Australia, 9/22/2022

This is an important case relating to the rights to remain and the duty of states to take steps to prevent displacement. It focuses on states’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the context of both climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation, particularly in relation to Indigenous Peoples but also potentially much more broadly. The case articulates state obligations under Articles 6 (right to life with dignity), 17 (right to private and family life and the home), and 27 (rights of minorities to culture) to take steps to prevent foreseeable harm, including specifically the harm of (permanent) displacement. The specific rights of the child under Article 24(1) ICCPR are also invoked (including in relation to permanent displacement) by the applicants but are not addressed in detail by the Committee.

Australia, 10/26/2000

This case relates to disasters/climate change as the High Court of Australia, in obiter dictum, referenced natural disasters and catastrophes when discussing the definition of “refugee.” The court pointed out that individuals who move across international borders due to such circumstances do not qualify for refugee status under the Refugee Convention.

Australia, 1/15/2010

Politically active woman from Myanmar assisted in relief efforts in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis. Also forced to pay bribes to authorities because she and her husband were business owners. Established well-founded fear of being persecuted as member of particular social group and potentiallly more at risk because of activity relating to Cyclone Nargis.

Australia, 2/24/1997

The case is significant because it includes the statement obiter dictum that has been cited by judges in multiple other jurisdictions. The statement by Dawson J reads: “By including in its operative provisions the requirement that a refugee fear persecution, the Convention limits its humanitarian scope and does not afford universal protection to asylum seekers. No matter how devastating may be epidemic, natural disaster or famine, a person fleeing them is not a refugee within the terms of the Convention." This is an important case for the development of international refugee law, so the way it treats disasters is important.

Australia, 3/1/1999

The obiter dictum in this case is significant for its recognition of the relevance of disasters in determining whether an internal relocation alternative is available. The statement, obiter dictum, reads: “It cannot be reasonable to expect a refugee to avoid persecution by moving into an area of grave danger, whether that danger arises from a natural disaster (for example, a volcanic eruption), a civil war or some other cause. A well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason having been shown, a refugee does not also have to show a Convention reason behind every difficulty or danger which makes some suggestion of relocation unreasonable”.

New Zealand, 6/25/2013

This case remains the most detailed judicial consideration of a claim for recognition of refugee status and eligibility for human rights-based complementary protection in the context of disasters and climate change, focusing on the predicament of Mr Ioane Teitiota from the small Pacific island state of Kiribati.

New Zealand, 10/29/2009

This case concerns a woman from Myanmar (Burma) who was recognized as a refugee as a consequence of her (imputed) political opinion, in particular as a consequence of her active and open engagement with the delivery of humanitarian relief on behalf of an opposition political party. People in a similar position had received lengthy prison sentences.

United Kingdom, 10/18/2006

In the decision Lady Hale makes a statement obiter dictum concerning the limited scope of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. She states: "People fleeing national and international wars, famine or other natural disasters are referred to as refugees, and offered humanitarian aid by the international community, but they do not generally fall within the definition in the 1951 Convention."

United States, 2/7/2014

An obiter dicta case affirming the statement in the case of Maria Sosa Ventura that the Refugee Convention does not apply to people fleeing disaster.

United States, 11/23/2010

A case that examines the relationship between Temporary Protected Status and enforced removal from the USA, establishing that the grant of TPS "permit[s] certain aliens, such as the respondent, to remain in the United States with work authorization, but only for the period of time that TPS is effective."

Canada, 6/30/1993

A leading case in international refugee law where the Court articulates a clear distinction between people with a well-founded fear of being persecuted, and people who leave their countries in the context of disasters.

United Kingdom, 7/6/2000

Lord Hope quotes Dawson J when the latter refers by the way to epidemic, natural disaster and famine in the context of the definition of the refugee in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Australia, 8/23/2000

Considering if positive action from the state is necessary to establish persecution for a Convention reason the court considered the example of a national authority engaging in discriminatory denial of disaster relief. The Court observed that "it is inappropriate to insist that some positive conduct be present before the Convention definition can be brought into play."

Australia, 2/15/2013

The applicant, a member of the minority Shia population in Pakistan, was recognized as a refugee owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted by the Taliban. Flooding is recognized in country of origin information as contributing to displacement in the part of the country where the applicant had his origin, and the existence of flood-displaced Sunnis is a relevant factor in determining the availability of an internal relocation alternative.

Colombia, 4/16/2024

In this case, the Colombian Constitutional Court concluded that victims of internal forced displacement due to environmental factors face a constitutional protection deficit within the Colombian legal framework, noting that current regulations do not provide clear guidelines for relocation processes or durable solutions for those displaced by environmental degradation or slow-onset phenomena, beyond natural disasters.

Italy, 5/10/2023

This case concerns an adult male Applicant trafficked from Pakistan to Italy in circumstances arising as a consequence of flood-induced adversity in an agricultural context. On appeal, the Ordinary Court of Florence accepted that the Applicant was a refugee owing to his well-founded fear of being re-trafficked if returned to Pakistan, amongst other reasons, due to the critical environmental situation in the country and associated land disputes.

New Zealand, 8/17/2000

This case concerns a claim for recognition of refugee status by seven members of the same family from Tuvalu. The family point to adverse environmental conditions, express a fear that climate change will exacerbate adversity, and attempt to draw a connection between the environmentally-related harm, their status as members of a particular social group (poor Tuvaluans), and culpable failures by the status authorities to provide effective protection. The claim was dismissed on multiple dimensions of the refugee definition, primarily the failure to establish a nexus between the harm feared and any of the Convention reasons.

New Zealand, 3/15/2010

This case raises an environmental dimension in the context of assessing the feasibility of internal relocation from Baghdad (where the applicant had lived until her flight) to Dahuk as part of the Applicant’s asylum claim. Internal relocation was assessed as not being available to the Applicant, in significant part owing to the serious difficulties associated with accessing water due to drought.

United Kingdom, 11/19/2008

The tribunal recognizes a Zimbabwean teacher as a refugee and also finds removal would violate Article 3 ECHR in the context of political violence including, but not limited to, discriminatory deprivation of humanitarian relief in the context of drought- and flood-related food insecurity.

Pakistan, 12/22/2022

This case communicates allegations relating to the large-scale forced eviction of people living in informal settlements on the banks of waterways in Karachi, following an Order of the Pakistan Supreme Court. The evictions have allegedly been carried out in order to address increased flood risk presented by the existence of the informal settlements on waterways. The Communication highlights a range of relevant international human rights law standards and guidelines that are relevant in this context, with a particular emphasis on the gendered impacts, and poses nine questions that highlight core concerns from a human rights perspective.

United States, 9/15/2020

This case involves a Communication by multiple UN Human Rights Council Special Procedures Mandate Holders to the Government of the United States concerning “the alleged failure of the United States of America to protect indigenous peoples who live along the coastal regions of Louisiana and Alaska from the impacts of natural hazards and the adverse effects of climate change, development projects and oil and gas exploration, affecting their rights to life, health, food, water, housing, a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, self-determination, cultural and religious rights, and leading to the displacement of indigenous peoples from their traditional lands.”

Australia, 9/22/2022

This is an important case relating to the rights to remain and the duty of states to take steps to prevent displacement. It focuses on states’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the context of both climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation, particularly in relation to Indigenous Peoples but also potentially much more broadly. The case articulates state obligations under Articles 6 (right to life with dignity), 17 (right to private and family life and the home), and 27 (rights of minorities to culture) to take steps to prevent foreseeable harm, including specifically the harm of (permanent) displacement. The specific rights of the child under Article 24(1) ICCPR are also invoked (including in relation to permanent displacement) by the applicants but are not addressed in detail by the Committee.