Climate refugees: The unrecognized crisis of the 21st century

article published 11st November 2025

Every year, the number of people being forced from their homes by climate disasters in proportion to the number of people being displaced by wars or persecution is increasing. Events like storms, floods, droughts and rising sea levels are now more erratic and frequent in nature and are one of the leading causes of human displacements. Despite this growing crisis, the international law still doesn’t have a recognition of ‘Climate-induced Refugees’. 

This presents a void which leaves millions of people who suffer the impact of something they didn’t create. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports that 2024 did see record-breaking weather extremes across regions, which aggravated the displacement of people. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), by the end of 2023, 75.9 million people victims to internal displacements were living around the globe and this was the highest number ever recorded.  Although most of these people were subject to regional conflicts and other sorts of violence, a whooping 7.7 million people of these had to move due to extreme weather conditions. And, this number only increases in the future.

The growing reality of climate displacement gives rise to significant questions regarding who protects those whose homes disappear beneath the waves? And what happens when the ‘state’ itself as in small island nations like Tuvalu or Kiribati ceases to exist? 

A humanitarian emergency in motion

UN has called the climate crisis as a ‘Threat Multiplier’, it often adds to existing vulnerabilities of the people. Recent events like the wildfires in Australia, cyclones in Bangladesh etc. have one thing in common which is that these events force people to move out from their places. 

A report by the World Bank named ‘Groundswell’ released in 2021 states that up to 216 million people could be forced to move within their countries by 2050 due to climatic events. 

These displacements tend to be internal at first and then gets cross-border in nature citing scarcity of resources. Presently, there are no international frameworks which refugees forced due to environmental concerns can resort to. We can already see movements of people for example, in the Pacific Islands, people are slowly relocating from their hometowns and villages. We also see forced migration of people in South Asia due to saltwater intrusion from rising sea levels which is making farmlands unfit for use. These incidences show a slow but rising level of problems created out of the environmental crisis. 

The legal void

The 1951 Refugee Convention, which is still the foundation of international refugee law defines a refugee as ‘someone fleeing persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.’ Environment is not present in that list. This made sense back then as the post-World War II situation persisted and environmental concerns were simply not in the radar. But presently, courts have begun to confront this gap. 

In 2020, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) gave a ruling on the case of Ioane Teitiota against New Zealand. Ioane Teitiota was a man from Kiribati who sought asylum arguing that rising sea levels threatened his right to life. The Committee acknowledged that returning someone to a country where climate change poses an imminent threat could violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, it still denied refugee status arguing that the threat was not immediate enough.

Still, it was a historic decision as it marked the first time a UN body recognized climate change as a potential threat to life. But it also highlighted the limitations that the current system has due to the lack of binding elements present to it but still presented an opening for future cases of this sort.  

Regional efforts 

Despite this vacuum, there have been some regionally developed laws that have emerged. In Africa, the Kampala Convention in 2012 was the first legally binding instrument to recognize displacement of people caused by natural disasters in Africa. Although, this applies primarily to internally displaced people, but it sets an important precedent. 

There is also the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (2018) which also acknowledges that environmental degradation and climate change are major drivers of migration. It does encourage states to implement new ways to cater to those affected by natural disasters. This could be in the form of relocation programs or temporary protection etc. But it remains non-binding in nature. Organizations like the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and UNHCR have also been increasing their advocacy on this issue. The problem remains the lack of a binding element. Eventually, it’s the will power of the states or regional bodies who are left to cater to these displaced people. 

Climate inequality and the global responsibility 

The very centre of this debate lies the question of justice. People affected most due to climate change are rarely responsible for it. The Global Carbon Project Report in 2023 shows that the G20 economies contribute to roughly 80% of the global CO2 emissions whereas small-island nations contribute to less than 1% of it, yet they are the ones facing the most existential threats due to climate change. The world’s richest economies which carry the bulk of historical emissions still continue to resist formal recognition of climate-induced displacements of people. 

Recent developments pertaining to the creation of a ‘Loss and Damage Fund’ with the motive of providing aid to countries vulnerable to climate impacts have been going. But these funds still remain voluntary and insufficient compared to the scale of the disaster unfolding. 

Rethinking protection: Possible paths forward 

Several different approaches have been proposed to counter this gap. One approach would be to expand the 1951 Refugee Convention and include environment-induced displacement, a solution that has been formally suggested by the UNHCR. Another proposal is to create a new UNFCCC treaty specifically addressing climate migration and this has already been discussed by the Platform on Disaster Displacement as well as in COP sessions, but no binding outcome exists yet. On a regional level, compacts and bilateral agreements could allow facilitation of relocation pathways. For instance, New Zealand’s climate visa does explore temporary relocation for Pacific Islanders affected by the rising sea levels. Finally, humanitarian visas and temporary protection programs can also provide relief for these displaced people, with countries like Finland and Sweden already experimenting with such programs but on a small scale. 

A major chunk of the 21st century will involve people shifting places as a forced response to impacts of climate change. People would be leaving behind sinking island or farmlands unfit for use, for their survival. Yet, to this date, the international law has not formally recognized these people. This demonstrates a moral failure and a failure in accepting the responsibility for the consequences of our own actions. Recognizing the problem of ‘climate refugees’ will be a global step towards unity and solidarity. In the face of this challenge, humanity has an opportunity to redefine justice for an era of shared vulnerability. Whether we seize it or we don’t, our actions will determine the kind of world we leave behind for the future. 

Article written by Anshul Dey