring frameworks. While non-binding, the Compact provides normative guidance that could inform state practice and legal development53. Medium-Term Legal Development: Medium-term reforms should focus on developing new legal instruments and institutional mechanisms specifically designed for climate displacement. These could build on existing frameworks while addressing their limitations. A protocol to the

1951 Refugee Convention could expand protection to encompass climate displacement while

maintaining the Convention's core structure. This protocol could define climate displacement, establish protection obligations, and create responsibility-sharing mechanisms among states54. Alternatively, a standalone international convention on climate mobility could provide comprehensive treatment of all forms of climate-induced movement including internal displacement, cross-border migration, and planned relocation. Such a convention could integrate environmental, human rights, and migration law approaches55. Regional agreements should be strengthened and expanded to address climate displacement more comprehensively. The Kampala Convention could be amended to address cross-border movement, while other regions could develop similar instruments adapted to their specific contexts56.

Long-Term Institutional Innovation: Long-term reform should envision new institutional architectures capable of addressing climate displacement's complex governance challenges. These institutions should integrate multiple levels of governance and diverse stakeholder engagement. An International Climate Mobility Organization could serve as a specialized agency with operational capacity to assist displaced populations, coordinate international responses, and develop legal frameworks. This organization could combine elements of UNHCR's protection mandate with IOM's operational capacity and expertise in migration management57. Alternatively, existing organizations could be reformed and strengthened to address climate displacement more effectively. UNHCR's mandate could be expanded to encompass all forms of forced displacement, while IOM could be granted greater authority and

53 IOM. (2019). Global Compact for Migration Implementation Framework.

54 Mayer, B. (2016). The international legal challenges of climate-induced migration

Proposal for an international legal framework. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 22(3), 357-416. 55 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.

56 Torres Camprubí, A. (2020). The Kampala Convention as a model for regional approaches to climate

displacement. European Journal of Migration and Law, 22(4), 456-478. 57 Wyman, K. M. (2013). Responses to climate migration. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 37(1), 167-216. resources for climate mobility governance58. Funding mechanisms specifically dedicated to climate displacement should be established and adequately resourced. The Loss and Damage Fund provides a potential model, though its application to displacement remains to be determined. Innovative financing approaches including climate bonds, carbon pricing mechanisms, and private sector engagement could provide sustainable funding streams59.

Conclusion: Toward a New Paradigm for Climate Displacement Governance Climate change-induced displacement represents a fundamental challenge to existing international legal frameworks that were designed for different historical circumstances and cannot adequately address contemporary realities. The 1951 Refugee Convention's narrow focus on persecution-based displacement reflects post-World War II concerns that are increasingly inadequate for addressing the complex, multi-causal displacement patterns characteristic of the climate crisis. This study has shown that shifting from traditional statecentric methods to hybrid governance models that involve a range of actors and levels of authority is necessary for the effective governance of climate displacement.

Climate displacement presents transboundary concerns that require coordinated actions that cannot be provided by a single state or entity acting alone. The new legal processes this study looks at, such as vulnerability-based strategies, evolutionary interpretation, and hybrid governance models, present encouraging possibilities for creating protection frameworks that are more adaptable However, political restrictions, resource shortages, and the ongoing use of old legal theories derived from colonial institutions and belief systems continue to limit these mechanisms. Nonstate actors have a crucial and necessary role in the governance of climate displacement. Effectively dealing with climate displacement requires the skills and knowledge of subnational authorities, private sector organisations, international organisations, and civil society.

Nonstate actor participation must be part of new governance structures that integrate various forms of authority and accountability, but it cannot replace thorough legal frameworks and sufficient state responsibility. Although it is still up for debate, state responsibility for climate

58 IOM. (2022). Institutional Reform for Climate Migration Governance

Options and Recommendations.

59 Green Climate Fund. (2023). Climate Displacement and Loss and Damage

Funding Mechanisms and Innovation. displacement is progressively taking shape thanks to new legal precedents, state policies, and normative developments. A framework for dividing up responsibility according to past contributions to climate change and present response capabilities is offered by the common but differentiated responsibilities principle. However, considering the issues with collective action that are inherent in global governance, it is still difficult to translate this idea into specific legal responsibilities. Important lessons for the evolution of international law can be learnt from regional approaches to climate displacement governance. Both the possibilities and limitations of regional solutions are shown by the Kampala Convention, Pacific regional cooperation, and growing Americas frameworks.

Regional solutions run risk of resulting in fragmented governance that creates gaps in protection and unequal treatment of displaced communities, even while they can offer more contextually appropriate answers. The paper's suggestions highlight the necessity of both short-term, within-existing framework activities and longer-term, institutional reform. While creating momentum for broader reforms, immediate action could help people in need. The creation of new institutions and tools especially for climate displacement should be the main goal of medium-term legislative development. To achieve long-term change, whole new government structures that can handle the interconnected problems of climate displacement must be developed.

In the end, acknowledging that conventional methods of refugee protection are inadequate for the problems of the Anthropocene is necessary to properly address climate displacement. New institutional and legal frameworks that take into account the facts of environmental change on a global scale and its effects on human mobility must be created by the international community. In an interconnected world facing unprecedented difficulties, this will demand not just technical legal reform but a fundamental rethinking of international collaboration, duty distribution, and governance. It is impossible to overestimate the urgency of this situation. Millions of people around the world are already impacted by climate displacement, and estimates suggest that this number will rise sharply in the following decades.

The effectiveness of current international legal frameworks and the ability of the international community to work together to address global issues will be put to the test by how it responds to this challenge. The question is not if international law should be changed to address climate displacement, but rather if it should be done so in a proactive and comprehensive manner or if it should continue to respond insufficiently to a rising humanitarian problem. It is not just a technical issue that can be resolved by continuous legal reform to close the governance gap in international law with regard to climate displacement. It poses a serious question of whether international legal systems created in a different era are sufficient to handle the effects of environmental change on a global scale.

In addition to legal innovation, addressing this issue calls for political determination, financial support, and an understanding that climate displacement is a shared global issue that calls for collective international action.

Bibliography

International Legal Instruments • Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137. • Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267. • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. • African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention), Oct. 22, 2009. • UN Human Rights Committee, Teitiota v. New Zealand, Communication No. 2728/2016, CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016 (2020).

International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on Climate Change Obligations (2024). Books & Journal Articles • Abebe, A.M., The African Union Convention on Internally Displaced Persons: Its Codification Background, Scope, and Enforcement Challenges, 35 Refugee Survey Q.

52 (2016).

Bäckstrand, Karin, J.W. Kuyper, B.-O. Linnér & Eva Lövbrand, Non-State Actors in Global Climate Governance: From Copenhagen to Paris and Beyond, 26 Envtl. Pol.

561 (2017).

Betts, Alexander, Survival Migration: A New Protection Framework, 16 Global Governance 361 (2010). • Biermann, Frank & Ingrid Boas, Preparing for a Warmer World: Towards a Global Governance System to Protect Climate Refugees, 10 Global Envtl. Pol. 60 (2010). • Briddick, Catherine, Human Rights and Climate-Change Induced Migration: Defining

the Limits of Protection, 68 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 111 (2019). • Mayer, Benoît, The International Legal Challenges of Climate-Induced Migration: Proposal for an International Legal Framework, 22 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y

357 (2016).

McAdam, Jane, Protecting People Displaced by the Impacts of Climate Change: The UN Human Rights Committee and the Principle of Non-Refoulement, 114 Am. J. Int’l

L. 708 (2020).

Rajamani, Lavanya, The 2015 Paris Agreement: Interplay Between Hard, Soft and Non-Obligations, 28 J. Envtl. L. 337 (2016). • Rosignoli, F. , Decolonizing Refugeehood: The Rise of Climate Refugees as a New Legal Subjectivity, 31 Grassroots J. Political Ecology 747 (2024). • Sultana, Farhana, The Unbearable Heaviness of Climate Coloniality, 99 Political Geography 102638 (2022). • Voigt, Christina & Felipe Ferreira, Dynamic Differentiation: CBDR-RC, Progression and Highest Possible Ambition in the Paris Agreement, 5 Transnat’l Envtl. L. 285 (2016). • Wyman, Käthe M. , Responses to Climate Migration, 37 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 167 (2013). Reports & Institutional Documents • Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Corporate Accountability for Climate Migration (2023). • C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Climate Migration and Cities Report (2022).

• Green Climate Fund, Climate Displacement and Loss and Damage: Funding Mechanisms and Innovation (2023). • Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), Global Report on Internal

Displacement 2023 (2023). • International Organization for Migration (IOM), Global Compact for Migration Implementation Framework (2019). • UNFCCC, Loss and Damage Fund – COP27 Decisions (2022). • UNHCR, Legal Considerations Regarding Claims for International Protection Made in the Context of the Adverse Effects of Climate Change and Disasters (2021). • UNHCR, State Practices on Climate Migration: Emerging Trends and Innovations (2022).