What Obligations do States Have Under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Regard to Climate-induced Migration?

What Obligations do States Have Under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Regard to Climate-induced Migration? The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is an international human rights treaty which was drafted in 1954, signed on 16 December 1966, and effective since 23 March 1976. The right to life is enshrined in Article 6 of the ICCPR. This Article states that every human has the inherent right to life and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life under its protection. While the ICCPR is central to international human rights law, it was developed and signed at a time in which climate-induced migration was not a salient international political issue. This has since begun to change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report notes that between 2008 and 2022, an average of 20 million individuals were displaced annually as a result of weather-related extreme events. Estimates from the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) have suggested that if natural disasters occur at the same rate seen in recent decades, 1.2 billion people could be displaced globally as a result by 2050. Research on asylum applications and temperature fluctuations has found that global temperature rises are associated with increases in asylum application, which could lead to up to 660,000 more applications for asylum in the European Union alone. Further, In two recent cases relating to climate change before the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Daniel Billy and others v Australia (Torres Strait Islanders Petition) and UN Human Rights Committee Views Adopted on Teitiota Communication, respectively, petitioners claimed that their rights had been violated under Article 6 of the ICCPR. Additionally, we have seen states object to positions taken by the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) in relation to the HRC’s interpretation of climate and environmental issues as they pertain to Article 6 of the ICCPR. For example, following the HRC’s General Comment No. 36 on Article 6, where general discussion occurred on 14 July 2015 and was drafted on 30 October 2018, numerous international states raised concerns in their inputs regarding the HRC’s General Comment. The Australian government commented that the General Comment drew “overly broad connections between compliance with Article 6 of the Covenant and other human rights obligations” and that “each provision of the Covenant should be interpreted and applied independently”. The Canadian government stated that they had “serious concerns about the Draft General Comment’s approach to the relationship between Article 6 and other Covenant obligations” and “between Article 6 and other areas of international law”, with the General Comment being too expansive and not providing helpful guidance to States on the implementation of their Article 6 obligations. The United States government was “particularly concerned about the suggestion in paragraph 65 that obligations of States under the ICCPR and international environmental law depend on each other or are changed by each other in their interpretation or application”, arguing further that the HRC had “no mandate to suggest that Article 6(1) obligations “must reinforce” States’ relevant obligations under international environmental law, or that international environmental law should necessarily “inform the contents” of States Parties’ obligations under Article 6(1)”. The United Kingdom government commented that it was not convinced of “the benefit of making compliance with international environmental law a human rights issue” and that it was of the position that these agreements concern environmental regulation, not human rights. As such, while climate change may present a direct threat to the lives of individuals and forcibly induce migration, we observe both uncertainty in interpretation of international environmental law and international human rights law as it relates to climate-induced migration, as well as state obligations in regard to Article 6 of the ICCPR corresponding to climate-induced migration. Taking these recent claims and contentions among international states into consideration, what obligations do states have under Article 6 of the ICCPR in regard to climate-induced migration? Considering which obligations states have under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in regard to climate-induced migration has both legal significance and broader intellectual significance. Regarding legal importance, climate-induced migration raises both important international and domestic issues in law. Climate change is a global issue. It has diffuse effects which span across regions and borders. Global climate governance presents challenges, particularly as increasing scarcity of resources and impact on sustainability of life in certain areas raises the likelihood of conflict and precarity. Political institutions, in the short-term particularly, can remain ill-equipped to regulate transboundary legal issues protecting human rights in relation to climate change. Internationally, the ICCPR was a significant international human rights treaty. The ICCPR was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. The ICCPR outlines civil and political rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This treaty is then designed to enforce the protection and preservation of a broad range of human rights, including the right to life, human dignity, equality, freedom of speech, assembly, and association, religious freedom, privacy, gender equality, fair trial, family life, family unity, minority rights, as well as the freedom from torture, ill-treatment, and arbitrary detention. State parties to the ICCPR, at least in theory, agree to comply with and implement provisions outlined within the treaty alongside domestic law. Article 6 specifically relates to the right to life. The number of international environmental agreements has also risen since the adoption of the ICCPR. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed in 1992, the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, and the Paris Agreement, signed in 2016, all served to expand international treaty law aiming to address the negative consequences of climate change. These international treaties must aim to balance incentivise participation in the outlined legal principles while also aiming to maintain enforcement regarding emissions reduction obligations on the part of international states. Domestically, climate change is increasingly raising questions which international states have previously not addressed. While international states have human rights obligations under international law, and these obligations have transnational effects, such obligations were long understudied in the academic literature. The literature has since grown to focus increasingly on state obligations under international law as they regard human rights obligations. Despite this development, climate migration remains an area in which there is an underdevelopment of study on state obligations towards those who are forcibly displaced by climate change. Thus, in spite of these expansions in environmental and human rights law, there remains a lack of research on the human rights obligations of states in responding to climate migration under international law. Concurrently, climate change raises domestic legal questions. What obligations do international states have when migrants claim refuge in a country as a result of climate change? How do international states structure domestic legal systems to outline the rights afforded to migrants displaced as a result of climate change? Domestic laws broadly lack clear answers to these questions. Internationally, climate change raises questions of state sovereignty. State sovereignty is one of the foundations of international law, establishing the basic rules for how international states are allowed to interact with one another and the power of states to create their own laws. The Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, has served as the basis of the independence of international states to have self-determination of organised governance. This document established the foundation of the system of modern state sovereignty whereby international states have the right to full independence. Article 1 of the 1993 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States codified the features of a sovereign state applicable to international law. These features include a 1) permanent population, 2) defined territory, 3) government, and 4) capacity to enter into relations with other international states. These issues connect directly to concerns of human rights. State sovereignty can create tensions between its principles and the principles of human rights, as human rights are expected to be given to all people equally regardless of identity or nationality. To enforce human rights, then, international states must work to and be held accountable to upholding the rights of individuals within its territory. Further, tensions exist between the connection of state sovereignty and human rights to the issue of climate change. Climate change can affect the health, wellbeing, and livelihood of individuals. This may then interfere with the enjoyment of human rights, such as the right to life, in extreme circumstances, which are also expected to become more prevalent. These effects can be closely linked to displacement and migration as well. For example, low-lying islands are particularly vulnerable to threat to human rights, especially Small Island Developing States (SIDS), as a result of sea level rise and extreme weather events associated with climate change. Further, long-term processes such as desertification, whereby vegetation in arid and semi-arid landscapes gradually disappears, associated with climate change have been noted as drivers of migration, and could threaten aspects of a dignified life. These occurrences can tie together considerations of climate change, human rights, and human migration. Regarding the legal importance of researching which obligations states have under Article 6 of the ICCPR in regard to climate-induced migration, it is becoming increasingly clear that climate law has a meaningful connection to human rights. Climate law itself has become an increasingly important area of law, with international treaties including the Paris Agreement, UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Vienna Convention, and the Montreal Protocol. Concurrently, its connection to human rights is becoming increasingly pertinent to legal developments. A rising number of climate law cases with human rights claims have been observed. In addition to this overall trend observed in the rising number of these cases, cases specifically involving climate migration and human rights. This is occurring alongside overall rising level of global climate migration, highlighting the need for preparation in legal research. Climate-induced migration has displaced, and is increasingly displacing, individuals. This puts these people in particularly precarious positions. Short-term humanitarian assistance may be provided, however long-term solutions are needed. Legal frameworks and outlines for protections would be expected to be a central part of addressing this issue. Yet currently no international agreement or protection framework is in place which addresses such climate-induced migration. As a result, existing law, particularly environmental law and human rights law, are cornerstones of how international states are expected to react to claims of human rights protection resulting from climate-induced displacement and migration. In spite of this, we lack an understanding of many aspects of state obligations to climate-induced migrants. In particular, Article 6 of the ICCPR is an important part of human rights law protecting the right to life. Thus, this project connects strands between climate migration, international law, environmental law and human rights in search of better understanding state obligations under international law to climate-induced displacement. Aims: Article 6 of the ICCPR has emerged as a meaningful point of international law which applies to climate-induced migration in recent legal developments. In spite of this, we lack a comprehensive understanding of how Article 6 has developed alongside climate law. Article 6 has traditionally been interpreted as extending legal rights to the conditions necessary for life to continue and the recognition that all forms of human life require a basic level of protection. However, we can also observe that international states commonly raise issues with interpretations of Article 6 on the part of the UN HRC. The aim of this thesis project is to track the development of international human rights law and climate law, alongside recent important cases considering Article 6 of the ICCPR regarding claims of climate-induced migration. In doing this, I show that there remains tension between the aims of international law to protect the right to life and the ability to effectively apply existing law to uphold this right as it relates to climate-induced migration. In addition to these paper on Article 6 of the ICCPR in relation to climate change migration, I also include an introductory book chapter on the legal concept of the "climate migrant" and an comparative case note article on two pending legal developments which are expected to be determined early next year may be both suitable and feasible. One development is a Request for an Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States with Respect to Climate Change before the International Court of Justice. The other development is a Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.