Environmental or climate refugees mean people forced to flee their homes and communities due to long-term or sudden environmental calamities, such as drought, erosion, desertification, sea level rise, etc. As per the prediction of Institution for Economics and Peace, climate change and natural disasters are likely to displace 1.2 billion people globally by 2050. This is where comes in question the fate of climate refugees or asylees and the human rights obligations of the States with regard to them.

The principle of non-refoulement denotes that the asylum State should return no refugee or asylum-seeker to a State where they would face torture, cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment, and other irreparable harm. This principle is enshrined clearly under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention 1951. However, this principle is not applicable to environmental and climate refugees as Article 1(A)(2) of the Convention does not incorporate persons who had to flee their habitats due to environmental hazards.

Since there is no explicit protection for environmental refugees rendered by the Refugee Convention, some other documents and case developments can be an aid. For instance, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) has included climate migrants within the ambit of their Convention. In terms of landmark cases, Ioane Teitiota v New Zealand (2020) comes out on top.

In this case, Ioane Teitiota and his family left their habitat of Kiribati for New Zealand, where they applied for refuge on the grounds of climate change. At first, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in New Zealand rejected Teitiota's asylum claim as a climate change refugee and declared that they did not face an absolute risk of being persecuted if returned to Kiribati. Moreover, the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of New Zealand also denied the application of leave to appeal. Consequently, they were deported back to Kiribati.

Later, Teitiota took the case to the Human Rights Commission (HRC), alleging that New Zealand had violated his right to life under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by forcibly returning him to Kiribati. Ultimately, the HRC found that Teitiota's deportation was not unlawful because he did not face immediate danger to his life in Kiribati. However, the HRC also enunciated that if climate change represents a serious, and immediate threat to life, it has to be duly considered in deciding on refugees/asylees.

The HRC jurisprudence discussed above is particularly significant for Bangladesh, as it is one of the most vulnerable countries affected by climate change. A World Bank report on climate migration found that 4.1 million Bangladeshis were displaced in 2019 due to climate disasters and forecasts that 13.3 million could be displaced by 2050. Relevant to mention, in 2020 in France, a Bangladeshi migrant was recognised as the country's first climate refugee on grounds of his respiratory disease. The appeals court in Bordeaux found that the air pollution in Bangladesh will only exacerbate his condition.

There is no doubt that climate refugees are facing unimaginable sufferings because of rapid climate change. It is also now well-established that developed countries are the biggest contributors to climate change. Therefore, it is high time that climate refugees were incorporated within the refugee protection framework so that the rights of these people could be safeguarded more effectively.

The writer is student of law, University of Dhaka