Legal Frameworks
Climate displacement cases across the world draw on several distinct legal theories. Most cases combine more than one. Here is how the major frameworks are organized, sorted from global to regional.
All content below is original analysis, synthesized directly from legal cases.For more information on the cases and primary instruments, click on them to learn more.
For more information about the process behind this analysis, please visit the Methodology section.
International Frameworks
1. Non-Refoulement (International Human Rights Law)
This framework regulates that, under international human rights law, no one should be returned to a place where they face serious harm (including but not limited to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).As it's positioned as an inherent element in relation to the prohibition of mistreatment, the scope of this framework is broader than that contained in international refugee law. The non-refoulement principle is thus characterized by its fundamental and absolute nature, applying wherever a State exercises jurisdiction, even when outside of that State's territory.Cases:
Teitiota v. New Zealand (UN Human rights Committee, 2020)
Daniel Billy et al. v. Australia (Torres Strait Islanders, 2022)Primary Instrument(s):
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees:
- The convention expulsion ("refoulement") to territories where a refugee's life would be
threatened due to factors of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group,
or political opinion.
- This convention emerged directly from post-WW2 horror of Jewish refugees being forcibly
returned to Nazi-controlled territory.
- The Convention focused mostly on European displacement pre-1951. Thus, the 1967
Protocol expanded legislation protection beyond geographic and temporal limits.
Notably though some UN members are only party to one instrument, and 44 UN
members (including climate-vulnerable countries like Bangladesh) are not subject to
either.Convention Against Torture
- Article 3: Non-refoulement independently codifiedInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
- Article 6 (Right to Life) and Article 7 (Prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment)
- This provision does not require an applicant to qualify as a refugee under the five
persecution grounds of the 1951 Convention.
2. The Right to Life and a Healthy Environment (UN Human Rights Framework)
This framework is a combination of two separate principles: the ICCPR Article 6 right to life, and the right to a healthy environment. Combined, these legal principles uphold displacement protection from the standpoint of applicants' rights and individuality. It highlights an environmental interpretation of established legislation: 1) Firstly, the ICCPR Article 6 right to life underwent a new interpretation in the Human Rights
Committee's General Comment No.36 (2019), declaring "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." This thus requires states to "adopt measures to preserve the environment" and protect it against
harm for human right obligations. 2) The right to a healthy environment is a newer law, with soft implementation currently. The
Human Rights Council's 2021 Resolution 48/13 and the General Assembly's 2022 Resolution
76/300 formally recognized that every individual has the right to live in a healthy, sustainable
environment. Debates still exist regarding how this should intersect with and fit into the
conventional international law system.Cases:
Urgenda v. Netherlands (2019)
Daniel Billy et al. v. Australia (Torres Strait Islanders, 2022)Primary Instrument(s):
Stockholm Declaration 1972
- This declaration stated "both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the man-made, are
essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights the right to life itself". This was the first time the UN system explicitly linked human rights to environmental conditions,
despite the conference being largely aspirational and non-binding.Human Rights Committee's General Comment No.36 (2019)
- This legislation was the first to highlight environmental obligations in the ICCPR Article 6 on
human rights to life. This was then integrated quickly into regional cases like Teitiota.Human Rights Council's 2021 Resolution 48/13 & UN General Assembly's 2022 Resolution 76/300
- From the legsialtion progression of theory to regional recognition in the two previous
instruments, these resolutions establish universal recognition. The HRC resolution passed 43-0-4,
and the UNGA Resolution passed 161-0-8, becoming one of the most widely supported UNGA
resolutions in recent history.
3. Loss and Damage
Different from direct regulations towards mitigation in international climate policy, Loss and Damage covers compensation. It covers harms that cannot be prevented or adapted against.This includes economics losses, like destroyed infrastructure, decreased agricultural output, and forced relocation costs; it also factors in non-economic losses, such as cultural heritage disappearance, psychological damage, and identity loss.However, regarding the common international climate policy of adaptation, debates persist: does Loss and Damage represent reparation due to situations being beyond the limits of adaptation? Or, would Loss and Damage fall within the scope of adaptation and change? This question of framing may determine which institution management and funding streams apply, and thus cannot be neglected.On another level, this often ties into historical injustices and responsibility. Developing countries, as in the Global South, had been subject to historical domination by contemporary developed countries -- and due to geographical reasons, these developing countries are also often the most vulnerable to climate crises.Cases:
Small island states and Global South communities against high-emitting statesPrimary Instrument(s):
Early Instruments:
- This mechanism can be traced back to a 1991 proposal by the Alliance of Small Island States, which led to
discussions at the 2007 Bali Action Plan and the 2013 Warsaw International Mechanism.Warsaw International Mechanism, 2013:
- The COP19 established the Warsaw International Mechanism to address Loss and Damage regarding
climate change events. Working under the UNFCCC, the mechanism's scope of regulation is extremely
broad: it is responsible for responding to both extreme and slow-onset events, in both developed countries
and those developing.Paris Agreement, Article 8:
- Loss and Damage is included in Article 8, but the infamous Paragraph 51 hinders its actual
implementation: according to this section, Loss and Damage action explicitly excludes "liability and
compensation" as associated with such provision. As a non-negotiable demand from developed countries
like the United States, this raises questions towards whether this exempts state responsibility in the public
international field. Should we be willing to risk state legal exemption in order to push forwards potential
climate litigation regulation? Tying in historical injustices and distributional imbalance, should legal
enforceability be prioritized at the expense of political recognition of reparative justice? The answer
at the time was yes, and so the Paris Agreement was formed.COP27 & COP28
- From three decades of pressure from developing nations, the COP 27 (2022) established a loss and
damage fund of initially $700 million. At the COP28 in Dubai in 2023, the parties formally agreed on the fund's structure and governance, such
as temporarily hosting it at the World Bank, establishing a 26-member board, and opening contributions to
private finance and wealthier emerging economies.
4. Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) is an international treaty and governs rights and obligations over ocean spaces, establishing a framework for all marine and maritime activities. It has two main tracks in relevance to climate-induced displacement: 1) It creates state obligations to protect the marine environment from pollution (e.g., ocean warming from
greenhouse gas, ocean acidification). 2) It protects the basic stability and rights of small island states facing sea-level rise.Cases:
Pacific island states
Sea-level rise and territorial displacement casesPrimary Instrument(s):
Early negotiation 1973-1982
- Contemporary treaties were drafted without realizing the increasing threat of sea-level rise. The instrument later
entered into force in 1994.ITLOS Advisory Opinion 2024, Case No.31
- In 2023, the Commission of Small Island States submitted a request to the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea (ITLOS), seeking an advisory opinion on state obligations under UNCLOS in relatino to climate change. On May 21, 2024, ITLOS delivered an extremely influential address on rising sea levels, extreme weather, and
marine ecosystem degradation etc. The advisory opinion identified UNCLOS Articles 192, 194, 207, 212, 213, and
222, defining greenhouse gas emissions as constituting "polluting the marine environment", thus holding that sates
are required to activate full protective obligations of result towards the 1982 UNCLOS Convention.ICJ Advisory Opinion, 2025
- The International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Advisory Opinion in 2025 confirmed the 2024 ITLOS findings, confirming
the obligation to prevent, reduce, and control marine pollution. Most importantly, the ICJ's statements clarified that even if receding coastlines pose a threat of sinking nations, the
"disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail loss of statehood", thus
preserving self-determination.
Regional Frameworks
1. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The ECHR, established in 1950, is the founding instrument of the Council of Europe's human rights system, monitored by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It has two main tracks in relevance to climate-induced displacement: 1) The ECHR Article 2 (right to life) 2) The ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence).Climate change, as aforementioned in the international frameworks, has proved to be of threat for human rights, and could thus implicate both of these ECHR Articles.Cases:
Sufi & Elmi v. UK
KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 2024)
Carême v. France (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 2024)
Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 2024)Primary Instrument(s):
Early Instruments
- The 1950 ECHR draft contained no explicit environmental right. However, the current environmental jurisprudence
was developed through Articles 2 and 8 with cases like López Ostra v. Spain (1994) and Öneryıldız v. Turkey (2004).The Grand Chamber Climate Trilogy, April 2024
In April 2024, the ECtHR Grand Chamber declared its rulings in three climate cases simultaneously. These rulings established high thresholds and limits to climate change litigations before the Court.
1) Verein KilmaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (applicant won)
2) Carême v. France (applicant lost)
3) Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (applicant lost)
2. African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Banjul Charter)
The Banjul Charter of 1981, enforced from 1986, is the foundational human rights instrument of the African Union system. It's monitored by the African Commission on Human and People's Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.It holds a distinctive clause for climate law, as its Article 24 guarantees all peoples the right to a "general satisfactory environment favorable to their development". Tying climate stability and satisfaction to human development, the charter guarantees resource provision and sustainability, upholding both the community's and individual's rights. This is thus a pioneering clause in the field of climate law.Cases:
SERAC and CESR v. Nigeria (2002)
Illchamus & Tugen Communities v. Kenya (2022, pending)Primary Instrument(s):
Early Instruments
- This climate-humanitarian sovereignty connection is inseparable from Africa's post-colonial context: the new
intersection of freedoms, rights with cultural environment created this emphasis on climate sustainability.SERAC and CESR v. Nigeria 2002
- In full, the Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR)
v. Nigeria 2002 pioneered the application of Article 24 of the Charter. The Ogoni community claimed that the
Nigerian government violated Article 24 by failing to prevent environmental pollution and destruction from oil
extraction in the Niger Delta, towards which the African Commission ordered Nigeria to take immediate remedy.Kampala Convention (2009)
- This convention is key in outlining resolutions, methods of support, and preventative measures towards mass internal
African displacement.African Commission General Comment (2025)
- The General Comment on environment rights was forms due to public concern about leasing and conservation
schemes that benefit foreign investors for carbon trading, actions which often result in the dispossession of
Indigenous peoples. This links to debates on whether such acts perpetuate colonial patterns of resource control,
highlighting the multi-disciplinary aspects of historical justice within ecological studies.
3. Latin America & Caribbean
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) spanning the Latin America and Caribbean regions has a distinct tradition for socio-environmental protection, especially regarding indigenous and community rights.
The Court recognizes environmental-related rights as independent and justiciable, different from the ICCPR framework where climate harm needs to be run through Articles 6 and 7 for a recognized sociopolitical right.Cases:
Future Generations v. Colombia (2018)
Colombian and Peruvian domestic courts (2024)Primary Instrument(s):
American Convention on Human Rights (signed in 1969, entered into force in 1978)
- Article 21 has been read to include the communal land tenure of mostly indigenous coastal and Amazonian
communities, combatting their displacement.ILO Convention 169 (adopted in 1989, entered into force 1991)
- The major binding international treaty for the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, recognizing their right to self-
determination within nation states.IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (2017)
- In this issuing, the Court went beyond the original case's request between Colombia and Costa Rica over the San
Juan River, and moved to establish
1) the autonomous right to a healthy environment;
2) that states have extraterritorial obligations where their activities may cause environmental harm that would
foreseeably affect persons in other states;
3) a "due diligence standard" towards which states must prevent, mitigate, and remedy transboundary environmental
harmIACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (2025)
- Requested by Chile and Colombia, this issue directly recognized the Rights of Nature as s legal framework. This
creates an unprecedented ecocentric parallel to our anthropocentric world.The Escazú Agreement (signed in 2018, entered into force in 2021)
- This is the first international framework that explicitly protects environmental human rights defenders,
guaranteeing them access to information and courts systems.
Domestic Constitutional Frameworks
Many successful displacement cases are argued under national constitutional rights rather than international law. Domestic constitutional law allows plaintiffs to bypass the high complex thresholds of international legal bodies, thus producing directly enforceable judgements.Cases:
Urgenda v. Netherlands (Supreme Court, 2019)Global South:
- Global South cases often adjust climate displacement treatment from civil law jurisdictions, e.g., Pakistan's Leghari
v. Federation of Pakistan (2015); The Future Generations v. Ministry of Environment (2018); India's Article 21
jurisprudence.Global North:
- Global North cases (e.g., Neubauer, Germany; Thomson v. Minister for Climate Change in New Zealand) often
focus on mitigation rather than specific displacement claims
About Us
The Mariner is created and managed by Julia Zheng, a student pursuing a Dual Bachelor's degree at the University of California Berkeley & Sciences Po Paris. She's passionate about refugee and displaced peoples' rights, especially climate-induced migration and forced relocation.Majoring in Political Government and specializing in humanitarian and immigration legal research, Julia is currently working at Global Research & Consulting as a pro-bono Senior Consultant with nonprofits providing humanitarian support for asylum seekers. She is also the Reims branch Editor-in-Chief of the European Law Students' Association Law Review, supervising analytical legal reviews for publication, reaching 1,600+ students annually.
2026 Julia Zheng, University of California Berkeley & Sciences Po Paris
Jasmine Long is the editor of the Mariner. Studying Law, she mainly focuses on the areas of equality and sustainable development, specifically in the European Continental area.
2026 Jasmine Long