On 7 January 2020, the UN Human Rights Committee for the first time ruled on the consequences of climate change in the context of refugee status’ denial, and in regards to the right to life enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The plaintiff, a national of the Republic of Kiribati sought asylum in New Zealand, fleeing the effects of climate change and notably sea level rise. After his application for refugee status was rejected, the plaintiff was sent back to his country. According to him, such removal violated his right to life to the extent that sea level rise resulted in (1) the scarcity of habitable space causing violent land disputes, and in (2) environment degradations leading to a lack of potable water and the deprivation of means of subsistence.
Considering the merits of the communication, the Committee found that States parties to the ICCPR have to take into account the human rights situation caused by climate change when they rule on expelling denied asylum-seekers.
The obligation not to deport broader than the principle of non-refoulement
The Committee reasserted what is found in its General Comment No. 36, i.e. that the obligation not to deport pursuant to Article 6 ICCPR may be broader than the principle of non-refoulement in refugee law. In fact, while the latter enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention only prevents the return of a refugee in places where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of one of the five grounds covered by the Convention to grant the refugee status (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion), the obligation not to deport under the ICCPR deals with every situation in which the right to life would be threatened.
Furthermore, the right to life must be understood as including the right to enjoy a life with dignity and to be free from acts or omissions that would cause unnatural or premature death. Moreover, the right to life must be extended to reasonably foreseeable threats and life-threatening situations that can result in death. Finally, a violation of the right to life may occur even if such threat does not result in death.
The Committee also recalled that “environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy the right to life”.
Call for international cooperation
Acknowledging that both sudden-onset events such as storms or flooding and slow-onset processes such as sea level rise can lead to cross-border migration of populations seeking protection from climate change adverse consequences, the Committee considered that without international cooperation, “the effects of climate change in receiving states may expose individuals to a violation of their rights under articles 6 or 7 (right to be free from inhumane and degrading treatment) of the Covenant, thereby triggering the non-refoulement obligations of sending states”.
Filling a gap
Although the Committee did not conclude in this particular situation that New Zealand violated the plaintiff’s right to life by removing him to the Republic of Kiribati, the Committee’s view is of a great importance.
In fact, while there is currently no international protection granted on the account of climate change, the Committee is filling a gap through the obligation not to deport individuals in case their right to life would be breached because of climate change consequences in their countries.
Hence, this view opens doors to further and better consideration of climate-related asylum-seekers.